Mediaboss Marketing

After seven months in the dark, the lights will soon be back on at two Regal Cinemas and two AMC theatre locations in Western New York.

Regal Walden Galleria, Regal Quaker Crossing, AMC Market Arcade and AMC Maple Ridge 8 will reopen Friday - the first day they are permitted to operate again under new state guidelines. Governor Andrew Cuomo announced last week that movie theatres outside New York City can reopen at 25 percent capacity.

Regal locations in North Buffalo, Niagara Falls and Williamsville, along with other U.S. markets, will remain shut down due to the lack of new releases. The chain is hopeful studios will reschedule some movies that are currently on hold for release in November and December.

AMC says it will be serving guests in 44 of the 45 states where it has theatres, featuring titles such as Tenet, The War with Grandpa, Honest Thief, 2 Hearts and The Empty Man.

The property owner of Regal's Quaker Crossing location recently filed a federal lawsuit against Cuomo, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Department of Health Commissioner Howard Zucker.

In the suit, Quaker Crossing Retail Center Owner Gerry Buchheit claims the government-mandated total closure of movie theaters violates first amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression and takes away private property without just compensation.

According to the lawsuit, Regal hasnt paid Quaker Crossing its monthly rent of $133,000 since March.

The rest is here:
Two Regal Cinemas, two AMC Theatres in Buffalo area to reopen this Friday - WKBW-TV

On Friday, Oct. 9, SUNY Oswegos School of Media, Communication and the Arts announced the theme for the 16th annual Dr. Lewis B ODonnell Media Summit, which will take place virtually on Oct. 28. This years theme is On the Front Lines with the First Amendment.

The summit will analyze freedom of the press and speech through the lens of 2020. The three major prongs to the discussion will be the press impact or role in Black Lives Matter protests, the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 Presidential Election. These three were selected during the spring 2020 semester, when the committee was unsure what would still be relevant in October.

We have to choose a theme fairly early on, so we can select the right people on the panel. We thought COVID, and then when Black Lives Matter happened, we thought maybe we should address that We didnt want to choose something that would be out of date or old news, said Julie Pretzat, the Dean of the School of Media, Communications and the Arts. We figured the overarching theme for a lot of these things, COVID as well as Black Lives Matter as well as some of the political things, has been the first amendment. Its freedom of speech. Its how journalists are being treated. When Black Lives Matter marches started, there was some violence and some against journalists.

In an era of media mistrust, it is critical to inform the American public about the goals of good journalism. These goals, according to the Society of Professional Journalists, include seeking and reporting truth, acting independently and being accountable and transparent, among others.

While some people do not necessarily know this side of the media, the Media Summit can act as a way to educate the community regarding the importance of good journalism.

Good journalism is crucial, Pretzat said. Theres bad journalism on both sides of the [political] spectrum, but good investigative journalism is crucial to our country remaining a free democracy.

In a time as complex as 2020, the constitution brings things back into perspective. During the Black Lives Matter protests, journalists were reporting live in the streets risking their own lives to inform the public. Other people on the scene were not as passive, as there were several incidents where police shot foam bullets or hit journalists on the scene, in cities like Minneapolis, Minnesota; Los Angeles, California; and New York City.

People get caught up in the volatility of a specific situation and they forget we have a constitution that tells us really good guidelines about the importance of freedom of the press and freedom of speech, Pretzat said. If you dont have a free press, and you dont have investigative journalism, governments can run amuck. It is really really crucial that we have checks and balances in our government.

Good journalism has become exceptionally important in the political world. Good journalism goes beyond what a demographic wants to hear, it is giving them all the information they need to make good decisions. The Media Summit provides broadcasting and journalism students, as well as all students who want to learn about how the major events of 2020 and the First Amendment have interacted, a chance to learn what good journalism truly is.

It is [important] to remain in the middle, Pretzat said. And to hear both sides so the American people can make their own decisions about things.

Photo By Nicole Hube | The Oswegonian

Like Loading...

Related

See the original post here:
Media Summit theme to look at 2020 through lens of first amendment - Oswegonian

Three members of Congress have joined the fight for the right to protest by sending a letter to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) to investigate federal surveillance against protesters. We commend these elected officials for doing what they can to help ensure our constitutional right to protest and for taking the interests and safety of protesters to heart.

It often takes years, if not longer, to learn the full scope of government surveillance used against demonstrators involved in a specific action or protest movement. Four months since the murder of George Floyd began a new round of Black-led protests against police violence, there has been a slow and steady trickle of revelations about law enforcement agencies deploying advanced surveillance technology at protests around the country. For example, we learned recently that the Federal Bureau of Investigation sent a team specializing in cellular phone exploitation to Portland, site of some of the largest and most sustained protests. Before that, we learned about federal, state, and local aerial surveillance done over protests in at least 15 cities. Now, Rep. Anna Eshoo, Rep. Bobby Rush, and Sen. Ron Wyden have asked the PCLOB to dig deeper..

The PCLOB is an independent agency in the executive branch, created in 2004, which undertakes far-ranging investigations into issues related to privacy and civil liberties including mass surveillance of the internet and cellular communications, facial recognition technology at airports, and terrorism watchlists. In addition to asking the PCLOB to investigate who used what surveillance where, and how it negatively impacted the First Amendment right to protest, the trio of Eshoo, Rush, and Wyden, ask the PCLOB to investigate and enumerate the legal authorities under which agencies are surveilling protests and whether agencies have followed required processes for use of intelligence equipment domestically. The letter continues:

PCLOB should investigate what legal authorities federal agencies are using to surveil protesters to help Congress understand if agencies interpretations of specific provisions of federal statutes or of the Constitution are consistent with congressional intent. This will help inform whether Congress needs to amend existing statutes or consider legislation to ensure agency actions are consistent with congressional intent.

We agree with these politicians that government surveillance of protesters is a threat to all of our civil liberties and an affront to a robust, active, and informed democracy. With a guarantee of more protests to come in the upcoming weeks and months, Congress and the PCLOB board must act swiftly to protect our right to protest, investigate how much harm government surveillance has caused, and identify illegal behavior by these agencies.

In the meantime, if you plan on protesting, make sure youve reviewed EFFs surveillance self-defense guide for protesters.

Here is the original post:
Members of Congress Join the Fight for Protest Surveillance Transparency - EFF

")), n = v(f[r.size_id].split("x").map(function (e) { return Number(e); }), 2), i.width = n[0], i.height = n[1]), i.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce(function (e, r) { return e[r.key] = r.values[0], e; }, { rpfl_elemid: s.adUnitCode }), e.push(i)) : g.logError("Rubicon: bidRequest undefined at index position:".concat(t), c, d), e; }, []).sort(function (e, r) { return (r.cpm || 0) - (e.cpm || 0); }); }, getUserSyncs: function getUserSyncs(e, r, t, i) { if (!R && e.iframeEnabled) { var n = ""; return t && "string" == typeof t.consentString && ("boolean" == typeof t.gdprApplies ? n += "?gdpr=".concat(Number(t.gdprApplies), "&gdpr_consent=").concat(t.consentString) : n += "?gdpr_consent=".concat(t.consentString)), i && (n += "".concat(n ? "&" : "?", "us_privacy=").concat(encodeURIComponent(i))), R = !0, { type: "iframe", url: a + n }; } }, transformBidParams: function transformBidParams(e) { return g.convertTypes({ accountId: "number", siteId: "number", zoneId: "number" }, e); } }; function _(e, r) { var t, i = 0 e.length) && (t = e.length); for (var r = 0, n = new Array(t); r '; var r, n; }; }; var a = function a(e) { var r = 0 = e && r.innerWidth r.length) && (e = r.length); for (var t = 0, n = new Array(e); t b ? a : b; } /** * Fast loop through watched elements */ function onScroll() { list.forEach(updateVisibility); } /** * updates seen property * @param {Visble} item * @param {{}} evt * @fires Visible#shown * @fires Visible#hidden */ function updateSeen(item, evt) { var px = evt.visiblePx, percent = evt.visiblePercent; // if some pixels are visible and we're greater/equal to threshold if (px && percent >= item.shownThreshold && !item.seen) { item.seen = true; setTimeout(function () { item.trigger("shown", new VisibleEvent("shown", evt)); }, 15); // if no pixels or percent is less than threshold } else if ((!px || percent = 0 && rect.left >= 0 && rect.bottom 1) { result += getLinearSpacialHash(remainder, Math.floor(stepSize / base), optimalK - 1, base); } return result; } /** * @param {ClientRect} rect * @param {number} innerHeight * @returns {number} */ function getVerticallyVisiblePixels(rect, innerHeight) { return min(innerHeight, max(rect.bottom, 0)) - min(max(rect.top, 0), innerHeight); } /** * Get offset of element relative to entire page * * @param {Element} el * @returns {{left: number, top: number}} * @see http://jsperf.com/offset-vs-getboundingclientrect/7 */ function getPageOffset(el) { var offsetLeft = el.offsetLeft, offsetTop = el.offsetTop; while (el = el.offsetParent) { offsetLeft += el.offsetLeft; offsetTop += el.offsetTop; } return { left: offsetLeft, top: offsetTop }; } /** * Create a new Visible class to observe when elements enter and leave the viewport * * Call destroy function to stop listening (this is until we have better support for watching for Node Removal) * @param {Element} el * @param {{shownThreshold: number, hiddenThreshold: number}} [options] * @class * @example this.visible = new $visibility.Visible(el); */ Visible = function Visible(el, options) { options = options || {}; this.el = el; this.seen = false; this.preload = false; this.preloadThreshhold = options && options.preloadThreshhold || 0; this.shownThreshold = options && options.shownThreshold || 0; this.hiddenThreshold = options && min(options.shownThreshold, options.hiddenThreshold) || 0; list.push(this); updateVisibility(this); // set immediately to visible or not }; Visible.prototype = { /** * Stop triggering. */ destroy: function destroy() { // remove from list list.splice(list.indexOf(this), 1); } /** * @name Visible#on * @function * @param {'shown'|'hidden'} e EventName * @param {function} cb Callback */ /** * @name Visible#trigger * @function * @param {'shown'|'hidden'} e * @param {{}} */ }; Eventify.enable(Visible.prototype); VisibleEvent = function VisibleEvent(type, options) { var _this = this; this.type = type; Object.keys(options).forEach(function (key) { _this[key] = options[key]; }); }; // listen for scroll events (throttled) $document.addEventListener("scroll", _throttle(onScroll, 200)); // public this.getPageOffset = getPageOffset; this.getLinearSpacialHash = getLinearSpacialHash; this.getVerticallyVisiblePixels = getVerticallyVisiblePixels; this.getViewportHeight = getViewportHeight; this.getViewportWidth = getViewportWidth; this.isElementNotHidden = isElementNotHidden; this.isElementInViewport = isElementInViewport; this.Visible = Visible;}]);}, {}];require=(function e(t,n,r){function s(o,u){if(!n[o]){if(!t[o]){var a=typeof require=="function"&&require;if(!u&&a)return a(o,!0);if(i)return i(o,!0);var f=new Error("Cannot find module '"+o+"'");throw f.code="MODULE_NOT_FOUND",f}var l=n[o]={exports:{}};t[o][0].call(l.exports,function(e){var n=t[o][1][e];return s(n?n:e)},l,l.exports,e,t,n,r)}return n[o].exports}var i=typeof require=="function"&&require;for(var o=0;o

See the original post:
Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings; the First Amendment and disinformation; and the latest election machinations. - Slate

Updated: October 11, 2020 9:39:21 am

Written by Malini Bhattacharjee

The story of Indian politics is one of continuities more than ruptures contrary to the popular imagination, bolstered by arguments by several mainstream political analysts that the period since 2014 has paved the way for a new regime that has jeopardised democracy and tarnished the idea of India. Singhs book, which narrates the story of the passage of the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution by the Jawaharlal Nehru government in June 1951, provides an important interruption to this narrative.

The book draws attention to the enormous impact of this legislation on the fundamental rights of the citizen. Some of the major modifications introduced included increased restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the name of public order, the interests of the security of the state and relations with foreign states. The Act also enabled caste-based reservations by restricting Article 15 from applying to government provisions for the advancement of backward classes; it circumscribed the right to property and validated zamindari abolition by allowing the state to acquire property without paying equitable compensation and ensuring that any law providing for such acquisition could not be deemed void even if it violated the right to property. The final nail in the coffin was the introduction of the Ninth Schedule, where laws could be parked to make them immune to judicial challenge even if they violated the fundamental rights.

Singh foregrounds the discussion by drawing attention to the political climate of the years soon after Independence and the build-up to the passage of the amendment. There is a detailed analysis of how the governments imposition of policies relating to press censorship, enabling caste-based reservations in educational institutions and re-distribution of land were challenged by the affected stakeholders in courts. In all cases relating to press censorship, most notably Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi (1950) and Romesh Thappar v The State of Madras (1950), the judiciary struck down statutes which imposed restrictions on free speech. In Champakam Dorairajan v State of Madras (1951), the Madras High Court, and, later, the Supreme Court declared the Government Order providing caste-based reservations to be unconstitutional.

With elections looming ahead and most of his new schemes being thwarted by the courts, Nehru was convinced that the legal process of testing legislation against the Constitution was delaying his partys social reform agenda. He introduced the First Amendment Bill to the Parliament on May 12. After two weeks of stormy discussions, it was passed on June 2.There are fascinating accounts of the parliamentary debates that raged between Nehru and stalwarts like SP Mookerji, HN Kunzru and Hussain Imam that the author eloquently describes as the first battle of Indian liberalism. These highlight how despite protests by public luminaries, including incumbent governors, jurists and even senior Congress members, the government remained undeterred. The final chapter dwells on the aftermath of the amendment, the most important being that it set a precedent for amending the Constitution to either overturn judicial pronouncements or to suit government agenda.

The book makes it evident that the First Amendment provided the DNA of a Hobbesian state in postcolonial India and laid the foundation of the Nehruvian state. It also lays bare the schisms within the Congress party, the pressure applied on the presidents office to bend to the will of the government, and the ways in which the judiciary was subordinated by the executive. Most importantly, the story also blurs the dichotomies that political analysts slip into: the liberal Nehruvian vision of India versus the RSSs authoritarian one, between progressive and reactionary politics. It leaves us wondering why this story was never told before; is it a mere coincidence or a part of a deliberate political project? The book maintains a dignified restraint in answering this question.

Malini Bhattacharjee is assistant professor, Azim Premji University, Bengaluru

Sixteen Stormy Days: The Story of the First Amendment to The Constitution of India By Tripurdaman SinghPenguin Random House

The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Books And Literature News, download Indian Express App.

Read more:
Did the First Amendment to the Constitution lay the foundation for an authoritarian state? - The Indian Express