Mediaboss Marketing

In his book Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution, Justice Stephen Breyer maintained that the primary purpose of the First Amendment goes beyond protecting the individual from government restrictions.

First and foremost, Breyer wrote, the First Amendment seeks to facilitate democratic self-government.

When it is correctly viewed, he maintained, one must understand the First Amendment as seeking primarily to encourage the exchange of information and ideas necessary for citizens themselves to shape that public opinion which is the final source of government in a democratic state.

In his dissenting opinion in the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case, relating to limitations on the total amount of contributions a donor may make to candidates for Congress, in which he was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Breyer argued similarly.

The First Amendment, he wrote, advances not only the individuals right to engage in political speech, but also the publics interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters. The First Amendment, he urged, must be understood as promoting a government where laws reflect the very thoughts, views, ideas, and sentiments, the expression of which the First Amendment protects.

These views offer a double-barreled First Amendment, one that addresses not only the risks of governmental control over speech but the desirability of a government truly responsive to the views of the public. But there is reason to doubt that the First Amendment can serve both ends.

First and foremost, after all, the First Amendment seeks to protect against the dangers of government overreaching into areas where government itself is especially dangerous freedom of religion, speech, and press. At its core, it is not about promoting collective speech but of avoiding the imposition of just such speech by the government.

One of the benefits of the First Amendment is that it generally leads to a better-informed public and ultimately a more representative government. But we surely would not allow particular speech to be suppressed because the government decided that it led the public to become ill-informed or less enamored of representative government.

That sort of censorship is the opposite of what the First Amendment is about.

The notion that First Amendment interests are served whenever laws genuinely reflect public opinion also seems to overlook the reality that the public too often seeks to suppress speech it disapproves of. Speech is sometimes ugly, outrageous, even dangerous. The understandable public response to such speech is often one of disgust, revulsion, and sometimes anger. And support for taking steps to ensure that the offending speech does not recur.

Floyd Abramsis the author of The Soul of the First Amendment(Yale University Press, 2017). He willdiscuss his book at noon Monday at the National Constitution Center. For information, visit constitutioncenter.org/debate or call 215-409-6700.

Published: May 5, 2017 3:01 AM EDT | Updated: May 5, 2017 3:13 PM EDT

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

Read the rest here:
The Soul of the First Amendment - Philly.com

Omaha World-Herald

Campus High Jinks and the First Amendment NewsBusters (blog) WASHINGTON Well, she did not show up. I am talking about Ann Coulter, the svelte conservative firebrand who was invited to speak at the University of California, Berkeley, and, inadvertently, to show the assembled coeds how a stylish blond dresses. Don't let threat of violence silence free speechSt. Cloud Times The Public Pulse: The First Amendment protects even objectionable speechOmaha World-Herald A Free Speech Tipping PointTownhall Therogersvillereview -CALIFORNIA -New York Times -Young Americas Foundation all 152 news articles »

Link:
Campus High Jinks and the First Amendment - NewsBusters (blog)

Sacramento Bee

Who will veto the hecklers? Sacramento Bee Where local and state officials fail to protect the First Amendment right to speak, as on a public university campus, it's incumbent upon federal authorities to step in. Colleges and universities receive millions of dollars in federal aid, often with ...

Visit link:
Who will veto the hecklers? - Sacramento Bee

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow told NBC's Seth Meyers that"its a dangerous time for the first amendment and the free press" under President Trump.

Theres never been a president who is more addicted to news about himself and whos more responsive to the news that he supposedly thinks is so worthless, said Maddow on "Late Night." So its a weird tension."

"Its a dangerous time for the First Amendment and the free press in this country," she continued. "At the same time, were oddly influential with the guy who wants to kill us.

I talked to him during the primaries. He was an announced candidate, said Maddow, who indicated Trump's handlers initiated the off-the-record call in advance of a possible on-the-record interview.

I had this conversation with him. Id sort of said he had good chances against his Republican primary opponents and we kind of dished dirt on all the things he thought was wrong with all his Republican primary opponents.

The Maddow interview with Trump never happened, as the candidate mostly did phone interviews on MSNBC with the "Morning Joe" team of Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski.

Trump has not appeared on the network in any capacity since May of 2016 after a falling out with the early morning hosts.

A recent analysis conducted by The Intercept shows Maddow dedicated 53 percent of her highly rated program over a recent six-week stretch to Russia and possible ties to Trump.

Maddows Russia coverage has dwarfed the time devoted to other top issues, including Trumps escalating crackdown on undocumented immigrants (1.3 percent of coverage); ObamaCare repeal (3.8 percent); the legal battle over Trumps Muslim ban (5.6 percent), a surge of anti-GOP activism and town halls since Trump took office (5.8 percent), and Trump administration scandals and stumbles (11 percent)," the analysis reads.

The breakdown was conducted between Feb. 20 and Mar. 31.

During that stretch, "The Rachel Maddow Show" enjoyed its best ratings in nearly a decade, easily topping CNN and finishing at the top of all of cable news for four consecutive weeks throughout the month of March.

For the month of April, "The Rachel Maddow Show was the second-most-watched program in cable news, only behind the combined 8 p.m. ET programming of "The O'Reilly Factor," which went off the air on April 18, and "Tucker Carlson Tonight," which moved to 8 p.m. ET on April 24.

Overall, MSNBC was the second-most-watched network in basic cable for the third straight month, trailing only Fox News.

Go here to see the original:
Maddow: 'It's a dangerous time for the First Amendment' - The Hill

1st Amendment, 1st 100 days By Whitney McDonald | 6 hours ago

Digital searches and discrimination are surfacing as citizens and non-citizens are being searched at the U.S. border.

The Knight First Amendment Institute of Columbia College is suing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security over the practice.

The Knight First Amendment Institute suspects that Homeland Security is stopping and searching travelers who have Muslim names on their documents. A red flag was raised when Homeland Security refused to hand over the list of who is stopping at the border.

If it is the case that people of the Muslim faith or with Muslim sounding names are getting different treatment, that could be a constitutional problem because it could be seen as a way of the government being in favor of those who are not Muslim, said Okemos attorney and First Amendment expert John Fraser.

The purpose of the lawsuit is to expose the DHS and release the documents of whose electronics are being searched. The Knight First Amendment Institute filed a Freedom of Information request for the names on the search list, but Homeland Security has not complied.

The list was a public record until 2013.

There was a list of names that the DHS would keep and they would stop people at the border who had those specific names. My brother has the same name as a suspected terrorist that was on that list. When he was a 10-year-old kid he would get stopped at the border, Sakina Abedi 20-year-old Michigan State University student said. I remember growing up, every time we were going to Canada to visit family they would stop us and we would have to go and pull over because his name was on the list.

Along with Muslims, journalists electronics are also being searched at the border. Their devices contain work-related information that is being confiscated and investigated.

One photojournalist, Ed Ou, was stopped and searched at the border in late 2016. His cell-phone was confiscated and he was denied entry into the United States. Ou, who is Canadian, describes himself as having a culturally ambiguous identity. Ed has been working as a global journalist since his teen years. He has covered Hezbollah in Lebanon, the fall of the courts in Mogadishu and he has lived in Kazakhstan.

Over the past two years, electronic searches have nearly doubled. In 2016, between October and March, 8,383 searches of electronic devices w ere conducted. During the same months in 2017, 14,993 searches were recorded.

Devices are being searched before travelers enter the country because of a loophole. A 2014 Supreme Court ruling said that a warrant must be issued before a cellphone can be searched. If only applied to people already in the United States.

Border patrol does have the right to search individuals, however it does not have the right to discriminate against people based on their names, religion or occupation.

The Fourth Amendment says that you have a constitutional right to be free from illegal searches and seizures and that searches and seizures require probable cause, Fraser said.

Tablets, laptops and cellphones are being searched. Enforcers have gone as far as asking for usernames and passwords to social media accounts.

My family knows people who have been asked to give up their social media so it could be looked through, Abedi said. Now, every time we cross the border just as a precaution we delete the Facebook app off of our phones just in case we do get stopped and asked. We dont have social media on our phones, just in case one of us posted a political opinion.

When we are talking about the freedom of religion in the First Amendment, we are talking two different components, Fraser said. The first is that your free exercise of your religion cannot be restricted and also the government cannot give a preference to one religion over another.

Muslim Americans are discouraged from crossing the border.

My brother and I were coming back from my grandparents house in Canada and we were stopped at the border for a good three hours, Abedi said. We were stopped because they thought we were ISIS. We had to explain why we were there and now my brother doesnt even bother crossing the border.

I am a student studying Journalism at Michigan State University. I am currently writing news concerning the "First Amendment". I aspire to report on politics and news as I continue on in my career.

This Michigan State journalism project looks at how First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition are exercised and tested during the first 100 days of the Trump administration.

See the original post here:
Knight First Amendment Institute questioning digital border searches - Spartan Newsroom