Mediaboss Marketing

Lieutenant Commander Joshua Corney, an active duty naval officer who lives in rural Pennsylvania, returned from combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan with a promise. As he settled back into life stateside, he wanted to offer a meaningful tribute to his fellow service members especially those who never had the chance to come home.

So, in 2015, he started playing a recording of taps a military bugle call most often heard at sunset and at military funerals on his five-acre property in Glen Rock, a small town of 2,000 people near the Pennsylvania-Maryland border. Every evening before 8:00 p.m., Lt. Commander Corney would offer the musical testament to all who have served.

I play this audio memorial in remembrance of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice as well as those who continue to serve and protect our country and freedoms, said Lt. Commander Corney, who is represented by lawyers from the ACLU of Pennsylvania. It is a way to honor a promise I made to God by taking 57 seconds each day to reflect on sacrifices made 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to obtain and sustain our freedoms."

For nearly two years, his tribute went on with little controversy. The borough allows other music to be amplified on a regular basis, including church hymns and bells and live performances at a local restaurant. At less than a minute long, the recording of taps was one of the boroughs shorter pieces of amplified music. When one neighbor approached Lt. Commander Corney about a year ago to ask if he could turn down the volume, Corney accommodated the request by reorienting the speakers away from the neighbors home. But this spring, the controversy erupted when another neighbor complained to the borough.

This controversy is a reminder that no matter who you are or your station in life, you may need the Constitution.

In response, the borough ordered Corney to limit the playing of taps to Sundays and what it termed flag holidays. Each violation of the boroughs order would bring a criminal fine of 300 dollars. But the boroughs enforcement action involves two big constitutional no-nos: the hecklers veto and content-based censorship.

The borough is relying on a nuisance ordinance that prohibits sound that annoys or disturbs others. In a patriotic town like Glen Rock, which is home to many military veterans, its no surprise that Lt. Commander Corney has many supporters. But a single complaint triggered the enforcement action. If a heckler could shut down anyone who said or played something that annoyed or offended them by complaining to government officials, freedom of speech would be no more. For more than 75 years, it has been black letter First Amendment law that the government cannot censor speech simply because it is not universally appreciated.

Moreover, the borough cannot use its vague nuisance ordinance to single out only Lt. Commander Corneys musical expression for censorship from the range of sounds that are part of the boroughs regular sonic landscape. The borough has not ordered Lt. Commander Corney to lower the volume of taps or claimed he has violated a noise-level ordinance.

And it could not claim such a violation because the recording neither exceeds any established noise levels nor is it as loud as many other sounds the borough tolerates including many sounds that do not communicate a message, like lawnmowers, leaf blowers, chainsaws, and vehicles. Censoring clearly protected expression, like taps, for being too loud, while allowing louder sounds that carry no constitutionally protected message turns the First Amendment on its head.

The borough has decided that taps alone, among the other musical sounds in the borough, must be silenced. The borough may not make this type of content-based distinction without some compelling reason, which doesnt exist in this situation.

Last week, the ACLU of Pennsylvania sent a letter to the borough council to insist that Glen Rock drop its threat to fine Lt. Commander Corney and honor his First Amendment right to free expression. The dispute is not yet resolved, but on Friday the borough indicated that it would review the ACLUs demand at its regularly scheduled July 19 meeting. In the meantime, Lt. Commander Corney will resume his nightly ritual.

Free-speech cases often arise in unusual settings. Some people may be surprised that a servicemans broadcast of taps a song widely regarded as patriotic and intended to honor the sacrifices of those who place themselves in harms way to fight for our constitutional rights would end up being the focus of a First Amendment censorship battle. This controversy is a reminder that no matter who you are or your station in life, you may need the Constitution.

The rest is here:
A Small Town in Pennsylvania Is Treading on This Naval Officer's First Amendment Rights - ACLU (blog)

The right to non-offensive speech took center stage at two recent Newseum and Washington Post events on campus speech. There is growing concern about this reinterpretation of the First Amendment on campuses, according to panelists, including Jeffrey Herbst, President and CEO of the Newseum.

President Donald Trump tweeting important announcements is exemplary of a digital media age where what we can say, should say, and how we say it has prompted a reexamination of the First Amendment. This is especially true on campuses, panelists at the The First Amendment on Campus symposium said.

What we are finding is that students are coming onto campuses already censoring themselves and that universities are reinforcing that Frank LoMonte, Executive Director of the Student Press Law Center, told Bloomberg BNA.

Student attitudes regarding free expression are a form of self-censorship that stunt the intellectual discourse that should be happening on campuses, according to the panelists. The right to non-offensive speech stems from the education system in primary and secondary schools, Catherine Ross, a law professor at George Washington University, said.

Educators are not lawyers and dont really understand and execute the First Amendment, Ross said. Schools are enforcing polite behavior that conflict directly with the First Amendment, according to Ross.

Schools should not be concerned with preventing offensive language, Ross said. They should instead teach kids in K-12 how to handle profound disagreements as they come up.

College is one of the last times that students are forced to deal with people with contrasting ideas, one panelist pointed out. After that, they encircle themselves with people of the same tastes, values, and opinions. Digital media takes it a step further by allowing the blocking of posts, people, and conflicting ideas entirely.

Only 16 percent of college students would agree that Americans do a good job at looking for and listening to differing views, according to a recent Gallup poll sponsored by the Knight Foundation and the Newseum Institute.

Throughout the panel discussions it was reiterated that the First Amendment protects all speech, even hate speech.

Id rather know if someone is hateful because that way there is an opportunity to talk Ross LaJeunesse, Global Head of International Relations at Google, said at a Free to State event hosted by The Washington Post.

Students lack knowledge about the First Amendment when they enter universities, according to Christina Paxson, President of Brown University. They dont understand it, dont appreciate it. Why would they? Theyve never learned it, Paxson said at the Washington Post event.

All speech is protected by the First Amendment, the panelists said. Students, in particular, should be taught how to keep divisive conversations civil and to recognize what can and should be said out loud, panelists at both events said.

Read the original here:
The Right to Non-Offensive Speech: Reinterpreting the First Amendment - Bloomberg BNA

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

PALOS HILLS, Ill. -- Palos residents are calling for the resignation of a township trustee after she wrote posts on social media that are being called anti-Muslim.

Trustee Sharon Brannigan says she was just exercising her First Amendment rights to free speech.

In one post she asks, Why are all our schools filling with Middle East students without proper documentation?

In another she says Muslims dont integrate and keep their activities hidden.

And in yet another she applauded the First Lady for not wearing a headscarf while she was overseas.

Brannigan says she was forced to delete her Facebook page because of all the hate mail she was receiving. She says her florist business has also been targeted.

But she says is not ashamed of anything she posted and does not plan to resign her position.

Everything I posted is covered under the 1st Amendment, she says. I think its the 85 pound gorilla in the room. You know theres an issue here and now its coming down to us being taxed even more.

Branngian has been an elected Palos Township trustee since 2013.

But Muslim residents say her views on taxation are just a front for her real feelings and that she doesnt like people who are different.

No elected official should be speaking about her constituency her residency in such language, says Nareman Taha, co-founder and director of Arab American family services and Palos Township resident.

Its clearly racist. Its clearly anti-Arab and Islamophobic, says Hatem Abudayyeh, Executive Director of Arab American Action Network. And shes emboldened because we have a racist, and a homophobe and a sexist in the White House.

Brannigan says she has been posting similar sentiments for the last five years. And while illegal immigration might be a sensitive topic, it needs to be discussed openly.

They are taking services from the taxpayer that is and always has been an issue, Brannigan says.

Brannigan says she will be here to make a statement at a board meeting tonight. Protestors say they will also be there to greet her.

Read the original:
Suburban trustee defends anti-Muslim Facebook posts, says its her First Amendment right - WGN-TV

Early last year, a federal court judge decided filming police officers was not protected by the First Amendment. How the court arrived at this conclusion was by narrowly defining the First Amendment as only protecting "expressive" speech. Simply documenting activity was somehow not covered by the First Amendment, according to the government's theory (the city of Philadelphia, in this case).

According to the district court, expression is key. It was the wrong conclusion to reach, but it helped some Philadelphia police officers escape being held accountable for retaliatory arrests of citizen photographers. Even worse, it created a chilling effect for citizen photographers in the court's jurisdiction, giving them a publish or die be arrested mandate.

At that time, it seemed unlikely the Third Circuit Appeals Court would overturn its own precedential rulings. The Appeals Court had never gone so far as to establish a First Amendment right to record public officials. In fact, precedent had mostly sided with law enforcement officers who had been sued for shutting down recordings. An affirmation on appeal would have resulted in a circuit split that could only be resolved if and when the Supreme Court chose to take up a case directly related to this issue.

Fortunately, the Third Circuit Court has reversed the lower court's finding, at least in terms of the First Amendment. This adds to the list of circuits already viewing recordings of cops as protected speech. The issue appears to be (slowly) resolving itself without the Supreme Court's assistance.

The ruling [PDF] is a fantastic read, at least as far as its handling of the First Amendment goes. The opening makes it clear the lower court screwed this up badly. [h/t Brad Heath]

This case involves retaliation. Richard Fields and Amanda Geraci attempted to record Philadelphia police officers carrying out official duties in public and were retaliated against even though the Philadelphia Police Departments official policies recognized that [p]rivate individuals have a First Amendment right to observe and record police officers engaged in the public discharge of their duties. No party contested the existence of the First Amendment right. Yet the District Court concluded that neither Plaintiff had engaged in First Amendment activity because the conductthe act of recordingwas not sufficiently expressive. However, this case is not about whether Plaintiffs expressed themselves through conduct. It is whether they have a First Amendment right of access to information about how our public servants operate in public.

Every Circuit Court of Appeals to address this issue (First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh) has held that there is a First Amendment right to record police activity in public. See Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017); Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014); Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012); Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995). Today we join this growing consensus. Simply put, the First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public.

This establishes citizen photography as protected speech, no matter what the photographer's intent is. The protection here has very little to do with expression, no matter how much the defendants wish it was. Instead, it has everything to do with access.

To record what there is the right for the eye to see or the ear to hear corroborates or lays aside subjective impressions for objective facts. Hence to record is to see and hear more accurately. Recordings also facilitate discussion because of the ease in which they can be widely distributed via different forms of media. Accordingly, recording police activity in public falls squarely within the First Amendment right of access to information. As no doubt the press has this right, so does the public.

[...]

In sum, under the First Amendments right of access to information the public has the commensurate right to recordphotograph, film, or audio recordpolice officers conducting official police activity in public areas.

In the Third Circuit, cops can no longer expect to shielded from lawsuits related to shutting down citizens' recording efforts.

As was noted by the court, the right likely should have been established at the time the incident took place (2014).

In 2011 the Department published a memorandum advising officers not to interfere with a private citizens recording of police activity because it was protected by the First Amendment. In 2012 it published an official directive reiterating that this right existed. Both the memorandum and directive were read to police officers during roll call for three straight days. And in 2014, after the events in our case and the occurrence of other similar incidents, the Department instituted a formal training program to ensure that officers ceased retaliating against bystanders who recorded their activities.

Unfortunately, the court still sides with the officers, stating that precedent from various circuits did not divorce the act of recording entirely from the concept of "expression." At the point the arrests occurred, it may have seemed reasonable to shut down citizens who attempted to record police if they couldn't clearly state an "expressive" reason for doing so. And that's apparently ok even if the officers had received repeated instructions from their supervisors about respecting the public's right to record.

The dissent disagrees with this conclusion. It wasn't just court precedent and the PD's own directives. Officers also should have been aware of the DOJ's directive along the same lines, which was handed down in 2012 to all local law enforcement agencies urging them to respect the public's "right to record."

With all of this, it is indisputable that all officers in the Philadelphia Police Department were put on actual notice that they were required to uphold the First Amendment right to make recordings of police activity. From a practical perspective, the police officers had no ground to claim ambiguity about the boundaries of the citizens constitutional right here.

Even absent this wealth of directives, any officer should have "reasonably" known retaliating against citizens for recording in public was the wrong way to handle this.

A reasonable police officer would have understood, first-hand, the significance of this proliferation of personal electronic devices that have integrated image capture into our daily lives, making it a routine aspect of the way in which people record and communicate events. Apart from any court ruling or official directive, the officers own lived experience with personal electronic devices (both from the perspective of being the one who is recording and one who is being recorded) makes it unreasonable to assume that the police officers were oblivious to the First Amendment implications of any attempt by them to curtail such recordings.

The upshot is the judicial enshrinement of the right to record police. The downside for the plaintiffs is the officers can't be sued for violating what should have been considered a clearly established right, even before the Appeals Court decision.

The way things are going, the Supreme Court may never have to address the issue. As the presiding judges note (both in the opinion and during oral arguments), the establishment of this right across the nation is inevitable. As more circuits address the issue head-on, the rulings should result in further First Amendment wins.

As a side note, the oral arguments are an amazing watch. The government's lawyer desperately wants the discussion to center on questions of immunity, but the court is far more interested in how he intends to argue speech must be tied to expressive intent to receive First Amendment protections. The fun starts about 19:45 into the recording. By the time a judge brings up the Zapruder recording ten minutes later, you almost feel sorry for the government's legal rep.

Read the original:
Third Circuit Appeals Court Establishes First Amendment Right To Record Police - Techdirt

A panel of lawyers said the case between Hulk Hogan and Gawker was a debate between First Amendment rights and privacy rights, but TheWraps Editor-in-Chief Sharon Waxman disagreed.

In a society where we have the rich getting richer and the media fragmented and difficult to sustain as it is, this is the kind of thing that could happen all the time, Waxman said in a panel discussion Thursday. It doesnt sound like speech. It sounds like something rich people get to do.

Waxman spoke on TheWraps panel The First Amendment in The Age of Trump following a screening of the new documentary Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press.It charts how Gawkers decision to publish Hulk Hogans sex tape led to a trial that has potentially opened the flood gates for billionaires to make news outlets they dont like disappear.

Also Read: Is Freedom of Expression in Danger in Trump Era? First Amendment Experts Weigh In (Video)

Waxman shared an instance when she and TheWrap were sued by a millionaire heiress whose pride was hurt when she didnt like the story that ran about her.

We had to suffer this lawsuit going through the courts for two years, a million dollars was spent, it wouldve put us out of business at that time, and the case died one day when the woman failed to show up in court, and the judge threw it out, Waxman said.

Thankfully TheWrap was covered by insurance, but Waxman pointed to Sheldon Adelson privately purchasing the Las Vegas Review-Journal and John Olivers recent report on Sinclair Media Group as examples of how anyone could use their wealth to influence the media.

See Nobody Speak: Trials of a Free Press's latest POWER MOVE.

Anybody can decide that they dont like something that was written about them, and theyre going to be encouraged by Trump, Waxman said. These are all really concerning.

Waxman added that the right to privacy is still a serious matter, but shes less sure about the specifics of the Hulk Hogan case as depicted in Nobody Speak.

The idea that Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea have two different penises is something very difficult for me to get my brain around, Waxman said.

Watch the video of Waxmans comments above, and check out the complete video and recap here.

See more here:
First Amendment Under Attack? TheWrap's Sharon Waxman Weighs in With Panel of Experts (Video) - TheWrap