Mediaboss Marketing

On May 3, Desiree A. Fairooz, of Virginia, was convicted of disorderly conduct for laughing during the Jan. 10 confirmation hearing of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

On May 10, reporter Dan Heyman, of Public News Service, was arrested after questioning U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price at the Charleston, S.C., Capitol building. Police charged Heyman with misdemeanor willful disruption of state government processes after he repeatedly asked Price whether domestic abuse would qualify as a preexisting condition under President Donald Trump's health care reform bill. Heyman said he was simply being persistent after the secretary refused to answer.

Meanwhile, also on May 10, Trump met with top Russian officials in the Oval Office, but prohibited U.S. reporters from entering the room. Instead, a photographer from state-run Russian news agency TASS was permitted to serve as witness. Since Trump's closed-door chat with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, it has been reported Trump divulged sensitive intelligence information, further rocking his already tempest-tossed administration.

On May 14, in one of his customary crack-of-dawn Twitter meltdowns, Trump pooh-poohed the idea that his "surrogates" should be expected to speak to the press with "perfect accuracy," and suggested he may "cancel all future 'press briefings'" in favor of prepared, written statements.

If the events of the past two weeks or so have you feeling a little jittery about the safety of the First Amendment, it probably means you've been paying attention. In this edition of Boise Weekly, we have two stories that deal with free speech.

The first, on Page 6, digs into yet another lawsuit filed against Idaho State Police for busting a burlesque show, ostensibly because it mingled "obscenity" with alcohol. The second, on Page 8, highlights a recent legal victory over ISP for conducting just such a sting, and how artists will be celebrating with a risque cabaretfeaturing plenty of libations with which to toast the mighty First Amendment.

Zach Hagadone

More here:
Toasting the First Amendment - Boise Weekly

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (NEWSPLEX) -- The First Amendment, at its core, protects all forms of speech. That includes hate speech.

So while people are taking issue with the rallies this weekend in Charlottesville over the Robert E. Lee Statue, under the First Amendment, those rallies are protected even from city permits.

"Under the First Amendment, free speech is free," explained John Whitehead from The Rutherford Institute.

Whitehead said the creation of the First Amendment was to empower people to speak up, and protect people from their own government.

"The government cannot target one specific group or several groups and say 'You don't have the right to speech because we don't agree,'" he said.

According to Whitehead, even though certain forms of speech make people uncomfortable like hate speech, it is still protected by the Constitution.

"You can say 'I hate this. I hate that. I don't like these people.' Whatever, but that's protected," Whitehead said.

The reason for allowing hate speech, explained Whitehead, is because that type of speech can actually drive a conversation about an issue.

"If I say something to you that really offends you out there listening to this program, it makes you think. It makes you want to debate. And that's what the founding fathers wanted," he said. "They wanted a debate."

However, Charlottesville city code states people should get permits for large gatherings like Saturday's alt-right rally in Lee Park.

"People are suppose to get permits when they do these things on public property," said City Councilor Bob Fenwick. "No permit was applied for. It was an ambush, a sneak attack. It was one of the dumbest things I have seen in my life."

Regardless, the First Amendment lets demonstrators hold rallies without getting the proper permission from localities.

"While we prefer protesters get permits like any other event, such assemblies are protected by the First Amendment and we do not interfere unless we perceive a legal or safety issue," added a Charlottesville city spokesperson.

But there is a point at which the First Amendment stops protecting speech.

"If you're advocating violence, that's where it stops," said Whitehead. "In other words, you're saying 'Lets go out, blow them up, lets shoot them, kill them,' That's no longer protected under the law."

Reflecting on the rallies over the weekend, Whitehead said people who did not like what they saw should speak up and express their opinions. He said that is why the First Amendment was created.

Originally posted here:
Weekend rallies protected by First Amendment, including torch burning - The Charlottesville Newsplex

Inside Higher Ed

Critics of proposed legislation on First Amendment rights at Wisconsin public universities say it goes too far Inside Higher Ed He also praised a new free speech law in Tennessee that's been lauded by FIRE and other groups for strengthening the First Amendment on campuses without requiring punishments for disrupters. The bill abolishes designated free speech zones for ... Is free speech fading at colleges? - Chicago Law BulletinChicago Daily Law Bulletin Freedom of Speech Attacked, Defended During Public Hearing ...MacIverInstitute all 5 news articles »

Here is the original post:
Critics of proposed legislation on First Amendment rights at Wisconsin public universities say it goes too far - Inside Higher Ed

FrontPage Magazine

The Top 10 College Administrations Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment FrontPage Magazine Over the past two weeks, the David Horowitz Freedom Center has named 10 prestigious college and university campuses to its list of the Top 10 College Administrations Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment. These campuses ... and more »

See the rest here:
The Top 10 College Administrations Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment - FrontPage Magazine

Blogs | May. 13, 2017

Unjust discrimination against individuals who identify as LGBT is a real problem. So is eroding religious freedom but in some cases another First Amendment right may be even more relevant.

Yesterday the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty released a statement announcingthat a Christian business owner finally won a case brought against him by gay plaintiffs alleging a civil rights violation:

A Kentucky court championed free speech today, ruling that the government cannot force t-shirt printer Blaine Adamson to create gay-pride t-shirts in violation of his religious beliefs. The court agreed with Becket, top legal scholars, and LGBT business owners, who all stood up for the rights of artists to choose what messages they would promote, without fear of government punishment. Todaysruling emphasizedthat the service [the printer] offers is the promotion of messages. The conduct [the printer] chose not to promote was pure speech.

Adamson is the owner of Hands On Originals, a small print shop in Lexington, Kentucky. Adamson regularly employs and serves LGBT individuals, and serves everyone regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. He also cares deeply about the messages he promotes. Just as pro-choice printers have declined to print pro-life messages, and LGBT printers have declined to print anti-gay messages, Adamson does not print messages that violate his beliefs. Following common printing industry practice, he only creates messages that align with his views, and has declined to create t-shirts promoting strip clubs, violence, and sexually explicit videos. Thats why LGBT business ownersstood upfor Mr. Adamsons right to choose the messages he promotes.

It doesnt matter what the speech is pro-gay, anti-gay, pro-immigration, anti-immigration the government cant force you to print it, saidLuke Goodrich, deputy general counsel at Becket, a non-profit religious liberty law firm.Thats the beauty of free speech: It protects everyone.

This seems to me an important case that may have implications for the wedding-industry wars.

So far as I know, Christian wedding industry professionals photographers, cake decorators and caterers have always lost in court for declining to provide services to same-sex weddings.

While I dont know a lot about the legal reasoning in those cases, whenever I see Christians discussing such casesthe issue seems to be framed as a question of the First Amendment right of religious freedom. I wonder this isnt a mistake.

As the Hands On Originals T-shirt print shops successful defense illustrates, religious freedom may thewrong First Amendment right at least in the case of photographers and cake decorators. (Caterers are probablyout of luck, at least as regards this line of thought.)

The strongestFirst Amendment defense for wedding photographers and cake decorators, I suspect, is not religious freedom, but freedom of speech.

Wedding photography is a service, but photography is also patently an art form, a form of communication. For the purposes of First Amendment constitutional law, it is a form of speech and speech, in First Amendment constitutional law, with very few exceptions, can be neither suppressed nor compelled.

An important caveat: Freedom of speech does not negate the principles of public accommodation and antidiscrimination law, which I support. I do not take the laissez-faire libertarian view that any business should have the right to refuse to transact with any potential customer or employee for any reason.

For instance, I dont believe that restauranteurs who are racists should have the right to refuse service to patrons of color or to relegate them to a separate counter, for instance. Nor do I support Christian business owners (or Muslims or Jews) with traditional beliefs about sexual morality refusing to serve individuals who identify as LBGT.

In saying this, Im going somewhat beyond federal antidiscrimination law, which prohibits discrimination against protected groups defined by race, color, religion, national origin, and disability, but does not protect individuals singled out for their sex or sexual orientation. (Discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation is prohibited in many areas at the state and local level.)

When it comes to discrimination and bigotry based on sexual orientation, both sides typically claim too much and concede too little. Christians should be willing to recognize and concede that while terms like hate and homophobia are overused to stigmatize all disapproval of homosexual acts, hatred and unjust hostility toward LBGT-identifying individuals is a real and important problem a problem too often found among individuals wrapping themselves in the mantle of traditional morality and traditional marriage.

To adhere to and to profess traditional Christian sexual morality, including the belief that homosexual acts are morally wrong, is not hate or bigotry,but hatred and bigotry are very much alive and well among those who profess to adhere to traditional Christian sexual morality.

The Catholic faith tells us that homosexual attraction and homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, but it also tells us that same-sex attracted persons must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358).

The Catechism wouldnt bother to say this unless such individuals had often not been accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity and had often been treated with unjust discrimination.

When Christians meet with hostility and anger from LBGT individuals and their defenders, therefore, it behooves us to understand that behind that hostility and anger may often be painful experiences of mistreatment, rejection, stigma, ostracism and more. When this occurs in the Church, and still more when it involves the clergy, it can be even more devastating.

In view of this difficult reality, I believe Christians have a particular duty to oppose homophobia and gay-bashing in their own ranks and to stand up for dignity and respect for all human beings, including and even especially individuals who identify as LBGT.

We should also recognize that it is understandable for the state to take an interest in protecting LBGT individuals from unjust discrimination for holding, for instance, that peoples sexual self-identification or lifestyle, along with their race, color, religion and so on, is not grounds for refusing to serve them a meal at a restaurant, or for denying them other services at public accommodations.

Among other things, this would mean that a store that sells T-shirts cannot (and I would add should not) refuse to sell T-shirts to anyone because of their race or ethnicity, religion, sex, gender identification or lifestyle. A racist cannot refuse to sell to people of color, an atheist or a gay activist cannot refuse to sell to conservative Christians, and a Christian cannot refuse to sell to sell to atheists or gays.

By the same token, a T-shirt printer who printed a particular design or message for one customer should be willing to print the same design or message for a customer whose lifestyle he disapproves of.

In the case reported by the Becket Fund, though, another principle comes into play: free speech.

The Hands On Originals case highlights that not every kind of service in the public square is equivalent to buying a meal at a restaurant. Some types of services involve a form of artistic expression or speech that is protected under the First Amendment and these protections protect us all.

Free speech means a pro-choice graphic designer or commercial artist cannot be forced to print pro-life materials, nor can a pro-life graphic designer or commercial artist be forced to print pro-choice materials. A gay Web developer cannot be forced to create a website for a conservative Christian group, nor can a Christian Web developer be forced to create a website for a gay group.

This is a principle well understood and appreciated by the LGBT business owners cited in the Becket Fund press release, who supported Hands On Originals right to refuse to print pro-gay materials. All sides and all parties to this discussion should recognize the wisdom of Thomas Mores line in A Man For All Seasons about giving even the Devil benefit of law for my own safetys sake. (N.b. Like More, Im merely illustrating a principle, not comparing anyone to the Devil!)

Because photography is patently a form of artistic expression, Im troubled that the courts not so far found that a wedding photographer, or any other wedding industry professional other than clergy,has the right to decline to provide services for a same-sex wedding. Could this be because such cases have generally been predicated on religious freedom rather than free speech? I dont know, but I wonder.

I believe the principle that speech should be neither repressed nor compelled is so important that I would even defend the right of a white supremacist photographer not to photograph an interracial wedding. His views are despicable so despicable that I would want nothing to do with patronizing such a photographer, whether or not he had a problem with me but photography is speech, and speech should not be compelled.

The same considerations seem to me to apply to cake decorators, at least where the cake involves any kind of messaging, even figures of two grooms or two brides on the top. Im not talking about refusing to sell a cake to an LGBT person or couple, but to decorating the cake with a specific message.

I dont believe this principle should be controversial, although it is. In 2015 no less patently liberal and pro-LGBT a celebrity than Patrick Stewart offered a thoughtful defense for a baker who was sued for declining to put pro-gay messaging on a cake. The backlash was intense, obliging Stewart to clarify his remarks though he didnt back down on his opinion.

This line of thought would not, however, exempt caterers from catering the reception for a same-sex wedding. That would fall into the same sphere as a restaurant selling someone a meal, and would be regulated by applicable antidiscrimination laws.

Its no secret that free speech itself is under attack in many quarters of American life, notably in academia. The Hands On Originals case seems to me an important affirmation of a foundational principle that protects us all and is worth defending.

Read this article:
Gay Rights and the OTHER First Amendment Right - National Catholic Register (blog)