Mediaboss Marketing

SiriusXMis looking to have a California judge reject a lawsuit over its decision not to accept advertisements for escort services. On Monday, the satcasterbrought First Amendment arguments in its legal fight with InfoStream Group.

InfoStream was founded by an MIT grad, and its websites including WhatsYourPrice.com and SeekingMillionaire.comhavegotten a lot of press for unapologetically connecting "sugar daddies," or wealthy men, with "sugar babies," or younger women. Between 2011 and 2014, the company advertised on SiriusXM channels including MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and Howard Stern, but the relationship ended when Sirius revised its Standards and Practices policy.InfoStreamsubsequently filed legal claims.

According to InfoStream's complaint (read here), SiriusXMhas breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by applying its Standards and Practices in a "dishonest and unfair manner, singling out InfoStream for termination while allowing others in similar businesses to continue to advertise."

The company considers the websites it operates as online dating sites and sees the satellite radio company's decision as "pretextual,"making the suggestion that SiriusXM cut ties "in order to garner favor from Sirius' Preferred Customers, who would be more apt to pay increased broadcasting fees if they did not have to share the airwaves with InfoStream."

In reaction, SiriusXMlooks to use California's SLAPP statute to kill a suit it argues is premised on its First Amendment activity.

The defendant says "the broadcast of radio advertisements is a classic form of speech protected by the First Amendment," and it doesn't matter that what's in question is commercial speech. "Moreover, the First Amendment plainly protects not only SiriusXMs affirmative broadcast of radio advertisements, but also its decision not to air InfoStreams ads."

Read more: SoundExchange CEO Points to SiriusXM's Growth for Royalty Rate Increase Optimism

After pointing to a number of news articles about InfoStream'swebsites and addressing why this is a matter of public concern, SiriusXM argues why InfoStream is unlikely to prevail on its claim. Specifically, the plaintiff says InfoStream is not entitled to benefits because there's no operative contract between the parties nor can there be deemed any "right of renewal" to the expired advertising contracts.

"In addition, SiriusXM is not a 'common carrier,' and thus has no obligation to allow 'members of the public' to 'transmit [content] of their own design and choosing,' adds SiriusXM's papers (read here).

SiriusXM also contends that the "pretext" issue is phony because it "did not need an excuse to terminate the Agreements those contracts had already expired by their own terms," and as far as whether it has applied standards "unevenly," SiriusXM says it is under no obligation to apply them evenly.

"Moreover, InfoStream is wrong that SiriusXM continues to advertise for 'escort business' after 'terminating its relationship with InfoStream,'" continues SiriusXM attorney Daniel Petrocelli. "InfoStream presumably is referring to Ashley Madison.com a different online dating website whose advertisements SiriusXM has previously broadcast and against whom InfoStream has frequently litigated. But Ashley Madison is not an 'escort service' at all, nor do members pay women to go on dates with them, as is the case with InfoStreamsservices. Instead, Ashley Madison is a traditional dating website, like Match.com, for people who are in relationships and looking to have a discreet relationship with others who are also in relationships. There is no commercial exchange between the daters. That distinction makes the difference under SiriusXMs internal standards and practices set forth."

This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.

See the original post:
SiriusXM Says First Amendment Protects Decision Not to Air Ads for Escort Sites - Billboard

NEWSEUM FACEBOOK The U.S. received a barely passing grade for its treatment of First Amendment protections.

The United States earned a C+ overall grade in the Newseum Institutes inaugural First Amendment Report Card, which analyzed the state of the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.

The freedoms of assembly and petition received the highest grades, each earning a B-, while the freedoms of religion and speech each obtained a mark of C+. The panelists gave the freedom of the press the lowest grade: a C-.

Newseum Institute Chief Operating Officer Gene Policinski said these grades may be the results of a citizenry that has taken its First Amendment freedoms for granted, or that has defined these freedoms in narrow ways, according to a piece published on the Newseums News and Commentary section.

With respect to the freedom of the press, Policinski specifically cites surveys dating back to the 1990s that show growing public apprehension about whether the media continues to play a watchdog role.

Policinski also cites the resource dearth that many journalists and media employees now face.

Ken Paulson, the president of the Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center, said the grades given in the First Amendment Report Card are likely related to the current administrations expressed views on the media and press.

President Donald Trump recently announced he will not attend the White House Correspondents Dinner, making him the first sitting president in 36 years to miss the dinner. He has repeatedly attacked news organizations that report unfavorably about his administration, including CNN and The New York Times.

Most notably, Trump called the press the enemy of the American people in a Feb. 17 tweet, while Press Secretary Sean Spicer prevented journalists from The Times and other news organizations from attending an informal briefing on Feb. 24. White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon labelled the news media as the opposition party in a Jan. 25 interview with The New York Times.

There are issues involving the presidents stance toward the news media that are of concern. When you single out a free press as being the enemy of the people, thats going to have an unfortunate effect on both the news media and the public perception of the news media, Paulson said in an interview with The Hoya.

Adjudicated by a panel of 15 First Amendment scholars, lawyers, journalists and activists, the rating, released April 20, reported a 2.39 average out of 5 after individually scoring the state of freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly and petition based on legislation, executive orders, judicial decisions and public opinion during the past year.

The Newseum Institute serves as a branch of Washington, D.C.s Newseum, a museum dedicated to documenting the history of the First Amendment in the United States, and works to promote, explain and defend individual liberties.

Georgetown School of Continuing Studies journalism professor Alan Bjerga said it is difficult to judge these ratings, due to the fact that this is the inaugural First Amendment Report Card.

Its tough to tell because its a first-time rating. You dont know what its relative to, Bjerga said in an interview with The Hoya. C, B, thats very subjective. I would say that being a journalist is not getting any easier.

Bjerga said reporters face unique challenges today, especially as so-called fake news and misinformation spread on the internet and on radio.

Journalists face the challenge of an environment where inaccurate information can be propagated very widely, while accurate, at times less sensational information may struggle to be heard or distributed as widely. At the same time, I think there is a rising appreciation of the necessity and the value of quality journalism, Bjerga said.

Bjerga said he was optimistic about the future for press freedoms, saying journalists are rising to the challenge and determined to thrive in response to the current political climate.

Lata Nott, the executive director of the Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center, reviewed the results, pointing out that while few As were awarded, no failing grades were given.

Nott said Americans need to be more conscious and watchful of problems related to the First Amendment.

Theres a sense that our freedoms need to be watched carefully, that theyre threatened. Theres concerns about what might happen in the future. But at the same time, there was also a sense that these freedoms are resilient. As Americans, we do think that theyre important, Nott said in an interview with The Hoya.

Nott said some problems, like the continuing lack of laws for protecting journalists and privacy, will persist during Trumps administration.

People are probably more worried about the First Amendment than they were before because the Trump administration has taken some action that have been contrary to the First Amendment, Nott said. Theres no federal shield law for reporters. They can be compelled to give up their sources or be jailed, when it comes to federal matters. The thing is, thats always been the case.

Nott emphasized the importance of tracking the quality of the First Amendment freedoms and the importance of dialogue regarding these freedoms. Paulson said he continues to hope the United States moves toward being a more free state.

As a nation, we really need to remember that our strength comes not just from the freedom to speak. Its also about the willingness to listen. Were not making the most of our core freedoms when we are so polarized that we cant benefit from each others ideas, Paulson said. That has to change, and that more than anything else would improve the report card for the First Amendment.

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.

View original post here:
United States Earns C+ in First Amendment Report Card - Georgetown University The Hoya

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was initially adopted is 1791 and simply states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since then, a great many interpretations and Supreme Court decisions have used this amendment as a highly controversial instrument to foster a wide variety of social programs. Most recently, arguments by some federal judges have been used to oppose the immigration rules issued by President Trump on the grounds that those rules are in conflict with the First Amendment since they target the Islamic religion. Lets review what the U.S. Supreme Court has had to say, in the past, on a few key cases:

In 1878, one clarification was made: Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order. In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while state or federal laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (such as human sacrifices). The court stated that to rule otherwise, would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Therefore, the government would exist in name only, under such circumstances.

Another, more recent, argument can be found in 1998, when the Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, seeking to restore the compelling interest requirement applied in Sherbert and Yoder. In the City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the court declared: that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere, when religious principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. Notably, while a religion may hold opinions contrary to U.S. law, they are not free to act on those opinions without suffering the consequences of breaking the law.

While I am not a lawyer, the problem yet to be resolved, seems to be: Can the USA act against statements made by a religion in which they threaten to do something that is contrary to U.S. law, or is it necessary to first, allow such actions to take place before it is allowable to take legal action?

Lets try and construct a hypothetical example so as not to upset or offend any of the more than 14 recognized religions in the world with more than 35,000 organized denominations, or subsets, of the known religions. Then lets decide what rational and legal actions are permissible under U.S. law to deal with the problem of religious fanatics from a hypothetical group seeking to entering the USA.

Assume some religious denomination, called the Red Rabbit religion and located primarily on Rabbit Island, have stated their intent to come to the USA to kill all people with red hair because they believe that they are, in some way, offensive to their god. We recognize, in the First Amendment, that they have the right to hold this strange opinion but they do not, according to Supreme Court rulings, have the right to take actions, on that belief, resulting in the death of innocent people, at least within the USA.

To cope with this hypothetical situation, we have some of the following options:

1. We could require all red-haired people in the USA to dye their hair so as not to offend this fanatical group of people. But this would violate the general freewill provisions of the Constitution.

2. We could impose a travel ban on all people from Rabbit Island. But this would restrict the rights of the nonbelievers in the Red Rabbit religion, and inconvenience others.

3. We could open the boarders to all Rabbit Island people and try to protect red-haired citizens within the USA from being attacked. But this would be impractical, expensive and would likely result in the death of numbers innocent people.

4. We could require an in-depth examination, or vetting, of anyone seeking to enter the USA from Rabbit Island. But since extremists are likely to lie about their intent or enter illegally, this is not a complete protection option.

5. We could try to convert the radical Red Rabbit people to follow a more acceptable religious view. But they have vowed to attack anyone who speaks of another religion on Rabbit Island.

Are we then doomed to wait for some overt action to take place within the USA before we can take any effective legal action or do we have a moral duty to do our best to prevent such actions? If the Red Rabbit group clearly intends to conduct overt acts, in violation of peace, social duties and subversive to good order, the imposition of regulations to prevent people holding such a declared intent seems fully justified. Freedom of religion means freedom to hold even peculiar ideas, however, freedom to act on those ideas is not granted by any normal reading of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in my opinion.

In addition, it seems clear that the president has the duty and authority to ban immigration from any country or any group of people who he deems to be a threat to the safety and security of the people of the USA. It is possible for a federal judge to delay and attempt to justify his actions, based on the First Amendment, but it is most certainly not logical nor in the interest of the people in the USA to allow this to continue for any length of time.

Orville Moe is one of several community columnists who regularly contribute to this page.

View original post here:
COLUMN: Controversy over the First Amendment - Crow River Media

On MSNBC yesterday, former Vermont Governor and DNC Chair Howard Dean elaborated on his argument that Ann Coulters upcoming speech at Berkeley does not have to occur because hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment:

Okay, several things to think about. One, the United States has the most far-reaching protections on speech of any country in the world. Two, its not absolute. Three, there are three Supreme Court cases you need to know about. One, the most recent, a John Roberts opinion, the Phelps people, that church out in Kansas, had a right to picket horrible offensive signs at military funerals. Well, two, in 2002, the Supreme Court said cross burning was illegal because it could incite violence. And three, Chaplinsky, the Chaplinsky case in 1942 said that speech was not permitted if it included fighting words that were likely to incite violence.

This is not a clear-cut carrying on the way the Right does. The Right loves to be able to say anything they like, no matter how offensive it is. Well, Ann Coulter has used words that you cannot use on television to describe Jews, blacks, gays, Muslims immigrants, and Hispanics. I think that theres a case to be made that that invokes the Chaplinsky decision, which is fighting words, likely to cause violence. I think Berkeley is within its rights to make the decision that it puts their campus in danger if they have her there. Ill be the first to admit its a close call.

Actually, its not a close call; Dean is making the wrong call under the Constitution. Deans entire answer piles wrong argument atop wrong argument until he completes a Dagwood sandwich of wrong.

Dean cites three court cases, and he mischaracterizes the decisions in all of them. The first case he references, Snyder v. Phelps, was an 8 to 1 decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Churchs freedom to chant the horrible slogans and hold up the horrible banners it favors at a military funeral. If the church is free to protest at a military funeral, it makes no sense to argue that Ann Coulter is not free to give a speech at Berkeley. Dean is perhaps unknowingly citing a case that argues the reverse of his position.

The second case Dean cites, Virginia v. Black, struck down a state law that deemed cross-burning a prima facie attempt at intimidation. The decision was complicated, with multiple justices concurring in part and dissenting in part, but its upshot was that if prosecutors wanted to charge someone with a crime for burning a cross, they had to prove that the cross-burner intended his action as a threat.

Criminal threats, intimidation and criminal harassment are already crimes on the books in many states. If Ann Coulter explicitly threatens an individual in her speech, she can be charged with a crime for that. But whatever her flaws, Coulter is unlikely to make an explicit incitement to violence in a speech at Berkeley.

The third case Dean cites, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, has come up a bit more frequently as of late. Eugene Volokh points out that while the Chaplinsky precedent hasnt yet been struck down, subsequent decisions have drastically narrowed its definition of fighting words. In 1971, the court ruled that a vulgar phrase on a jacket didnt fall within said definition because it was unlikely that any individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words to be a direct personal insult. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Court struck down a hate-crime statute, decreeing that the state can restrict speech to a certain time, place, or manner, but only if those restrictions were justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech. (I.e., the government can ban flag-burning by, say, banning all outdoor fires in certain areas, but not explicitly because it dishonors the U.S. flag.)

Without knowing what Coulter would say in her speech, Dean suggests that it would contain fighting words, given her history of using words you cant say on television to describe minorities. Given the words you cant say on television have no bearing on the constitutionality of an (as-yet-undelivered) speech at Berkeley, the one-time front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination seems to be insisting that just by being offensive, Coulters words incite violence and must be restricted and banned. It is fair to ask Dean and his ilk why they are so focused on restricting and punishing speech that supposedly incites violence and much less focused on punishing those who actually commit violent acts.

If Deans real desire is to ban speech that he doesnt like, he should just say so.

Jim Geraghty is National Reviews senior political correspondent.

READ MORE:

Read the original:
Ann Coulter Berkeley Address: Howard Dean's Legal Argument ... - National Review

On Wednesday, officials of the University of California-Berkeley announced they were canceling a speech to be given by conservative writer Ann Coulter scheduled for April 27. Then on Thursday, facing the prospect of a lawsuit, caught between the First Amendment and the fear of violence, university officials proposed Coulters speech be moved to May 2 a move she and her supporters quickly rejected, pointing out there would be no students on campus, as it coincided with a reading period before final exams.

This was a low point for the birthplace of the free-speech movement.

Ive known Ann Coulter for years, and Ive gone to great lengths truly great lengths to disagree with her. After she published a book called Godless, which accused liberalism of being a godless religion, I wrote a book called Soulless, which attacked the right-wing church of hate. I even donned her trademark sleeveless black dress, added about 10 inches of long blonde hair and posed for a cover that looked almost as sexy as hers.

We agree on almost nothing, except for the importance of free speech and public discourse. And we always have gotten along just fine.

Last summer, when a reporter went to her for comments about me, she could not have been more gracious. Thats how it should be in a democracy.

Our Founding Fathers understood something that seems to be getting lost in the ugly partisanship that has gripped our country. You dont deal with speech you dont like by shutting it down. You deal with it by speaking up yourself. Speech is powerful; it is protected not because it is harmless but because the alternative is even worse. And that alternative is what were facing now.

It is not just at Berkeley that this issue is rearing its ugly head. In response to the cancellation of a speech at Claremont-McKenna College by Heather Mac Donald, the president of Pomona College (part of the Claremont Colleges consortium) wrote an open letter defending the principle of free speech. To my shock, frankly, a group of black students went on the attack, claiming white supremacists (Mac Donald is a fellow of the conservative Manhattan Institute, not the Klan) have no right to free speech. Come again? Who is supposed to decide who gets to speak? Do these students not understand it is precisely oppressed minorities who have historically needed the protection of the First Amendment the most? Do they really think that if speech is regulated, they will be the beneficiaries? On which planet? Under which president?

For those who disagree with Coulter, shutting down her speech only elevates her position. Instead of speaking before a group of students two weeks before exams, the cancellation has brought her national attention and brought Berkeley the criticism it must surely have expected.

But blaming Berkeley is the easy way out. One way or another, the great majority of Americans who support the Constitution must stand up to the minority who think violence and censorship is the answer to speech they dont like. You cannot pick and choose which civil liberties to support, which opinions deserve protection.

As a writer myself, I get more than my share of ugly emails from people who disagree with me. No one enjoys reading those. And as a woman and a Jew, I have sharply felt the sting of hatred. But unless there is a threat of violence (the Constitution provides for shutting down speech if it poses an imminent threat of violence or an imminent threat to national security), the way to handle such ugly emails is simply hitting the Trash button, or better yet, responding with more speech. Because if you shut down free speech this time, next time, the one who is shut down might be you.

Susan Estrich is a columnist,

commentator and law and political science professor at USC.

Continued here:
Is the First Amendment dead? - Hays Daily News