Mediaboss Marketing

Dan Shelley knows that responsible, honest journalists are under heavy fire, and he wants to enlist the public to draw some of it away.

Shelley, the former SVP of digital content strategy for iHeartMedia, who takes over from the retiring Mike Cavender as executive director of the Radio Television Digital News Association this September, is working with a new First Amendment Task Force inside the organization to help do that. It plans to meet with leaders of TV and radio station groups at the NAB Show April 22-27 to set priorities and public messaging.

Story continues after the ad

In this interview with TVNewsCheck's special projects editor, Michael Depp, he talks about the strong stand that the task force is looking to make against assaults on the First Amendment and press access to government. He says honing a public message to that end is among the top priorities, along with emphasizing the particularly important work being done by local journalists.

An edited transcript:

Generally speaking, how do you see the threat level facing the First Amendment and press freedom at this moment?

Were forming our Voice of the First Amendment Task Force because its clear over the last couple of years that there has been an unprecedented attack on responsible journalism from all over the political spectrum, from all parts of the country, because of the increasingly divisive environment that exists in our country today.

Because things have become so polarized, responsible journalism has really taken an unfair hit. And so thats why in conjunction with radio, television and digital news industry influencers and executives, were making what we believe will be a very strong stand in defense of responsible journalism and to help the public understand better why it matters in their lives.

Media companies are doing, by and large, an outstanding job of calling the balls and strikes, keeping their noses down and not backing down when confronted with resistance from government officials and folks who dont want the public to know the real story. In many cases [journalists are] risking persecution, prosecution and jail time to make sure the public has access to the truth and knows whats going on in their communities.

To what extent is President Trump a factor?

It depends on whom you ask. Every time he or one of his surrogates uses the term fake news to counter a responsible news story that they just dont like, it certainly doesnt help our reputation with people who tend to believe as they do.

Its certainly a significant portion of the issue, but that in and of itself is not a problem. For years, the news media have not been held in the highest esteem, probably since the days following Watergate.

What are the task force's priorities?

Priority one is to work with members of our industry to make sure that they help us hone our message so that when we go to the public we can highlight responsible journalism on the national and particularly the local level because so many times all of the news media gets wrapped up in the same package with the same bow on it. That includes local journalists, who are exposing issues and problems that otherwise would not see the light of day. That exposure leads to solutions in many cases.

Sunlight always is the best antiseptic for corruption. RTDNA pledges to do a much better job of highlighting examples of where that works. We have always been a very strong voice and fierce advocate of the First Amendment and FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] issues.

With public mistrust of the media at an all-time high, how can the public be better enlisted to stand with the news media? What can media companies be doing more aggressively there?

We are fairly deep into the process of formulating plans to make sure that members of the public understand that when the local TV, radio or digital journalist is asking hard questions, its not because they want to be difficult or belligerent in any way, its because they want members of the community to know whats going on around them and shed more light.

Whats the message that the public needs to hear vis--vis press freedom?

The message they need to hear is that all journalists are doing their jobs, sometimes at great risk to themselves, to make sure that members of the public are part of a more informed and educated society that will help them make even better decisions and tangible improvements in their communities.

President Trump has flirted with revising libel laws in his tweets. Whats the appropriate response to those threats for now?

Theres only so much in reality that a president can do. There is no federal libel law. So its got to be a state-by-state basis. So wherever there is a movement in any state to change libel laws, thats a big First Amendment problem for us, and we, along with other journalism organizations and leaders and influencers in our industry, are willing and prepared to fight those efforts as best we possibly can. Thats an extreme danger to the First Amendment.

More:
RTDNA Ramping Up First Amendment Efforts - TV News Check

AWellesley student has been criticized for creating a database of professors accused of ableist microaggressions,but the criticismsmiss the point.

By Alli Guaman, Marymount Manhattan College

There has been plenty debate about whether or not the First Amendment protects false and misleading speech, specifically pertaining to the vague concept of what exactly should be considered misleading speech.

Currently, educational institutions are trying to determine where misgendering falls into the scheme of things; is misgendering an act of hate speech, or is it protected by the First Amendment?

Elizabeth Engel, a junior at Wellesley College, considers misgendering to be hate speech.

According to CampusReform, Engel, to combat what she says are ableist microagressions and to expose professors failure to respect student pronoun preferences, has created a public database of the professors in question.

The project, Wellesley Professors and Students Mental Health, which is no longer accepting responses at thistime, was launched the week of March 10th. Students who wished to send in reports of misgendering were able to fill out a questionnaire that consisted of questions such as, Does this professor respect student pronouns?

Naming the professors in the reported incidents of microaggression, says Engel, is a good way of addressing the issue. Yet, some argue that there isnt an issue to begin with, and that Engel is creating one by attacking speech that is protected by the Constitution.

However, according to an articlefrom theCongressional Research ServiceentitledFreedom of Speech and Press,The prohibition on abridgement of the freedom of speech is not absolute.

While the Courts decision to provide no protection for obscenity, child pornography and violent threats is obvious, many people overlook that the Court also provides minimal protection (if any) for cases of defamation, such as libel and slander.

Image via The Kansas City Star

Laws, a website that explainslegislation, saysthat the difference between slander and libel is in the publication of the speech; slander is an oral defamatory remark, while libel is a written one. Either way, both damage the reputation of the person involved and have the power to injure their character.

Based on its definition, misgendering clearly falls under the exceptions of the First Amendments freedom of speech. An individual has an entitlement to their preferred gender, much the same way everyone has the option to go by their real name or a nickname. When misgendering, the individual, obviously offended, is ridiculed, and whether there is a crowd to witness the incident or not, the individuals reputation and character is hurt.

Now, imagine a college student, someone who is well underway to becoming a productive member of society, being misgendered by a professor, someone a college student should look up to. The circumstances are much more painstaking. There is a clear audience: the classroom, peers and friends, and the perpetrator is supposed to be considered a role model.

In Professors: ask preferred pronouns, Jenny Roberts asked various college students how they feel about being misgendered in a school environment. Each students response mirrored the other; they had to struggle with huge bouts of anxiety and humiliation.

Its no wonder as to why.

The First Amendment Handbook, written by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, claims that a defamatory communication is one that exposes hatred, ridicule or contempt, lowers him in the esteem of his fellows, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his business and calling.

A misgendered student is exposed to all the things described above, and, since the humiliationoccurs inan environment that they have to frequent, which can be considered their business and calling, creating a safe space on school grounds should be any educational administrators priority.

Elizabeth Engel was right in exposing the professors who didnt consider their students mental well-being, which, Engel also points out, can worsen with the amount of daily disrespect misgendered students face. Millennials often have a better grasp on the complexities of gender, and, although college faculty may attempt to include measures to ensure the proper preferred pronouns are used, the younger generation must speak out when misgendering is committed.

There are other measures, however, that can be taken that do not immediately shame faculty members. The key is to prevent what is (hopefully) a gender misunderstanding before it escalates into something more vicious.

Asking for someones preferred pronouns isnt an interaction society is used to, so the younger generation must ensure that it becomes one.

Students, especially on the first day of classes, may introduce their preferred pronouns while introducing themselves. Of course, Ill admit this is scary. No one knows how accepting the professor will be, but this step is necessary to decide on further courses of action, such as creating a website that exposes misgendering like Engel, and to establish a gender-accepting atmosphere to begin with.

Communication is the younger generations tool. If an introduction isnt enough, students may want to speak with their professors after class. If youre blatantly being discriminated against and think its due to your preferred gender identity, speak up and make sure youre heard. Its a critical step to get the administration involved if it comes down to it.

Among the ideas you can suggest is the inclusion of a Preferred Gender Pronouns informative packet for faculty, such as this one implemented in Hampshire College, which can be distributed among administration upon entering or whenever they need a refresher on how to be considerate of students.

Teaching Tolerance promotes the best practices when it comes to creating an LGBTQ+ inclusive school climate. Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) Clubs are effective in encouraging students to be supportive of one another and bring the educational community, peers and faculty closer. Together, the GSA club can then find a way to promote the message of equality through the school newspaper, posters and pamphlets, and can even suggest queer literature (if its lacking) in the literature department.

From there, the inclusion of No-Bullying policies as well as other policies, which protect the LGBTQ+ community, destroy the misgendering of students in colleges.

Freedom of Speechgenderhate speechmisgendermisgendering

Read the original:
Does Misgendering a Student Violate the First Amendment? - Study Breaks

As we have noted several times before, American Family Radios Bryan Fischer holds an utterly incoherent view of the First Amendment that allows him to continually insist that it only applies to Congress except for all the times when he insists that it applies to all sorts of other government entities.

Amazingly, Fischers theory regarding the scope and meaning of the First Amendment grew even more incoherent when he said on his radio program yesterday that a failure by the Supreme Court to strike down a provision in a state constitution prohibiting the use of public funds to aid religious institutions would be a violation of the First Amendment.

Fischer was discussing the upcoming Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley case, which The Atlantic summarized thusly:

At first glance, Trinity Lutheran is about resurfacing childrens playgrounds. Missouris Scrap Tire Program offers state funds to nonprofit groups that replace playground surfaces with recycled rubber. The church applied to the program in 2012 to replace the gravel surface of its playground, but the state rejected its application, citing a clause in Missouris state constitution that bars the use of state funds directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion.

Trinity Lutheran Church argued that that provision violates the U.S. Constitutions First Amendment by discriminating against religious organizations. Missouri countered that because it does not favor or disfavor any church over another, it meets the Establishment Clauses standards.

In the past, Fischer has repeatedly stated that the First Amendment applies to Congress and Congress alone Since Congress is the only entity restrained by the First Amendment, Congress is the only entity that can violate it. He has also argued that states are allowed the freedom under the Founders Constitution to regulate religious expression anyway they choose.

Despite the fact that just last year, Fischer insisted that the First Amendment only applies to Congress and that states are free to regulate religious expression in any way they would like without any interference from the federal government, he is now bizarrely demanding that the federal government, via the Supreme Court, strike down this clause in the Missouri constitution on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment.

The First Amendment is addressed to Congress, Fischer said, and Congress has all legislative power, so this is essentially an amendment that applies to all of the federal government. The whole federal government is covered by the First Amendment. What is Congress not allowed to do, according to the First Amendment? It is flatly prohibited from doing what? From prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So what is the Supreme Court forbidden to do in the case of Trinity Lutheran Church vs Pauley? It is absolutely, totally, as an instrument of the federal government, it is forbidden by the Constitution to limit, to prohibit, to restrict the free exercise of religion in any way. What are they doing if they say to the school, Youre not eligible for any public help because you engage in religious expression? You cannot find a more direct and more egregious violation of the First Amendment than for the Supreme Court, an agency of the federal government, to prohibit their expression of religious liberty.

Not only is Fischer insisting that the First Amendment applies to entities beyond Congress, despite repeatedly asserting exactly the opposite in the past, he is now also declaring that the federal government must nullify a provision in a state constitution pertaining to religious expression despite having previously proclaimed that states are free to regulate religious expression in any way they would like without any interference from the federal government.

More:
Bryan Fischer's Incoherent Theory Of The First Amendment Grows ... - Right Wing Watch

ROGER WICKER

The First Amendment to our Constitution is a powerful expression of our right to the free exercise of religion. Americans can practice their faith without fear of persecution a freedom that is not found in all parts of the world.

For Christians in the United States, the prevalence of religious persecution worldwide is especially heartbreaking as we approach Easter Sunday. We are reminded of the suicide bomber who targeted Christians on Easter Sunday last year in Pakistan, killing more than 70 and injuring hundreds. Sadly, this violence is not isolated. Pakistan ranks fourth on this years World Watch List created by the nonprofit group Open Doors USA. The list names 50 countries that have extreme, very high and high persecution of Christians. North Korea ranked first.

I currently serve as chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, an agency comprised of members of Congress and federal officials to promote security and human rights in 57 countries in North America, Europe and Eurasia. The persecution of Christians and religious minorities remains a significant concern for the commission. In Syria, the Islamic State has waged a genocide against Christians, forcing thousands from their homes and destroying religious sites. In Russia, the governments recent attempt to ban Jehovahs Witnesses from practicing their faith is yet another affront to religious freedom in a country known for trampling human rights. Russias actions refute the international agreement that the U.S. Helsinki Commission seeks to uphold.

I have consistently supported legislative measures to protect Americans constitutional freedoms, including the exercise of religion. Political agendas should not encroach these rights. During the Obama administration, for example, I championed legislation that would allow military chaplains to refrain from performing marriage ceremonies if it would violate their conscience to do so. The religious expression of our military men and women is deserving of respect.

The same respect should be afforded to all Americans by our government agencies. I am encouraged by recent reports that President Trump is considering an executive order that would require federal agencies to protect the freedom of religion in their actions and policies. Earlier this month, I sent a letter with 17 other senators to President Trump expressing our support for this executive action and the need for federal agencies to follow the rule of law.

The letter reminds the President of attempts by the Obama administration to infringe on the rights of faith-based charities like the Little Sisters of the Poor. Obamacare forced the group either to pay a fine or offer services that they opposed for deeply held religious reasons. A Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed the religious liberty of the Little Sisters, just as it did for the owners of Hobby Lobby, who also raised religious objections to the health-care law.

Our founding documents built a foundation for religious liberty that is admired around the world. It is up to us to ensure that this foundation does not crumble.

Roger Wicker is a U.S. Senator from Mississippi. Contact him at 330 W. Jefferson St., Tupelo, MS 38803 or call (662) 844-5010.

The rest is here:
ROGER WICKER: Celebrate First Amendment religious freedoms ... - Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal

On March 29, 2017, in a unanimous ruling, the US Supreme Court ruled that a New York statute, which prohibits identifying a surcharge to customers for credit card payments, regulates speech and is therefore subject to heightened scrutiny. Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, No. 15-1391, 581 US __ (Mar. 29, 2017). The Court remanded the case to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to determine whether New Yorks statute violates the First Amendment. Although not a tax case, the decision likely implicates state and local tax laws that either prohibit, or require, taxpayers to identify taxes and fees in customer invoices.

Background. New York General Business Law 518 prohibits a seller from imposing a surcharge related to credit card fees. While the statute prohibits a retailer from advertising or separately stating a credit card surcharge, it does prohibit the retailer from charging a different price for credit card and cash sales.

Five New York businesses challenged the constitutionality of the statute, alleging it violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by regulating the businesss communication of prices, and by being unconstitutionally vague. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled for the petitioners, finding that the statute regulates speech, not conduct, and is therefore subject to heightened scrutiny. In striking down the New York as violating the First Amendment, the District Court for the Southern District of New York applied a strict scrutiny standard.

On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the District Court decision, abstaining from the First Amendment issue altogether, by concluding that the statute regulates conduct and not speech. The Supreme Court disagreed and remanded the case back to the Second Circuit for consideration of the First Amendment issue. In its opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: The law tells merchants nothing about the amount they are allowed to collect from a cash or credit card payer. Sellers are free to charge $10 for cash and $9.70, $10, $10.30, or any other amount for credit. What the law does regulate is how sellers may communicate their prices. Expressions Hair Design, at *9.

Eversheds Sutherland Observation The Supreme Courts ruling clarifies that laws regulating how a seller communicates its prices are subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny standard, making it more likely that these laws will not pass constitutional muster.

Background on First Amendment Scrutiny. To apply heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment, a law must regulate speech and not conduct. United States v. OBrien, 391 US 367 (1968). In Expressions Hair Design, the Supreme Court found that simply because a statute regulates conduct does not mean it has no impact on speech. The decision signifies a shift towards more stringent analysis of statutes regulating commercial speech under the guise of regulating conduct. The Supreme Court concluded that regulating the relationship between a sticker price and the price charged means the statute is more than a pricing regulationthe communication of prices constitutes speech. Expressions Hair Design, at *8, n.2, 9.

Tax Statutes and the First Amendment. Although the Expressions case dealt with a surcharge, its reasoning is applicable to state and local tax statutes that require or restrict a taxpayers ability to separately identify taxes and fees on customer invoices. The Expressions ruling signifies that state and local statutes that bar truthful and non-deceptive speech will be subject to heightened scrutiny.

Examples of Challenges to Tax Statues Regulating Speech

In BellSouth v. Farris, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that Kentuckys telecommunications services tax, which banned providers from collecting the tax directly from consumers and separately stating the tax, was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. BellSouth Telecommns., Inc. v. Farris, 542 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2008). The Sixth Circuit concluded that Kentuckys ban did not prohibit the pass through of the tax, but only the telecommunications providers truthful line item stating the tax was charged. Since the speech regulated was truthful and not misleading, the court held that the statute failed heightened scrutiny.

Eversheds Sutherland Observation Following Bellsouth, taxpayers in other states have obtained rulings allowing them to pass through the economic impact of taxes. Taxpayers have also obtained rulings that statutes requiring taxpayers to separately state certain taxes are not required to do so, in certain situations.

Other courts, however, have upheld limited restrictions on taxpayers ability to separately identify taxes and fees. For example, the Washington Supreme Court concluded that businesses may not add the Washington Business & Occupation (B&O) tax as a separate charge to its sales prices, regardless of any prior disclosure to customers. Peck v. AT&T Mobility et al., 375 P.3d 304 (2012). But see Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet Inc. 157 P.3d 847 (Wash. 2007) (stating that sellers were prohibited from passing through B&O charges, unless they were specifically included in the negotiated final price of the item sold).

Unlike Washington, Texas has allowed surcharging the Texas Franchise Tax if certain conditions are met. Tex. Policy Letter Ruling No. 201008847L (Aug. 6, 2010). Similarly, in Mosser Const., Inc. v. City of Toledo, the Ohio Court of Appeals concluded that the Ohio Commercial Activity Tax does not prohibit a contractor from including the cost of tax in the prices it charges for its services. 2007 Ohio 4910 (Ohio App. 2007).

View original post here:
US Supreme Court's Ruling Bolsters Taxpayers' First Amendment Right To Pass Through Fees (and Taxes) - Lexology (registration)