Mediaboss Marketing

It has been a hell of a week for free speech in the state of California.

First, the state's Attorney General leveled 15 felony charges against the pro-life activists behind the hidden camera investigation of Planned Parenthood's fetal tissue scandal.

Now California is set to pass a bill that would amend current state law to make it illegal to knowing engage in the distribution of so-called fake news if, "those news stories later have an impact on an election," conservative columnist Emily Zanotti writes.

In other words, the California Assembly would like to have the power to punish hoax reporting if said "fake news" is determined to have had an affect an election. The bill provides no details about who gets to determine what is and isn't "fake news." There are also no details regarding how a story would even qualify for that title.

Basically, it's a mess.

The bill is very real. Here is the relevant portion dealing with "fake news":

Section 18320.5 is added to the Elections Code, to read:

18320.5.

It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following:

(a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election.

(b) Any candidate for election to public office.

There are so many problems with the proposal, including that it raises several obvious questions about the First Amendment and free speech.

"Political advocacy is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has been adamant that political advertisingeven when it involves smears, exaggerations and "poetic license"is included under the umbrella of 'political advocacy,'" Zanotti noted.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Bannon received a $191,000 salary for his work as Breitbart's chairman, a role he left in August.

03/31/17 8:31 PM

Then there's the separate issue that "fake news" doesn't even seem to affect elections, at least not on the presidential scale, according to a study by researchers at Stanford and New York University.

Anyway, good luck making it illegal to tell a lie during an election, California.

View original post here:
California takes another swing at the First Amendment - Washington Examiner

NorthJersey 1:56 p.m. ET March 31, 2017

Visitors walk around the Liberty Bell at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia in this file photo.(Photo: JESSICA GRIFFIN/AP)

Press freedom in this country dates back to its founding. It is one of the bedrocks of democracy, and in these days it is as critically important as it has ever been.

Thats why it was refreshing news this week when Superior Court Judge Lawrence DeBello ruled in favor of The Trentonian newspaper, and ordered that a previous censorship order against the publication be thrown out. DeBellos order is a reaffirmation for those who care about the First Amendment, and a victory for news organizations everywhere who remain committed to getting to the truth. DeBello had agreed to hear the case in January, saying he wished to weigh the propriety of the order.

We want to thank Judge DeBello for affirming and protecting important First Amendment values today, said David Bralow, an attorney for The Trentonian. From the time that the Trentonian learned of the unfortunate order, it has expended significant effort to protect its and its reporters' First Amendment rights. We are vindicated today.

The newspaper was hit with the highly unusual prior restraint order last October when, at the request of the state Attorney Generals Office, another judge, Craig Corson, issued a temporary injunction that prohibited The Trentonian from publishing articles based on a confidential child-abuse complaint obtained by one of its reporters, Isaac Avilucea.

Among other sensitive details, the document lays out how a 5-year-old boy from Trenton went to school carrying 30 packets of heroin in his lunchbox one day and crack cocaine in his school folder six weeks later. The newspaper has continued to publish stories about the case, questioning why the boy was allowed to remain with his family after the first incident was reported to authorities. The boy is now in foster care.

Some legal perspective is needed to realize how important this case was, not only for press freedom in New Jersey, but for journalists everywhere. Judicial orders imposing a prior restraint on a news organization prohibiting it from publishing information on a specific topic are extremely rare in the United States. Attorneys forTheTrentonianand one of its reporters argued in January that Corson did not take into account some oftheU.S. Supreme Court's most important rulings ontheFirstAmendment, which guaranteesthefreedom ofthepress.

One of the most famous of those cases is the landmark 1971 decision, New York Times Co. v. United States,where theU.S. Supreme Court declined a request from President Richard Nixons administration to prohibitTheNew York Times andTheWashington Post from publishing stories based onthePentagon Papers, a classified study oftheVietnam War.

Eli Segal, another attorney who argued the case for The Trentonian, argued back in January that censoring the press is more serious than a criminal penalty because it doesnt just chill speech; it freezes it altogether. Segal also citedthePentagon Papers case duringthehearing and argued thattheTrenton child-abuse case continued to be worththe publics attention. New Jersey state officials had not clearedthevery high bar required bytheU.S. Supreme Court for censorship ofthepress, he said.

Courts have allowed prior restraints on news organizations to prevent the publication of troop movements during wartime and when a magazine attempted to publish the secret to building a hydrogen bomb. Clearly, the case involving the Trentonian did not rise to that level.

Press censorship is serious business. History is littered with examples of how the censorship of the press leads, sooner or later, to the stifling of speech for all, and the limiting of basic freedoms of citizens.

We dont need to go down that road. We have come too far, and value our liberty too dearly, to start surrendering First Amendment rights now.

Read or Share this story: https://njersy.co/2nI2h6f

Follow this link:
Editorial: First Amendment victory in Trenton - NorthJersey.com

WASHINGTONCiting a climate of distrust and growing attacks on journalism, the Radio Television Digital News Association has announced it has created the Voice of the First Amendment Task Force. This task force, it said, will react to threats to the First Amendment as well as support journalists and educate the public about the importance of a free press to the U.S. democracy.

Among its first efforts, members of the task force are expected to meet with leaders from radio and TV station groups across the country at the upcoming 2017 NAB Show in Las Vegas. They will discuss recent threats and develop a plan to protect and promote the role of journalism.

If the public comes to believe the news media are the enemy of the people, one of our countrys most fundamental rights could be lost, said Task Force Co-Chair Sheryl Worsley. Freedom of the press helps ensure a check on government and helps America stay free.

Station groups interested in reaching out to the task force can contact them at pressfreedom@rtdna.org or call RTDNA Executive Director Mike Cavender at 770-823-1760.

Continue reading here:
RTDNA Launches Voice of the First Amendment Task Force ... - TV Technology

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Planned Parenthood and the First Amendment Wall Street Journal (subscription) If the videographers at the Center for Medical Progress had wanted to avoid prosecution, they should have secretly recorded conversations with Michael Flynn. But instead they chose to conduct guerrilla journalism against Planned Parenthood and its ... and more »

More:
Planned Parenthood and the First Amendment - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute wants to know why device searches at the border have skyrocketed since the beginning of this year. As was reported earlier this month, the number of devices searched in February 2017 equals the total searched in all of 2015. Even last year's jump from 5,000 to 25,000 searches looks miniscule in comparison. Border device searches are on track to more than double last year's numbers. (h/t The Intercept)

The Knight First Amendment Institute filed FOIA requests with the DHS, ICE, and CBP for "statistical, policy, and assessment records" related to the steep increase in device searches. It's also looking for any legal interpretations the agencies might have on hand that explain their take on the Supreme Court's Riley decision, which instituted a warrant requirement for cell phone searches.

It asked for expedited handling given the significant public interest in all things immigration and border-related, which has climbed along with the device searches thanks to several presidential directives, some of which are being challenged in court.

As the lawsuit [PDF] notes, the public definitely should be apprised of the policies and procedures governing border device searches. If there's been an increase in searches, the public should be made aware of why this is happening, as well as their rights and remedies when it comes to entering or leaving the United States. The suit also points out that several recent reports suggest devices have been taken by government agents by force, or "consent" obtained through threats of further detention and/or violence.

Naturally, the FOIA requests have been greeted with non-responses and indifference by these agencies, which has prompted the Institute's FOIA lawsuit. The FOIA requesters seek the court's assistance in pushing the agencies into quicker responses. To date, it's received nothing but acknowledgements. There have been no estimates of time needed to fulfill the requests or any indication the agencies have even begun searching for responsive documents.

Of course, this immediate lawsuit strategy could backfire. The government has been pushing back against FOIA requesters' lawsuits filed shortly after the statutory response period has expired. It claims these immediate lawsuits are nothing more than certain requesters hoping to push their requests to the front of the line, rather than allow theirs to be ignored/mishandled/stonewalled in the order it was received. Of course, the government's arguments would be more sympathetic if multiple federal agencies didn't repeatedly engage in these tactics and do whatever they can to keep requested documents out of requesters' hands.

Read the original:
First Amendment Institute Sues Government Over Records Related ... - Techdirt