Mediaboss Marketing

The ACLU of Kansas says a new policy adopted by the Shawnee Mission School Board may violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. It has sent a letter to Board President Sarah Goodburn, urging the board to rescind the policy.

In its letter, the ACLU highlights an exchangeGoodburn had with a parent at a board meeting May 22. At that meeting, resident Jeff Passanraised concerns about an alleged conflict of interest by board member Deb Zila, involving Zila's vote to approve a new district contract with insurance broker CBIZ. CBIZ employs Zila's daughter.

After naming Zila, Passan was interrupted by Goodburn.

"You got this beforehand? What we can and cannot talk about in open forum? Naming specific people is really not allowed," Goodburn said.

She was apparently referring to the Board's recently modified guidelines for speakers at a meeting. It says, in part, that speakers should be "civil, use respectful language and refrain from any personal attacks." The policy also states "matters related to a specific student or employee" should not be discussed.

In a video of the May 22 meeting, Passan looks briefly flummoxed, then responds to Goodburn:

"So, if in the future there is a particular vote which I, as a person who lives in the Shawnee Mission School District, disagree with and want to publicly ask about that, am I not allowed to do that?" he asked.

Goodburn can be heard on the video responding to Passan, repeating the wording of the guidelines. After Passaninterjects that he is "being civil and respectful", Goodburn says: "You can say a 'board member' but a specific board member you cannot say."

The Shawnee Mission Post reported Goodburn later acknowledged Passan had not technically been in violation of the speaker guidelines because Zilais not an employee of the district.

The ACLU, in its letter, says that's not good enough.

"People have a well-established First Amendment right to criticize both elected officials and other public servants," the letter says (emphasis by the ACLU). "By prohibiting commenters from discussing "matters related to a specific student or employee", the Board's current guidelines are overbroad and inconsistent with the First Amendment."

The letter ends by urging the board to "remove the guidelines" and "in the future, refrain from admonishing commenters who mention board members by name."

In an emailed statement, a district spokesperson wrote the district had received the ACLU's letter.

"As the Board continues its review of draft guidelines," the spokesperson wrote, "it will take the comments in the letter into consideration as it balances the privacy rights of individual students and employees with the free speech rights of individual citizens."

Kyle Palmer is KCUR's morning newscaster. You can follow him on Twitter @kcurkyle.

See more here:
ACLU Says Shawnee Mission School Board Policy Violates First ... - KCUR

Quad-City Times Editorial Page Editor Jon Alexander was recognized with a national award for editorials written in 2016 pushing for government transparency.

He received the APME First Amendment Award, competing against work by newspapers nationwide in the 40,000 to 149,999 circulation category. His editorials, published in early 2016, pushed against the practice of closed-door meetings by Davenport City Council, which are now open to the media and the public.

The 2017 Associated Press Media Editors Awards were given to watchdog journalism that saved lives, exposed bias, held government officials accountable and shed light on hidden practices.

This is a huge honor to be recognized by our peers on a national stage for doing what I believe to be one of the key roles of newspapers, to advocate for our readers, Quad-City Times Executive Editor Autumn Phillips said.

Alexander will receive the award during a reception in October in Washington, D.C., at APMEs annual News Leadership Conference.

Other recipients of the First Amendment Award this year were The (Charleston, S.C.) Post and Courier, in the 150,000 and over category and the Peoria Journal Star, in the 39,999 and under circulation category.

The Chicago Tribune earned the grand prize in Public Service for Dangerous Doses, which exposed pharmacies that were dispensing drug combinations that could cause harm or death.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune and Springfield (Ill.) State Journal-Register also received top honors in Public Service.

The annual APME contest honors excellence and innovation in journalism and reflects the Associated Press Media Editors mission of fostering newsroom leaders, empowering journalists to succeed and cultivating ideas that work. Teams of judges are comprised of APME national board members and top editors at The Associated Press. Phillips is on the board of APME but was not a judge in the First Amendment contest.

"I believe quality journalism and the commitment to the communities we serve is central to our newspaper's success," said Publisher Deb Anselm. "A big part of that is to watch out for this community by exercising our First Amendment Rights."

Continue reading here:
Quad-City Times wins national First Amendment Award - Quad City Times

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler speaks during a press conference on January 17, 2017 in Portland. Don Ryan / AP

"It may be tempting to shut down speech we disagree with, but once we allow the government to decide what we can say, see, or hear, or who we can gather with, history shows us that the most marginalized will be disproportionately censored and punished for unpopular speech," said the organization in a statement immediately following Wheeler's call to block the parades.

"The mayor is not just anyone on the street, he's a government official who has to uphold the Constitution," said Mathew dos Santos, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon. "And he's not doing that," he said.

"Portland has a proud history of protest. I am a firm supporter of the First Amendment, no matter the views expressed. I believe we had a case to make about the threats to public safety posed by this rally at this place and at this time. My job is to protect the safety of everyone... protesters, counter-protesters, and bystanders alike," said Wheeler in a

Alt-right groups have scheduled a "Trump Free Speech Rally," on June 4. A "March against Sharia" event was scheduled for June 10 but organizers decided to cancel the rally in Portland and move it to Seattle instead.

Organizers felt the city was no longer safe for them.

"Due to Mayor Wheeler's inflammatory comments and what we feel is an incitement of violence, he has shamefully endangered every scheduled participant. Consequently, in order to ensure the safety of those who had planned on attending, we have taken the decision to cancel the Portland March Against Sharia," wrote the organization planning the march in a

June 4th parade organizer Joey Gibson said the mayor "needs to sit down and take a minute and listen," and feels that he is trying to "pin" Jeremy Christian on his movement.

Christian, who was arraigned on

The City of Portland has already

Wheeler also urged the federal government to follow in his footsteps and revoke federal permits issued to the group.

But the U.S. General Services Administration, charged with issuing permits, announced on Wednesday that it would allow the parades.

"All rules and regulations were followed by the applicant for the permit, including the timeframe for review. Since the permit was lawfully obtained to assemble at this federal location, GSA has no basis to revoke the permit," the agency said in a statement.

Revoking permits amounts to government suppression of speech, which has always been illegal, dos Santos said. You cannot withhold permits based on people's viewpoints, he said.

The case is a mirror image of another First Amendment battle out near Chicago 40 years ago.

In 1977, a neo-Nazi organization chose to stage their parade in the suburban Chicago town of Skokie, which at the time was home to thousands of Holocaust survivors.

Parade goers were slated to wear Nazi uniforms and emulate salutes and anti-Jewish chants from Nazi Germany.

Outraged community members tried to put a stop to the parade by using the same arguments set forth by Wheeler. The group said the parade promotes hate speech that would inflict emotional distress upon survivors of the Holocaust.

A girl leaves a message at a makeshift memorial for two men on May 29, 2017 in Portland. The men were killed on a commuter train while trying to stop another man from harassing two young women who appeared to be Muslim. Terray Sylvester / Reuters

Ultimately the Nazi group, represented by the ACLU, won at the Supreme Court level and was legally allowed to march under the first amendment. The group ended up holding a rally downtown instead.

"Part of the problem with hate speech is that it's in the eye of the beholder," said Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. "There is no neutral way to decide what hate speech is and courts will not even attempt it," he said.

The alt-right group has not made any indication that they are planning to incite imminent danger or violence during the parade, which may be questionable under the law, he said. "The idea that you can ban speech because it's offensive or may cause anxiety is not consistent with the first amendment."

Thus far, the alt-right group has not brought suit against the city for revoking their permits, but if the situation does arise, it's an open and shut case, Stone said.

"It's inconceivable to me that a court would uphold the mayor's argument," he said. "This is long standing, well-settled law, and the mayor has it completely wrong," he said.

The rest is here:
Does the First Amendment Protect Alt-Right Parades in Portland? - NBCNews.com

Donald Trump calls the press 'the enemy.' If that's the case, there's a lot more people on that list, says columnist E.J. Montini.

Criticisms of Ducey and Trump are rooted in muddled thinking about the First Amendment's free speech protections.(Photo: Photo: Getty Images)

Gov. Doug Ducey was right to veto the legislation (Senate Bill 1384) limiting the ability of school administrators to regulate the content of student newspapers. Much of the criticism of the veto was rooted in muddled thinking about the First Amendments free speech protections.

The First Amendment is a negative injunction: Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...

That gives Americans the right to write or say what they want. But it doesnt guarantee an audience. Or a publisher.

At the high school level, the publisher of a student newspaper is clearly the school. The vetoed bill would have sharply curtailed the authority a publisher usually has over content. Administrators could only exercise oversight over material that is defamatory, violates privacy or law, or creates an imminent danger of inciting disorder or unlawful conduct.

Those are all nebulous standards, subject to judgment, disagreement and litigation. The bill stated that the school isnt liable for content published in the student media, but thats a doubtful immunity.

The Arizona Constitution is highly protective of the right to sue. Courts are likely to look askance at letting the adults in the equation, and the only deep pockets in the picture, off the hook.

Schools exercising the usual authority of a publisher isnt an infringement on the First Amendment rights of student journalists. If the publisher of this newspaper took the advice of some of you and discontinued this column, my First Amendment rights wouldnt have been violated.

MONTINI: Ducey praises 'free speech' law that could put you in jail

A school punishing a student for content published on a private blog or Facebook might implicate First Amendment rights. But not publishing something in a publication paid for by the school doesnt. Thats exercising the prerogatives of a publisher.

This is a minor point, but not an irrelevant one. One of the challenges our schools face is maintaining an orderly learning environment. Schools arent helped by the Legislature concocting another legal thicket for them to negotiate.

Its unfair to Ducey to bring Donald Trump into the conversation at this point. Ducey behaved responsibly with his veto. Trump is behaving irresponsibly in his war with certain media. Nevertheless, much of the commentary regarding Trumps war with the media is also rooted in muddled thinking about the First Amendment.

The New York Times has a First Amendment right to write what it wants about Trump. And Trump has a First Amendment right to say what he thinks about what The Times writes about him.

Trump exercising his First Amendment rights doesnt curtail or threaten The Times First Amendment rights.

Some commentators make a more subtle point. By attacking certain media, they assert, Trump is undermining the role of the press that the First Amendment was intended to protect.

This is a historical miscue. At the time the First Amendment was adopted, the press, mostly newspapers and pamphleteers, were fiercely and transparently partisan.

The notion of the media as neutral and objective transmitters of information is a modern-era pretense. And the American people have never bought it.

In 2013, Gallup asked how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media such as newspapers, TV, and radio when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all? Well before Trump twitter storms became an important element of public discourse, 55 percent of respondents answered not very much or none at all.

There have been reports that the Trump administration was mulling abandoning the daily White House briefing or even booting reporters out of the White House, and this has been decried as an attack on the First Amendment. This has been the most muddled thinking of all.

Nothing in the First Amendment guarantees self-selected media office space in the White House or an administration spokesman to play gotcha with on a daily basis. Getting rid of both might reduce the herd mentality and emphasis on gotcha journalism and produce more diverse and substantive reporting.

Trump is frequently reckless and irresponsible in his attacks on the media. But so long as we are free to write and say that, the First Amendment is not under siege.

Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com.

MORE FROM ROBB:

Attorneys fleece Target for $18.5 million

Tom Horne's case proves the system is broken

There's a better way to boost teacher pay

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2sdReli

Read this article:
Robb: No, your First Amendment rights aren't being attacked - AZCentral.com

Late last month Republican state Sen. Jim Honeyford, R-Yakima, introduced a bill that would make wearing masks, hoods, and bandanas around your face a gross misdemeanor. Wow.

The bill was written in response to the May Day protests that happened in Olympia this year which resulted in damage (perpetuated by rioters) to property downtown.

There are some exceptions included in the bill: Halloween costumes, religious garb, and people protecting themselves against cold weather would all be exempt from arrest.

Embolden violence?

Honeyford says that he believes anonymity emboldens protesters to commit violence under the guise of political speech, as their identities are protected. Protesters, he says, have become a threat to public safety.

First of all, lets all remember that the First Amendment of the Constitution the supreme law of the land protects the right of protesters to peaceably assemble. Of course, the bill is meant to target the not-so-peaceful participants, but Sen. Honeyford has failed to recognize that many other protesters (who are not rioters) also wear face-coverings during protests in order to protect themselves from potential retaliation.

Therefore, says the American Civil Liberties Union, this bill is a direct infringement upon First Amendment rights.

Encroaching upon constitutional rights isnt even the most annoying thing about Sen. Honeyfords absurd proposal. Like the vast majority of Republicans, Sen. Honeyford is an avid supporter of gun rights. As we all know, the Second Amendment protects gun ownership.

Glaring hypocrisy

Before I go any further, I want to ensure all of you who are now red in the face that I am personally in favor of the Second Amendment as well, regardless of how liberal I am on other issues. What I am not in favor of is hypocrites.

The bill reads that it is meant to target a small but dangerous group of individuals who conceal their identities while committing illegal acts and that it is common sense legislation. Sounds familiar, right? Pretty bold of him to use those arguments, unless he really hasnt made the connection which says a lot about the man.

Democrats dont even have to think of a response to this bill because they can just borrow from the other side. All people shouldnt be punished for the actions of a few, The majority of [these people] are peaceful citizens, Criminals are going to commit crimes regardless of the law, This right protected by the Constitution, you anti-American scumbags!

Like I said, Im not attacking your right to own guns Im just pointing out the glaring hypocrisy.

In addition to claiming that theyre dedicated to upholding the Constitution, Republicans also claim to want to stop overreach of the government. Scale it back, they say. Government needs to keep its nose out of our business! Does that only apply only to conservative business though? Or will Republicans fight for the rights of all Americans? Shouldnt that be their platform if they truly want to make America great again?

I am relieved to see, however, that no other Republicans have (yet) signed on to the bill as a sponsor. This is somewhat uplifting and gives me a tiny, tiny bit of hope. Sen. Honeyford is facing an uphill battle in order to even get a hearing at this point. Regardless, if I have learned anything in the last six months its to never dismiss anything, no matter how ridiculous.

I am personally in favor of the Second Amendment as well, regardless of how liberal I am on other issues. What I am not in favor of is hypocrites.

Stay on topic - This helps keep the thread focused on the discussion at hand. If you would like to discuss another topic, look for a relevant article.

Share with Us - We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article, and smart, constructive criticism.

Be Civil - It's OK to have a difference in opinion but there's no need to be a jerk. We reserve the right to delete any comments that we feel are spammy, off-topic, or reckless to the community.

Be proactive - Use the 'Flag as Inappropriate' link at the upper right corner of each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Read more:
Don't sacrifice 1st Amendment rights for ridiculous proposal - Chinook Observer