Mediaboss Marketing

By Richard Reeb

Congress shall make no law . . . 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.

Surely, the freedom guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution are a timely topic given the lengths to which boorish behavior is being taken by some, while claiming legal protection. Could angry and unreasoning mobs really be what the Founders had in mind when they penned those immortal words?

The key word in the First Amendment is peaceably. As the Constitution establishes a government for the United States of America, it places all discussion within that framework. That is, public oral, written or electronic communications must serve the purposes and follow the procedures laid down by our supreme law and cannot justifiably be in conflict with them.

Put another way, public discussion is justified so long as it is about how, not whether, to achieve our goals as a nation. Speech or publication that aims to undermine or overthrow our form of government is rightly denominated as unconstitutional and certainly seditious.

Our ancestors revolted against a despotic government, engaging in illegal and violent means, including prolonged warfare, to end British imperial authority in the 13 American colonies. But the sequel was the establishment of republican governments in all of them and, ultimately an effective federal government.

The American Revolution was legitimate only to the extent it brought self-government to the North American continent, but not to institutionalize revolution. To forestall that possibility, frequent elections of the peoples representatives were adopted to secure the consent of the governed.

The most severe test of our constitutional framework came in 1860 when seven, ultimately 11, Southern states attempted to secede from the federal union. When rebel forces fired on Fort Sumpter in 1861, the situation changed from one of extreme agitation to full-scale war. Fortunately, that rebellion was crushed. But unless the nation learns the appropriate lessons from the Civil War, we will not have benefited.

Before the conflict began, mostly Southern politicians were not only declaring a right to block the enforcement of federal law and even the Constitution, but asserting that the Declaration of Independence was based on a self-evident lie. In their defense of chattel slavery, they struck at the central idea of the American Republic that held that all human beings are equally endowed by God with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They even said that such a proposition was unscientific, arguing that the emerging idea of the survival of the fittest applied not just to species but to the races of mankind as well.

Slaverys apologists argued that Caucasians had established their superiority and consequent right to rule over inferior races. Accordingly, the Confederate Constitution distinguished itself from the U.S. Constitution by inserting the word slave without apology and avoided the latters more ambiguous word person.

A comprehensive account of our nations greatest crisis is possible only if we recall that open rebellion was preceded by seditious and even heretical speech. If one denies, as Confederates did, the truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, it is just a matter of time and opportunity before our form of government is at risk.

It is striking that the angry left in America, while professing dedication to equality, denies that our ancestors or their descendants shared that dedication. The claim is that the very existence of slavery proved their hypocrisy, if not their evil intentions for persons of African descent.

The steady progress of justice that ended both slavery and compulsory racial segregation gives the lie to that claim. Of course, if the left is wrong in its diagnosis, America deserves not only the benefit of the doubt but our peoples full dedication. Mimicking their Confederate mentors, todays progressive left is arguing that America is based on a lie. Because its minions believe that lie, they feel free to reject any and all authority that stands in their way.

It never made sense to hold that those who speak or write about our Constitution with contempt are entitled to the full protection secured by the First Amendment. The germ of rebellion against it lies with the heresy that acts of the freely chosen representatives of the people can be defied at will.

We should certainly hear the arguments of the Republics critics if we are to know what they are about, but we are not obliged to be shouted down, driven from our public (and even private) places or put in fear of our lives. The First Amendment, properly understood, absolutely favors peaceable speech. The alternative is mob rule.

Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow Community College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of "Taking Journalism Seriously: 'Objectivity' as a Partisan Cause" (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net

See the original post here:
What our First Amendment freedoms are for - Desert Dispatch

Amazon has abandoned its legal battle to protect its Alexa assistant with First Amendment rights for now at least. The company filed a motion against a police search warrant in an Arkansas murder case earlier this month, but has now dropped the case after the defendant agreed to hand over the data contained on his Echo speaker to police.

In documents filed last Monday, defendant James Andrew Bates said that he was willing to allow law enforcement officials to review information contained on his Amazon Echo speaker, before the company handed the data over on Friday. Bates has pleaded not guilty to the murder of Victor Collins, who was found dead in Bates hot tub in November 2015.

Amazon said its search results were constitutionally protected opinion

Police had issued a warrant to seize subscriber and account information from Bates Echo, as well as all communication and transaction history from the device. Amazon provided the former, but argued against providing communication data, claiming that voice interactions with Alexa were protected by the First Amendment. That includes Alexas replies to a user Amazon claims that ranked search results are constitutionally protected opinion. Precedent for that argument was set by a 2014 case in which Google search results were classified as free speech by a San Francisco court, after a news website complained that its own pages were too far down the companys listings.

Amazon argued that police didnt have enough of a compelling argument in Bates case for it to hand over the data, with officials unable to prove that any potential information would not be available anywhere else. It remains to be seen whether Bates Echo does indeed have any pertinent information a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday this week. The defendants acquiescence also means that we dont yet have a definitive answer on whether Alexa is indeed protected by the First Amendment.

Go here to see the original:
Amazon gives up fight for Alexa's First Amendment rights after defendant hands over data - The Verge

'The Bell Curve' Author Charles Murray (Flickr)

Allison Stanger, Professor of International Politics and Economics, was to moderate.However, the event did not proceed as planned; students at the talk shouted Murray down and made it impossible for him to speak.He and Stanger moved the discussion to a different location, where the interview was live-streamed.That, unfortunately, was not the end of it.When they left, Stanger and Murray were confronted with angry protesters who tried to block their way.A melee ensued, during which Stanger was injured.

Stanger posted a commentary about the incident on Facebook.We cannot improve on her words.

I apologize for the impersonal and lengthy nature of this communication, but I wanted to provide a general response to

Posted by Allison Stanger onSaturday, March 4, 2017

Stanger and Middlebury responded appropriately, repudiating the violent and disruptive protests and reaffirming their commitment to the free exchange of ideas. Their improvisation allowed the talk to proceed, albeit in a lesser forum and format.

This incident, and earlier ones at Berkeley, University of Washington, and other institutions, reveal a disturbing trend, and a lack of understanding of what forms of protest the First Amendment does, and does not, protect.

Briefly, the Constitution protects the right to peaceful protests.Institutions and government officials are permitted to adopt neutral rules to regulate where and when such protests take place, as long as they are applied consistently and do not unnecessarily interfere with the ability of protesters to convey their message to their intended audience.

However, the First Amendment DOES NOT allow protesters to prevent someone else from speaking, and it does not sanction violence or intimidation. Middlebury, as a private institution, is not constrained by the First Amendment and has considerable leeway in setting and enforcing its own rules.Even at a public university, however, administrators would be justified in removing and disciplining students who disrupt a public event.Any institution, whether public or private, is entitled to rely on law enforcement to prevent and respond to violence or threats of violence, and protesters who engage in such behavior do so at their peril.

Perhaps more important, protesters need to understand a more basic principle: the right to speech exists for all, or for none. Anyone who wishes to exercise that right is obliged to acknowledge that others enjoy equivalent rights.

Once you violate that principle, speech rights for all are at risk.

See the rest here:
Violent Protestors Misunderstand the First Amendment - Blogging Censorship (blog)

The Daily Press was named a finalist Tuesday in the annual Scripps Howard Awards.

The entry, which detailed years of reporting, utilizing and defending access to public information, was honored in the category of Distinguished Service to First Amendment. The Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette-Mail won the category, and the Dallas Morning News was honored alongside the Daily Press as a finalist.

"The mission of a news organization is simple: We are the community's watchdog. We don't work for the government. We work for the people," said Marisa Porto, publisher and editor-in-chief of the Daily Press Media Group. "We keep an eye on what local government is doing and how it is spending taxpayer dollars. That is our responsibility, and we take it seriously at the Daily Press.

"I couldn't be more proud of this team and the work it does every day."

The Daily Press entry included stories in which the reporting hinged on documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Those stories included an attempt to gain access to a compiled database of court records, and investigation into how money was used in an undercover police operation, and an examination of a private loan guarantee made by the local airport commission.

The 375-page entry encompassed more than four years of reporting and included dozens of stories and editorials in which access to public information was essential.

"Recognizing the best journalism in the country is a fundamental mission of Scripps Howard Foundation," said Liz Carter, president and CEO of the foundation, in a news release.

"We commend the work these journalists did in 2016 and the impact their words, videos and interactive elements will continue to have across our communities."

The Scripps Howard Awards have been handed out for 64 years and honor excellence in journalism. The awards ceremony will be held April 12 in Cincinnati.

Read the original post:
Daily Press a finalist for national First Amendment honor - Daily Press

On Feb. 24, Donald Trump told the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that no one loves the First Amendment more than he does. One would suppose that he is claiming to love the First Amendment as written by our founding fathers in 1789.

On Feb. 24, Donald Trump told the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that no one loves the First Amendment more than he does. One would suppose that he is claiming to love the First Amendment as written by our founding fathers in 1789. 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. However, when citizens around the country gathered by the thousands to protest and hold the new administration accountable for their actions during his first weeks in office, they denied that we were exercising our freedom of speech and right to assemble. They accused protesters of being paid. This was an attempt to suppress the First Amendment right of free speech. When the free press holds the Trump administration accountable for their actions, Mr. Trump calls it fake news, the opposition party and the enemy of the people. He claims it is his First Amendment right to suppress news organizations if they hold his administration accountable rather than praising their actions and policies. One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, held the opposite view saying, Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. On Feb. 24, the administration made a move toward suppressing freedom of the press when they had Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, hold a private news briefing referred to as a gaggle. Right-leaning news organizations like Steve Bannons Breitbart were included, while those labeled by the administration to be fake news such as CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico among others were pointedly excluded. When the courts prohibited the administration from fulfilling the campaign promise to institute a Muslim ban by prohibiting travel from seven Muslim countries, unless the traveler was Christian, they claimed the ban had nothing to do with religion. And yet, according to a report on March 3 by National Public Radio, some travelers with Visas and even U.S. citizens continue to be detained for extensive questioning at some airports. Mohammed Alis widow and son were asked if they are Muslim, and then held for two hours. In his address to a joint session of Congress on Feb. 28, Trump said, Those given the high honor of admission to the United States should support this country and love its people and its values. The administration is expected to issue a new executive order during the first week of March. This is being done under the guise of public safety. But this ban most certainly undermines our free exercise of religion. When the founding fathers added the first amendment to the constitution they did not intend for it to be used as a tool hundreds of years later to impose on the people a personal idea of freedom of speech; a personal idea of freedom of the press; a personal idea of freedom of religion. If this administration succeeds in turning the First Amendment to their own purposes, these freedoms will be lost to we the people. Today I am exercising my First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. I trust that all of our First Amendment rights will remain forever available to all citizens of the United States.

Susanna Smith writes a column for the Neosho Daily News.

View post:
SUSANNA SMITH: First Amendment rights under attack - Neosho Daily News