Mediaboss Marketing

James Tracywas exposed on CNN in 2013 by Anderson Cooper, who branded him a conspiracy theorist for his investigation of anomalies surrounding the alleged Sandy Hook Newtown school shooting as portrayed in the media.

On February 21, 2017, a US federal judge ruled that former Florida Atlantic University (FAU) Professor James Tracys civil rights lawsuit can proceed to discovery.

As this author has observed the case stands to set a precedent in matters of free speech and academic freedom throughout the nation. Defendants include FAU, its Board of Trustees, President, Dean, Associate Provost, the Florida Education Association, and the faculty union United Faculty of Florida (UFF), along with the unions FAU Chapter President and Service Unit Director.

Tracy was terminated from his tenured professorship in January 2016, ostensibly for questioning university policy regarding the mandatory reporting of outside activities, and refusing to submit paperwork disclosing his personal blogging at his website, Memory Hole Blog.

Tracy argued that his blogging involved the exercise of his right to free speech as a private US citizen. The popular website was hacked or otherwise sabotaged by unnamed parties after the November 2016 election and, as of this writing, is no longer in operation.

FAU and UFF engaged in conspiracy

Tracy received a spate of unfavorable publicity by CNN and other news outlets in 2013, shortly after the alleged shooting at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, CT. The university set out to discipline Tracy as a result, attempting to dissuade him from making any further statements about the Newtown incident. FAUs faculty union, UFF, filed a grievance for Tracy on free speech grounds. In late 2015, however, union officials refused to defend the professor.

Tracys suit cites UFF as co-defendants, arguing that union officers conspired with university administrators to place an informal gag order on Tracy while allowing the universitys termination proceedings to go forward uncontested. At the same time, Tracy contends, union representatives discouraged him from filing a grievance or lawsuit, instead trying to intimidate him into resigning in lieu of termination. When Tracy refused to resign, the university fired him outright.

FAUs Conflict of Interest policy and its chilling effect on free speech

Part of the case involves a challenge to FAUs Conflict of Interest policy, which extends to all university faculty. FAU and many of Floridas other public universities now compel faculty members to present all their outside activities for administrative approval, whether compensated or not. Tracy objected to the policy, which would have required him to submit an account of his personal blogging. His suit argues that this is a form of prior restraint forbidden by the First Amendment.

Tracys concerns were shared by other members of FAUs faculty as well, including senior political science professor Timothy Lenz, who described a climate of fear and uncertainty, speaking at a faculty senate meeting on September 4, 2015. Lenz enjoined administrators to please call off your dogs, continuing at length:

The Administration has been sending faculty members who are engaged in outside activity nasty letters, letters of discipline or letters that threaten faculty members who are engaged in outside activity with discipline theres a great deal of suspicion that you can say, or write, or do something, but if you say, write, or do something that the Administration disagrees with youre going to get one of these nasty letters put in your personnel file and thats untenable.

Tracys suit names as defendants individual FAU administrators present at the September 4 faculty senate meeting, including FAU President John Kelly. Kelly and his co-defendants moved to dismiss the first complaint, which was granted in part, necessitating a Second Amended Complaint, filed on December 28, 2016. This second complaint has been upheld, with the defendants motion to dismiss denied in a February 21, 2017, decision by Judge Robin Rosenberg. The judge refers to John Kellys involvement in her analysis:

The inference from the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint is that Defendant Kelly was personally (and not vicariously) involved in a retaliatory violation of Plaintiffs First Amendment rights. As a result, Defendant Kelly is sufficiently on notice of the claim against him such that he is able to answer that claim.

Verified Second Amended Complaint

The individual counts in the Second Amended Complaint are as follows:

Count I Retaliation in Violation of Right to Free Speech, against Defendant FAU and Defendants President John Kelly, Associate Provost Diane Alperin, and College of Arts and Letters Dean Heather Coltman.

Count II Conspiracy to Interfere with Plaintiffs Civil Rights, against Defendants Alperin, Coltman, Kelly, UFF President Robert Zoeller, Jr., UFF Service Unit Director Michael Moats, UFF, Florida Education Association, and FAU.

Count III Facial Challenge to FAUs Conflict of Interest Policy, against Defendant FAU.

Count IV As-Applied Challenge to Plaintiffs Right to Free Speech, against Defendant FAU.

Count V Declaratory Judgment and Injunction, against Defendant FAU.

Count VI State Law Breach of Contract, against Defendant FAU.

Case proceeds to discovery

After Tracy initiated his lawsuit in April 2016, FAUs attorneys began filing repeated court motions, arguing that Tracys suit was frivolous, that no conspiracy existed, and that Tracys termination was due to his alleged misconduct and failure to disclose his blogging activities in a timely fashion. By this means, the defendants succeeded in precluding discovery for over six months.

These delaying tactics have been brought to an end with Rosenbergs February 21 decision, in which the court concludes that Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint satisfies federal pleading standards and does not amount to mere labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, as FAU and UFF attorneys have argued.

Tracys legal team has now forced FAU to release thousands of internal emails between administrators, trustees, and non-university parties under Floridas Sunshine Law. Many of the documents tend to confirm the suits conspiracy allegations, including notes from a meeting between FAU counsel and administrators strategizing on how to discipline Tracy, and emails between Kelly and FAUs chief trustee on Tracys pending termination.

Fake News and media blackout on the status of Tracys lawsuit

After Rosenberg dismissed part of the First Amended Complaint, the Florida Sun Sentinelwhich has published a multitude of defamatory articles targeting Tracyfalsely reported that the entire lawsuit had been thrown out. This erroneous report was then picked up by the Associated Press and broadcast nationally (e.g. here, here and here). Only after Tracys attorney contacted the management of the Sun Sentinel to complain was the story revised. The Sun Sentinel has neglected to report on the court order allowing the suit to proceed. Nor has the mainstream media taken notice, with only a few exceptions.

In contrast to the media frenzy over Tracys research on the Newtown incident, in which he was viciously attacked in op-eds, letters to the editor, and news stories in print and on television, there is a conspicuous silence now that the case will proceed to trial. A legal victory for Professor Tracy would set a major precedent for free speech and academic freedom jurisprudence, and would decisively bolster safeguards for university employeesand indeed all employeesto comment freely on matters of public importance without fear of losing their jobs.

As an alternative to the mainstream press, Memory Hole Blog was used by Tracy and other contributors to draw attention to anomalous news coverage and analyze media reporting on controversial events. Many of these observations were deemed controversial or conspiracy theories by the very news outlets that came under scrutinyincluding CNN and the New York Timesorganizations now in the hot seat for disseminating Fake News themselves. This battle is currently raging over unsubstantiated allegations in the mainstream media against President Trump, who is called a conspiracy theorist himself by the press.

Should Tracy lose his case, the outcome would be disastrous for free speech rights. A decision favoring FAUs defense could be used by almost any employer, academic or otherwise, to further unconstitutionally monitor and restrict employee expression. This would likely intensify in the current US academic environment, rife with campaigns targeting politically incorrect speech and behavior. The way it stands, [FAU] could start firing people for not disclosing their Facebook pages, Tracys attorney Louis Leo IV said following a December court appearance.

The case moves forward

On February 28th the faculty union and FAU submitted separate responses to Tracys Second Amended Complaint, maintaining there was no conspiracy to fire Tracy and reasserting that the cause was his failure to follow FAUs outside activities policy. In its response, FAU characterized Tracys repeated attempts to obtain clarification on the unconstitutional policy as belligerent and rebellious. While Plaintiff appeared to embrace his nonconformist behavior thinking it would publicize his interests in the light he deemed helpful, FAUs attorneys wrote, the Defendant Universitys policy and intent were unrelated to such interests and were intended to provide Defendant University with necessary information for various legitimate and proper reasons.

With the discovery process now proceeding, FAUs defense looks increasingly weak. A flood of internal documents obtained under Floridas open records law indicates that university officials met repeatedly to strategize on how they would discipline Tracy without appearing to violate his First Amendment right to free speech. As these meeting notes and emails reveal, there was as much obsession in quelling the controversy surrounding Tracys blog as there was in the publicity his firing generated.

Based on the Rosenberg denial to dismiss, the case will now proceed to trial. Tracy is seeking declaratory relief upholding his right to free speech, injunctive relief with reinstatement to tenured employment and full restoration of benefits and lost wages, relief from the requirement to report outside activities for Tracy and his colleagues, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees as permitted by law.

Vivian Lee is the nom de plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university.

Visit link:
Academic Freedom Lawsuit To Proceed: Judge Affirms First Amendment Rights - Center for Research on Globalization

WEST PALM BEACH Soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Florida Legislature debated a bill that would exempt from public access all information about crop-dusting operations.

But most operators are actively broadcasting that information in search of clients. And their registration numbers are painted right on their planes' tails.

"How do you exempt something that is clearly visible?" Barbara Petersen asks. The bill never became law.

Because of Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law, the state's records and meetings are more accessible than in most states. But the Legislature has, year in and year out, instituted, or considered instituting, numerous exemptions. The body, on average, imposes up to a dozen a year; the grand total, as of early February, was 1,119.

Keeping an eye on those efforts is Petersen, president of Florida's First Amendment Foundation, a Tallahassee nonprofit open-government advocacy group. It's supported by newspapers and broadcasters as well as numerous lawyers and just plain citizens. Its mission is to help all of the above. Whether it's a powerful news outlet or a property owner wanting to see the paperwork for the road that was rerouted in front of his house.

Bills already proposed for this session would let elected officials talk in private and block information about college executive candidates.

Where does your legislator stand?

Starting with the 2017 legislative session, which begins Tuesday, the Florida Society of News Editors plans to make it easier to find out.

Each year FSNE completes a project devoted to Sunshine Week, a nationwide initiative to educate the public about the importance of transparent government. This year's project will focus on a "scorecard" to track the foundation's priority list of public records exemptions. FSNE members will create a permanent scoring system to grade legislators on their introduction of bills and their final votes.

The Palm Beach Post, as part of an annual project by the Florida Society of News Editors, will report on a legislative "scorecard." Legislators will be graded by the Foundation for how they voted for and, in some cases, introduced exemptions.

Reporters from Florida newspapers will establish a final scorecard when the session ends and interview lawmakers about their decisions related to public record exemptions.

Florida's Legislature established public records laws as early as the early 20th century, created the Government in the Sunshine Law in the late 1960s, and in 1992 established a "constitutional right of access."

In each legislative session, hundreds of bills are submitted to create exemptions. Some years, a lot pass. Some years a few pass. Petersen recalled a year where about 20 were voted in.

"The vast majority of the bills we track are justified, and we take a neutral position on them, or we work to make them such that we're neutral," Petersen said.

And, she told one politician in a letter, "We agree that the requirements of our famed Sunshine Law can be an inconvenience for government officials at times. But the right of Floridians to oversee their government and hold it accountable for its actions a right imbedded in our constitution far outweighs such minor annoyances."

She also said that the Sunshine Law "is not a partisan issue. That's a misperception. Everyone thinks Republicans hate the law and Democrats love the law. That's not true. We have friends and detractors on both sides of the aisle."

Petersen keeps busy writing sponsors of bills the foundation opposes.

She wrote state Rep. Bob Rommel, R-Naples, to oppose HB 351, which would exempt personal identifying information of applicants for president, provost, or dean of a state college and would close meetings related to executive searches.

And she wrote state Rep. Byron Donalds, also R-Naples, about HB 843, which, in an elected body of at least five members, would allow two of them to discuss public business in private "without procedural safeguards such as notice or a requirement that minutes of such discussions be taken." She said the bill "invites pernicious mischief by our elected officials."

Sometimes Petersen and other public records advocates win. Sometimes they don't.

In 1981, 6-year-old Adam Walsh was abducted from a Broward County mall and killed. The slaying was a watershed for how authorities respond to child abductions and made the boy's father, John, a crime fighting advocate and longtime television host.

In 1996, four newspapers sued under the state's open records laws. Their argument: Police in Hollywood couldn't reasonably claim the exemption that the case still was active after 15 years. Even as the Walshes and the Broward County State Attorney filed emergency motions to block the release, saying it would jeopardize the case, a judge agreed with the newspapers and the police released more than 10,000 pages of documents. They suggested drifter Ottis Toole killed the boy, but Hollywood police were unable to build a strong enough case to charge him.

Even today, the case remains officially unsolved, although an investigator working with the boy's parents made a powerful case in 2011 of what the newspapers said in 1996: Toole was the killer.

And in February 2001, auto racing legend Dale Earnhardt Sr. died when his car slammed into a wall on the last lap of the Daytona 500. Authorities later blocked news outlets' access to autopsy photos, which were public record, and the outlets were permitted only to have an expert review the photos. They used that analysis to raise questions about how racing's governing body, NASCAR, handled Earnhardt's death.

During the legal battle, the Legislature passed a law exempting autopsy photos, saying they feared ghoulish images would make their way to the Internet. Newspapers argued they never do that and not giving them the photos removed their ability to question autopsy results. The ban has survived legal challenges.

Not everyone sees the Sunshine Law as untouchable or as always a good thing.

In 2015, Gulf Stream, east of Boynton Beach, was swamped by hundreds of public records requested from a resident who then sued when the town of about 900, with a paid office staff of six, was unable to keep up. In 2016, legislation fizzled that would have removed the requirement that government agencies pay attorney fees if they lose a public records suit. Opponents said while the intent to save small entities such as Gulf Stream was admirable, such bills would have a chilling effect on people afraid that if they sought public records and lost in court, they'd be stuck with a huge legal bill.

Similar legislation is up again this year, and again the foundation opposes it. But not Keith Rizzardi.

"In normal circumstances, the Sunshine State's public records law is a model for ensuring the disclosure of information to the benefit of an informed citizenry," Rizzardi, a law professor at St. Thomas University School of Law in Miami, wrote for the law review of the Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport.

"Experience shows that the abnormal is occurring. Lacking sufficient boundaries to prevent misuses of the law, the efficiency of our bureaucracy is compromised, and taxpayers are the victims," said Rizzardi, who worked with Gulf Stream on its case.

The professor also cited a case in Polk County in which a requester "sought to obtain the health insurance information for Polk County school employees, spouses, and children. To many, the request appeared to be a shocking invasion of privacy, but under the Florida Constitution, the right to privacy is subordinate to the right of access to public records. Indeed, the broad request, and the resulting litigation, eventually expanded to include 11 Florida school boards, and the government was compelled to respond."

First Amendment Foundation will grade legislators on Florida's open government laws 03/06/17 [Last modified: Monday, March 6, 2017 11:13am] Photo reprints | Article reprints

Read more:
First Amendment Foundation will grade legislators on Florida's open government laws - Tampabay.com (blog)

Saddleback College President, Tod Burnett, introducing the Associated Student Government and other affiliates to the stage for the #UseYourOwnVoice event in the quad. (Colin Reef/Lariat)

Saddleback College presents part one of a four part series called Understanding the First Amendment in the 21st Century or #UseYourOwnVoice yesterday Feb. 28, 2017 in the quad.

The main purpose of this event was to inform and educate students and faculty on how the application of the first amendment has changed since the onset of technology and social media. With the help of Associated Student Government, the Pre-Law Society, Academic Senate, Classified Senate, and Dr. Tod Burnett, Saddleback College president, a panel of students were given the chance to express any concerns, feelings, and questions they had to a panel of Saddleback College professors.

The panel of Saddleback College professors included political science professors Kendralyn Webber and Christina Hinkle, mathematics professor Frank Gonzalez, and Journalism professor Mike Reed.

A Panel of Saddleback College students and professors take the stage to discuss applications of the first amendment in the digital age of technology. (Colin Reef/Lariat)

In order to understand the first amendment, said Mike Reed, we must first analyze the nine areas of unprotected speech that most people either forget or fail to realize exist.

The student panel prepare to ask questions in regards to first amendment application in the digital age. (Colin Reef/Lariat)

The digital age has given rise to many pressing questions when correlating them to first amendment freedoms. One main reason for this is the Supreme Court and its establishment in relation to freedoms of press and speech were created nearly 50 years ago.

They were created way before the implementation or creation for that matter, of the Internet, World Wide Web, and smartphones. The emergence of Google and other tech giants like Apple as well as social media platforms has propelled us into a new age of communication. This makes it hard for the present generation to establish grounds for proper first amendment rights seeing as many need revaluation or a complete overhaul.

The role of the Supreme Court (which some regard as too slow) still works because it gives authority, the right to fundamentally break down protected speech and reflect on all of the consequences, said Christina Hinkle, Its important for us to utilize the tools we have been given (Internet) to further educate people on these proceedings and make proper provisions.

For many people the Internet has made it harder for interpersonal communication to take place. This is due in part because of the lack of education on the first amendment. Nowadays, many people assume news is genuine just from a glance or a gloss-over. These immediate reactions have made it possible for people to actually widen the gap and increase a polarization of opinions.

Interpersonal relationships have become media popcorn for some people, said Kendralyn Webber, Its almost as if its not about you know but what you google.

In too many ways this has become the normal way of projecting facts, opinions, and information. Although we may be in a confusing place as far as communication goes, having events in the community like #UseYourOwnVoice on college campuses helps to bridge the unknown and further educate people on our unalienable rights.

For more information, visit Saddleback Colleges upcoming events and learn more about the #UseYourOwnVoice series.

More:
The first amendment in a digital age #UseYourOwnVoice - Lariat Saddleback College

There is the smell of freshly brewing coffee in the air. The sun is just starting to come up. It is Sunday morning! Thump! Yes, Yes!

That is the sound I was waiting to hear! The Union-Bulletin newspaper being delivered to my front door.

Coffee cup in hand I go retrieve the paper from my front porch. I flip through the sections to my favorite part of the paper, the Perspective section.

First I read the editorial, then I look at the political cartoons, followed by Our Readers Opinions and individual columnists. During the reading and digesting of the material I go from agreeing to disagreeing, happy to sad, to disbelief and mad.

In my Sunday morning pursuit of knowledge I have sharpened my skills as a citizen of our wonderful country.

I would like to praise the Union-Bulletin for upholding the United States Constitutions First Amendment! You folks in the press are the light that burns away the darkness so the truth is illuminated by your piercing rays!

Please keep asking the tough questions and follow them up! Just a note to say I appreciate you and our country needs you now more than ever!

See more here:
U-B upholding the First Amendment | Letters To Editor | union ... - Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

Bradenton Herald

First Amendment applies to Trump, too Bradenton Herald After reading Mr. James Frazier's Feb. 28 letter to the editor Trump's scorn of media disturbing, I have a question: Is the letter rhetoric or is he saying everyone is protected by the First Amendment except the president of the United States ...

Excerpt from:
First Amendment applies to Trump, too - Bradenton Herald