Mediaboss Marketing

I know the paper supplies the headline, but the headline of a Feb. 16 letter, First Amendment only applies to Americans, seems to be an adequate re-statement of the letters point. That point is wrong.

The First Amendment doesnt give anyone rights except as the result of the fact that it forbids the U.S. government from doing certain things; specifically, it provides in part that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Congress cant make such law whether it affects Americans or anyone else. It is a limitation on what we want our government to be able to do.

The Constitution was written at a time when European events had demonstrated clearly that getting governments involved in religion had horrible consequences the Thirty Years War, the Inquisition, the English Civil War, etc. Our Forefathers believed in freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and freedom of speech from government interference. So do I.

Of course the U.S. Constitution cant guarantee the right of a person in another country to believe as he or she chooses, but neither can our government establish one religion or another as the basis for granting or denying immigration or visits. We told it "No!" in the First Amendment.

Read this article:
Letter to the editor: 1st Amendment applies to govt - The Bakersfield Californian

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Read more from the original source:
In appeal, Lamar calls banner First Amendment right; Pittsburgh ... - Tribune-Review

Speaking at the NAB's State Leadership Conference Tuesday, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) went after President Trump and his administration for their "unprecedented series" of attacks on the news media attacks thatculminated Feb. 17 with a tweetfrom the commander in chief calling "FAKE NEWS media" namely theNew York Times, NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN the "enemy of the American people."

"Turning reporters into enemies not just adversaries, but enemies is a strategy that strongmen use to silence critics and maintain power," Durbin said after cataloging the Trump assaults. "Their goal is to discredit the messenger. That way, when there is bad news, or news that contradicts the official line, people wont believe it.

Story continues after the ad

"Soon enough, people start to lose faith ... not just in the media, but in all of the institutions that hold a society together. They lose faith in the power of debate and elections to change anything. They become cynical and apathetic."

Well said.

The attacks have provoked a predictable public response from the targeted news media. Bring it on, they say. We are simply going to continue to do what we have always done, provide a check on the government by throwing as much light on its doings as we possibly can.

Rather than intimidate the media, the attacks have energized them and engendered waves of public support that can be clearly measured in "Trump bumps"to Nielsen ratings and paid subscriptions.

At the same time, the Trump thumps have provided an impetus for the news media to rally and redouble their collective efforts to preserve and perhaps expand their First Amendment rights. There is nothing like a hostile outside force in forging solidarity among the beleaguered.

On Jan. 17, representatives of more than 50 news organizations met at the Newseum in Washington to plota common strategy for strengthening news media. It was organized by the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and the American Society of News Editors and hosted by the Democracy Fund.

The journalists, lawyers and other media advocates discussed legal and legislative ways to insure access to government offices and information, protect whistle blowers from government retribution, protect themselves from frivolous libel suits and protect reporters from government harassment.

They also talked about the need to restore trust in the news media and floated ideas about how to do it.

I am happy to report that broadcasters were well represented at the "summit" by the Radio Television Digital News Association in the persons of Executive Director Mike Cavender and General Counsel Kathleen Kirby of the Wiley Rein law firm.

Cavender tells me to expect a full report from the organizers in the next week or two.

Whatever strategy emerges from the summit is just so much talk unless it wins the financial backing of newspapers, the national news networks and, yes, TV station groups. Legal defense funds, legislative initiatives and appeals to the public cost money.

It should go without saying that broadcasters need to support fully the RTDNA. In addition andCavender may hate me for saying this but broadcasters should also consider supporting other worthy organizations like Investigative Reporters and Editors.

I've been arguing that stations should eschew on-air commentary, especially on hot partisan issues, figuring that there is enough opinion out there and that it will only serve to undermine trust in stations' reporting. If a station's commentary is perceived as consistently liberal or conservative, its reporting may be dismissed as such.

However, I'm making an exception to that rule: the First Amendment. Stations should take to the air to defend freedom of speech and the press and argue for expansion of its rights and protections be that access to the dashcam video at the local police station or a federal shield law for whistle blowers.

A CBS affiliate should not allow the president to get away with saying that CBS News is "an enemy of the people." Ditto for NBC and ABC affiliates.

Stations must be careful not to preach or talk down to their viewers. That's how the national media alienated Trump voters. Stations need to listen to their viewers and win them over by convincing them that their interests are aligned, that press freedoms are ultimately their freedoms.

And it would be good to hear from the heads of the station groups, the ones who are always saying what swell jobs they do producing news and serving the public interest.

They can speak out in op-eds and in speeches before civic groups and at universities. They can direct the executives of the NAB and state broadcast associations to do the same.

I fully understand that the No. 1 job and responsibility of the station group executives is to make money, and so they have to be mindful of what they say. They have big issues pending before Congress and the FCC, notably ownership deregulation, the repack and ATSC 3.0. Criticizing the administration is not the way to get your way in Washington.

Go here to read the rest:
Rally Round The First Amendment - TV News Check

Traditionally, I avoid using this column to discuss issues that directly relate to my role as an attorney, as I find such practice self-serving and of dubious value for you, dear reader.

Yet, for every rule there is an exception, and the issue soon to be debated in a New York City court has such profound implications for businesses throughout the state that it is worth the time to examine the matter.

Simply distilled, a state law applicable only to NYC currently makes it unlawful to advertise occupancy or use of dwelling units where that occupancy would violate the Multiple Dwelling Law. This improper gag law is so broadly written that it covers literally any form of communication. If a similar statute is adopted with state wide application it would threaten literally any company or individual that seeks to contract for goods or services, whether through traditional mediums or the Internet. This was a law the state legislature granted to the city with the power to enforce, so the potential for this legislation to spread like a toxic weed throughout New York is real (although how it was enacted may be fatally flawed).

Originally designed to constrain Airbnbs widely successful business model of allowing apartment owners and tenants to briefly rent out their dwellings, the city capitulated in enforcing the law against the multibillion dollar Airbnb corporation and even stipulated in Federal Court that City Hall will permanently refrain from taking any action to enforce it against Airbnb.

What New York City forgot is that, irrespective of whether you are up against Airbnb or the lonely apartment owner or tenant, you cant violate the First Amendment. By prohibiting rental advertisements, the city imposes a content-based speech restriction subject to what the law calls heightened judicial scrutiny. It attempts to create, in essence, a legal house of mirrors that the city hopes defendants wont possibly navigate in their attempt to defend themselves.

More threatening for the rest of us who arent looking to offer short term rentals, the city law chills protected commercial speech. The threat of fines and liability would likely impose a form of self-censorship in the marketplace as the interpretation of what is permitted and what is prohibited becomes vague, blurred and problematic. If I ran a magazine, newspaper, broadcast operation or advertising agency, I would be extremely concerned about this laws draconian reach.

The city law also violates the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it seeks to impose strict civil and criminal liability against alleged violators. Specifically, there is no requirement in the statute that an alleged violator know that an advertisement is unlawful. Fortunately, there is precedent here. The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected such efforts to impose strict liability for the dissemination of information, even where, unlike here, the content itself lacks First Amendment protection.

Of course, the City could simply go after those who actually rent units unlawfully, rather than those that merely advertise such rentals, but they seem to have decided there is far easier to pick up a lot of money by just spotting the ads than by actually knocking on the doors of alleged violators to see if a violation has in fact occurred. In fact, the city has recently allocated several million dollars to fund inspectors whose task is to identify and fine apartment owners and tenants who post illegal listings. It is a fair bet they expect to make back that investment quickly by tabulating illegal ads and then sending notices costing $1,000 per first violation, $5,000 per second violation and $7500 per third violation gotcha.

Prohibition taught America that flawed laws and ill-conceived enforcement breeds nothing but contempt for government, for trying to make criminals out of all of us. The City of New York, and by extension the New York State Legislature, would better serve the public if they would promptly review their illegal assault on freedom of commercial speech and strike this improper unconstitutional statute from the books before the courts do it for them.

Rosenberg, a graduate of St. Johns University Law School and resident of Old Westbury, is senior founding with Rosenberg, Calica & Birney LLP, a Garden City law firm.

More:
Rosenberg: Airbnb law amounts to a first Amendment violation - Long Island Business News (subscription)

After assembling, however, an irate motorist pulled up and yelled go home. Protesters responded cooly with Well pray for you! The motorist drove off only to return moments later yelling more abuses. To be heard over the insults, the protesters yelled back, Well pray for you! The exchange was brief and nonviolent. Nevertheless, two Bemidji Police vehicles soon arrived. One officer entered the bank. Another officer approached the protesters. The officer acknowledged their peaceful assembly and thanked them for exercising their First Amendment rights. After polite discussion, the officer shook hands with protesters. They even took a group photo! Hallelujah. Libertys light stills shines. But for how long?

The right to peaceful assembly is protected under the First Amendment. It is the cornerstone to a healthy democracy. Yet to date, 18 states have introduced legislation stiffening penalties for peaceful demonstrators. In Minnesota, HF 322 represents such a threat. Although the wording appears benign, its intent is perhaps less innocent. If demonstration activity is deemed unlawful, governmental units could sue individuals to recover public safety response costs. Minnesota Statute 609.705 defines unlawful as disturbing or threatening the public peace. Who decides an assembly is disturbing the peace? Will HF 322 dissuade law-abiding citizens from public demonstration? Yes, probably. Is that the true intent of the bill? Probably, yes.

If protesting raises awareness, perchance increasing others willingness to demonstrate, then unprincipled politicians may seek to deter this right. James Madison, co-author of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, recognized this threat. I share his words, ...there are more instances of abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment (by those in power) than by violent and sudden usurpations. HF 322 is such an encroachment representing the gradual effort to criminalize protesters.

This is a defining chapter in American democracy. It is my hope, despite our partisan differences, we fight to maintain this fundamental freedom. Whether you are a water protector or a pro-lifer, this bill should concern you and motivate us to collectively defend our most rudimentary rights.

Susan Kedzie

On behalf of Indivisible Bemidji, a local effort to raise awareness on social and environmental issues.

Original post:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: We must defend our First Amendment rights - Bemidji Pioneer