Mediaboss Marketing

Home > SPJ News > SPJ urges Mississippi Supreme Court to overturn lower court order that threatens journalists First Amendment rights

SPJ urges Mississippi Supreme Court to overturn lower court order that threatens journalists First Amendment rights

CONTACT: Ashanti Blaize-Hopkins, SPJ National President, ashanti.blaize@gmail.com Kim Tsuyuki, SPJ Communications Specialist, ktsuyuki@hq.spj.org

INDIANAPOLIS The Society of Professional Journalists urges the Mississippi Supreme Court to overturn a lower court order against Mississippi Today that threatens the First Amendment rights of journalists and Mississippians.

SPJ is proud to stand up for journalists and journalism against those who try to silence them, said SPJ National President Ashanti Blaize-Hopkins. We urge the Mississippi Supreme Court to issue a ruling that, for the first time, expressly recognizes Mississippi journalists' right to protect their sources of information and their unpublished newsgathering materials.

In July 2023, former Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant for defamation, in part over since-retracted remarks from its CEO, Mary Margaret White. Later, editor-in-chief Adam Ganucheau and reporter Anna Wolfe were added as defendants. Mississippi Today declined to turn over confidential information, including sources, citing reporters privilege. However, last month, a lower court issued an order stating that Mississippis appellate courts have never recognized reporters privilege, so the newsroom was given a deadline to turn over any information that related to confidential sources. Mississippi Today has appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

In a state with such little government accountability, Mississippians routinely learn about the actions of their public officials only because of journalism like ours. If this court order is upheld, every Mississippian would stand to lose a fuller understanding of how some leaders truly operate when their doors are closed and they think no one is watching, says Ganucheau in an editors note on its website.

Cases such as this continue to serve as a reminder of why journalists need a federal shield law. Reporters privilege is a First Amendment right that is recognized by 40 states. In January, the House of Representatives unanimously passed the PRESS Act, which would shield journalists from having to disclose their sources except under limited circumstances. SPJ continues to urge the Senate to follow suit and pass the legislation quickly. Those who agree that the PRESS Act should be passed can call, write or message their senators, encouraging them to vote in favor of this important legislation.

We will always fight for the First Amendment and those who seek truth and report it, Blaize-Hopkins said. Without journalists, citizens are kept in the dark, giving those in power no accountability and freedom to abuse that power.

SPJ promotes the free flow of information vital to informing citizens; works to inspire and educate the next generation of journalists; and fights to protect First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press. Support excellent journalism and fight for your right to know. Become a member, give to the Legal Defense Fund or give to the SPJ Foundation.

-END-

Read more:
SPJ urges Mississippi Supreme Court to overturn lower court order that threatens journalists' First Amendment rights - Society of Professional...

Across the nation, college students are taking up the cause of Israel and Palestine through protests. Beyond those engaged in honest debate over the Israel-Palestine conflict are hate-mongers: people who use this as an opportunity to spread antisemitism. My client, Accuracy in Media, has been busy exploring and documenting these issuesnot without a host of criticism thrown its way.

Recently, some elite college students have labeled Hamas liberation fighters and others imagine Israel to be a settler-colonial oppressor. Hard to imagine: the same Hamas that massacred babies and children is being compared to the likes of General Eisenhower. As Ezekiel Emanuel noted in the New York Times, some American colleges have failed to give students the ethical foundation and moral compass to recognize the basics of humanity. In such a moral vacuum, antisemitism is bound to proliferate.

Throughout American history, certain justice-seekers have stepped forward to expose prejudices and call attention to public wrongs using unorthodox techniques. In 1966, the NAACP of Mississippi moved forward to address racial inequity by proposing a set of demands and then later protesting and boycotting when they were denied. This eventually led to NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. before the Supreme Courta significant First Amendment victory upholding the right of peaceful boycotting. And it was no less than the liberal lion, Justice Brandeis, who commented that publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman. Today, it is Accuracy in Media shining that righteous light of publicity on societys deep-seated prejudices.

Recently, some have levied criticism against Accuracy in Medias unorthodox efforts to expose ignorance and hate on Americas elite campuses. Through its investigative journalism program, Accuracy in Media has scoured college protests about the Israel-Palestine conflict. It has done the hard work to dig down and find the most hateful comments publicly issued by students and staff. It has also relied on very public proclamations issued by students in the plain light of day. And it has then taken a most necessary stepbringing public attention to those spreading hateful commentary. Some ask that Accuracy in Media be bashful about its findings about antisemitism. This would only be a disservice to tried-and-true journalism.

Others have inaccurately called Accuracy in Medias reporting doxingthat is, publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet [] with malicious intent. Some think of doxing as publishing already-available public information. But Accuracy in Media never does so with any intent to harm a person it reports about. Rather, it publishes to bring attention to statements subjects have made in public forums. Accuracy in Media often uses inexpensive mobile, digital billboards to bring attention to individuals it believes harbor dangerous antisemitic opinions. It also uses domain names to do the same. It does so using the same publicly available information anyone else can access. This just follows Justice Brandeis suggestion that publicity is the most effective means to address public prejudices. In a free society, if you elect to support hateful or ignorant positions you should also expect return commentary and attention. As First Amendment scholars are prone to comment, the answer to ignorant, hateful speech is more speechof the educational, enlightened variety.

Accuracy in Media takes a hard stance against real doxing or abusing the rights of any speaker. Indeed, the president of Accuracy in Media, Adam Guillette, has himself been the subject of real swatting and doxing attacks. But in todays upside-down world, Accuracy in Medias honest reporting is often confused with these forms of harassment. Let it be understood: Accuracy in Media respects all honest newsgathering and reporting. For those who seek to silence those who are honestly provocative, we share another message. Accuracy in Media will continue the work Justice Brandeis so heartily recommended as the best of disinfectants: shedding publicity on the ugly undercurrent of antisemitism on Americas campuses.

Read the original:
Anti-Semitism and the First Amendment | | khq.com - KHQ Right Now

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Visit link:
Personal Reflections: First Amendment and Religious Freedom | Opinion and Editorials | Lewiston Tribune | lmtribune ... - Lewiston Morning Tribune

In an unexpected turn of events concerning the use of public spaces for private gatherings, the City of Fort Worth has reinstated an event reservation for the True Texas Project, which was previously canceled by the Botanical Research Institute of Texas (BRIT), the manager the Fort Worth Botanic Garden on behalf of the City, according to an official statement from the city.

Slated for July 12-13, the gathering had fallen into a chasm of constitutional dispute, sparking a conversation about the rights afforded by the First Amendment; the City owns the Botanic Garden, meaning the location is subject to constitutional provisions including those covering freedom of speech and the BRIT's initial decision was overturned by the City's legal department after it came to light that access to the facility, cannot be restricted based solely on potential renters' viewpoints however well-intentioned to curate a certain kind of discussion within these publicly-owned confines such moves might be.

The City of Forth Worth officials were quick to note that the reinstatement of the True Texas Project's event doesn't signal an endorsement of the group's beliefs or opinionsthe move simply aligns with legal standards regarding the use of public forums. "The City and BRIT do not endorse or condone the beliefs, opinions, or viewpoints of groups or individuals who may rent its facilities," the City of Forth Worth clarified, emphasizing the neutral role of public spaces.

Reacting to the controversy, the City of Forth Worth revealed that staff are currently in the process of penning new guidelines for facility rentals, these updated policies aim to provide clear and consistent protocols for the future and the community can anticipate an update on these policies revisions in due time, ensuring that such debates are handled with a transparent and legally sound framework moving forward.

Continue reading here:
Fort Worth City Reinforces First Amendment Rights with True Texas Project Event Reinstatement at Botanic Garden - Hoodline

The Supreme Court sided with the National Rifle Association on Thursday, finding that the group could pursue a First Amendment claim against a New York state official who had encouraged companies to stop doing business with it after the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Fla.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous court, found that the N.R.A. had plausibly claimed a violation of the First Amendment, reversing an appeals court decision and sending the case back for further proceedings. Although a government official is allowed to share her views freely and criticize particular beliefs, she wrote, that official may not use the power of the state to punish or suppress disfavored expression.

The case is one of two this term in which the justices have wrestled with when government advocacy crosses a constitutional line into coercion.

The dispute centers on whether Maria T. Vullo, who was a superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, had infringed on the free speech rights of the N.R.A. After a young man killed 17 people in a shooting at a school in Parkland, Fla., Ms. Vullo told insurance companies and banks that they should consider whether to provide services to the group.

Although Ms. Vullo was free to criticize the N.R.A. and pursue the conceded violations of New York insurance law, Justice Sotomayor wrote, she was not allowed to wield her power to threaten enforcement actions against companies regulated by her department in a way that would punish or suppress the N.R.A.s gun-promotion advocacy. The courts decision was in keeping with previous rulings that government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors, the justice added.

In a concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stressed the important distinction between government coercion, on the one hand, and a violation of the First Amendment, on the other. Coercion alone is not enough to violate the First Amendment, she wrote, adding that to determine whether the government has crossed a line, courts must assess how that coercion actually violates a speakers First Amendment rights.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Visit link:
Supreme Court Clears Way for N.R.A. to Pursue First Amendment Challenge - The New York Times