Mediaboss Marketing

You know our representatives have gone off the deep end when they begin considering imposing a tax on the First Amendment to raise more government revenue. But unfortunately, thats the reality were now living in.

Recently, the Daily News and Washington Times reported that party leadership is considering replacing the failed border adjustment tax with revenue raisers from former Rep. Dave Camps (D-MI) 2014 tax reform plan. Allegedly, one of the top contenders for replacement is his old advertising tax provision, which would scrap advertisings full deductibility as a business expense and make it only half deductible, with the other half being amortized over a ten-year period.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) are too smart to let this tax go into their soon to be released tax reform proposal. If it arises, they must use their knowledge and instincts to kill the provision, because passing such a tax would undoubtedly be political and economic suicide.

Against Our Founding Values

Perhaps the chief spark of the American Revolution was Great Britains imposition of an advertising tax the Stamp Act on the colonists, which was perceived to be a huge cost burden and an unnecessary limit to residents accessibility of important news. The tax was so unpopular that American citizens began unionizing and engaging in mob violence against stamp collectors. Parliament was forced to repeal the provision after just one year, but the colonists never forgave and never forgot. They ended up declaring their independence and engaging in armed rebellion against their mother country just years later.

Unconstitutional

After the colonists won that war and formed their own country, they established the First Amendment, which served as a safeguard against any future regulations of free speech.

By holding back Americans money for over a decade, the Camp ad tax proposal would be violating that amendment by essentially making free speech a dollar and cents game. Only those who could afford to do without the money would be able to continue.

Its clearly unconstitutional, and as constitutional scholar Bruce Fein at Huffington Post and litigation attorney Christopher Cooke at The Hill have detailed, theres plenty of Supreme Court precedent to prove it. Under the plan, advertising would be treated worse than every other business expense that receives full expensing, making it a clear violation of the First Amendment that would lead to the bankrupting of local newspapers and radio stations. This would keep communities in the dark about whats going on around them, all while adding more monopoly strength to the already-powerful cable news giants. Essentially, it would do exactly what our founding fathers tried to prevent.

Economic Growth Killer

Going against our founding principles and governing documents is bad enough, but the worst part about this tax is that it wont even be successful at what its brainchild intended for it to do fill Washingtons coffers.

There are few things that naturally stimulate the economy more than advertising spending. Reports have shown that annually, ad tax spending generates approximately 16 percent of the United States economic activity, as well as 14 percent of total U.S. employment. Thus, imposing such a tax will reduce federal revenue by hampering the many parts of the economy that are dependent on advertising.

An ad tax was already tried on the state level, and not surprisingly, it failed miserably. After campaigning on not raising taxes, Republican Governor Bob Martinez (R-FL) approved an ad tax, which destroyed $2.5 billion in personal income and washed away 50,000 jobs. The tax actually cost the state money the taxs administrative costs ended up exceeding the tax revenue.The public was rightfully outraged at the taxs futility, prompting the New York Times to report that Martinez suffered political embarrassment in his first year in office by having to shift from ardent support of the tax to advocating its repeal.

Conclusion

Clearly, including the Camp advertising tax in the so-called 2017 tax reform bill would be economic and political suicide, especially for the party that is supposed to be championing limited government and constitutional policymaking. A large portion of the House of Representatives understands this, which is why 124 members signed onto a bipartisan Dear Colleague letter to congressional leaders, stating: The potential for strengthening our economy through tax reform would be jeopardized by any proposal that imposes an advertising tax on our nations manufacturing, retail and service industries. The ball now lies in the Big Six tax reformers hands. Will they do whats best for the economy and the American people, or whats most pleasing to corporate donors and cable news talking heads?

Steve Lonegan is the former Mayor of Bogota, NJ and a frequent guest on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. Steve is the former New Jersey Chairman of Sen. Ted Cruzs presidential campaign, a former senior staffer for Americans for Prosperity and the American Principles Project, and a Republican candidate in several high-profile national political races.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

See the original post:
Lonegan: House Leadership Must Kill the First Amendment Tax - Breitbart News

In the marketplace, traditionally understood, when a company produces a poor product or mistreats its customers, it faces market disciplinenew ones come in and steal market share. Thats the theory, at least.

Too bad its not true right now, at least not on the Internet.

Google and Apple, with a combined 98 percent market share in mobile-phone operating systems, have banned Gab, an upstart Twitter competitor with a free-speech policy quaintly modeled on the First Amendment itself, from their app stores. Google cited hate speech as its reason for exclusion; Gab doesnt censor. What few people yet understand is that Google and Apple have used their duopoly status to revoke the First Amendment on mobile phones. Because the Internet is now majority mobile, and a growing majority of all web traffic comes from mobile devices, the First Amendment is now effectively dead in the mobile sphere unless policymakers act to rein in the tech giants who serve as corporate gatekeepers to digital speech.

Twitter ran into controversy last year when it was accused of censoring conservative voices. Gab founders Andrew Torba, an alumnus of Silicon Valleys prestigious Y Combinator accelerator, and Ekrem Bykkaya saw a market opportunity for a competitor focused on free speechnot just for conservatives but for dissidents globally. Last August, they launched Gab, a Twitter-like app where, according to company spokesman Utsav Sanduja, Whatever is permissible under the First Amendment is what Gab allows onto its site.

Gab grew slowly but has now reached over 200,000 usersa substantial number, though tiny compared with Twitter. It generated modest revenue through a freemium model, wherein users could pay to upgrade to a Pro level. Gab pulled off a coup by raising $1 million through crowd-funded investment. The company says that it is planning an Initial Coin Offering with its own digital currency based on the Ethereum standard. In short, Gab is a real company, with legitimate founders, a business strategy, revenue, more than 200,000 users, and seven-figure funding.

Apple and Google dont agree. Gab built an app for Apples iOS operating system, but Apple wouldnt approve it. This means that iPhone and iPad users cant use the Gab app because users cant install applications on those devices unless Apple approves them. Gabs Android app was available through Googles app store until yesterday, when Google banned it, citing violations of its hate-speech policy. In order to be on the Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people, a Google statement read. This is a long-standing rule and clearly stated in our developer policies. While Android users can install unapproved apps, its a cumbersome process, and being kicked out of the app store reduces the apps reach.

No doubt, a number of far-right groups have found a home on Gab. I tried Gab myself when it first came out, finding it functionally an interesting mix of Twitter and Reddit, but with too many far-right users for my taste. So I dropped it. Gab also courted trouble with provocative moves like publicly announcing a job offer for James Damore after Google fired him and taunting Silicon Valley after its crowd-funding success. It also uses a green frog as its logo. Gab claims that this is not the controversial Pepe the Frog, identified with the alt-Right, but rather inspired by the plague of frogs from Exodus. Even if this is true, the logo choice seems like a deliberate provocation.

But its difficult to credit Gab as a white-supremacist site when its cofounder is a Turkish Kurd and Muslim. Bykkaya, who says Ive never supported Trump for a minute in my entire life, is concerned about speech repression in his part of the worldfor good reason, as Turkey is infamous for its violations of free speech and for locking up journalists. Gab spokesman Sanduja is a South Asian Hindu from Canada.

Gab points out that other major social-media platforms have hosted ISIS activity, and child-porn rings, facilitated drug dealing, and carried live streams of murder, torture, and other crimes. Yet all are still allowed by Google. Google itself actually hired Chris moot Poole, founder of the notorious website 4chan, known not just for offensive speech but also for the distribution of hard-core pornography. Police have made multiple child pornography arrests associated with 4chan. There remain multiple 4chan apps in Googles app store.

At a minimum, Apple and Googles decisions about offensive app behavior are arbitrary. This is a problem the market cant easily solvebecause there is effectively no market. Both the Apple and Google app stores are private markets owned by those companies, which act as their effective governments. You cannot easily start a new mobile business without their permission. If your app follows the First Amendment, theres a good chance that youll be rejected. Regardless of how one views Gab or any other application or group, two Silicon Valley companies should not be the governors of the mobile Internetwhich, in due course, may be indistinguishable from the Internet itself.

The mobile-Internet business is built on spectrum licenses granted by the federal government. Given the monopoly power that Apple and Google possess in the mobile sphere as corporate gatekeepers, First Amendment freedoms face serious challenges in the current environment. Perhaps it is time that spectrum licenses to mobile-phone companies be conditioned on their recipients providing freedoms for customers to use the apps of their choice.

Aaron M. Renn is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor ofCity Journal.

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Excerpt from:
First Amendment in Peril? - City Journal

The denial of first amendment rightsled to the political violence that we saw yesterday. That was how Jason Kessler, who organized last weekends far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, explained the actions of an extremist who rammed his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing one of them. Like many on the far right, Kessler was claiming that displays of hate needed to be protected as free speechor else.

The US constitutions first amendment protects free speech much more strongly than in most democraciesa German-style law against holocaust denial would never stand in the US, for exampleand Americans support the right to say offensive things more strongly than other nations, a Pew survey found last year. But for a long time, free speech was a core concern of the left in America, not the right.

When the National Review [a leading conservative magazine] was first published in the 1950s, the vast majority of articles addressing free speech and the first amendment were critical of free expression and its proponents, says Wayne Batchis, a professor at the University of Delaware and author of The Rights First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech & the Return of Conservative Libertarianism. Today, review of its contents reveals the precise opposite.

What prompted the shift, Batchis says, was the rise of a concept that quickly became a favorite target of the right: political correctness. As Moira Weigel wrote in The Guardian last year, the concept rose to fame in the late 1980s. After existing in leftist circles as a humorous label for excessive liberal orthodoxy, it was co-opted by the right and framed as a form of limitation of free speech.

In 1990, New York Times reporter Richard Bernstein (paywall) used political correctness to refer to what he perceived as a growing intolerance on university campuses for views that diverged from mainstream liberalism. In a span of only a few months, stories about political correctness (some even deeming it a form of fascism) became commonplace in columns and on magazine covers. Before the 1990s, Weigel reports, the term was hardly ever used in the media; in 1992, it was used 6,000 times.

The idea became a centerpiece of right-wing theory, eventually leading to the popularity of the Tea Party and the election of a president, Donald Trump, who made the shunning of political correctness a political trademark.

But fighting political correctness wasnt the only thing that encouraged conservatives to embrace free speech. Money was also an incentive. Over the past decade the party has increasingly opposed any form of campaign-finance regulation, arguing that political donations are a form of free speech. Its reward came in the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United, which allowed companies and trade unions to give unlimited donations to political causes. Liberals commonly oppose this view on the grounds, Batchis says, that spending money should not be treated as a form of speech.

In the event, both Republicans and Democrats have benefited from that ruling. Indeed, in last years election, Hillary Clinton raised $218 million from super PACS, the fundraising organizations that sprang up in the wake of Citizens Unitednearly three times as much as Donald Trump. During the primaries, though, the candidates for the Republican nomination collectively raised close to $400 million (paywall) from super PACs.

Conservatives have supported freedom of speech more consistently than liberals, even when its speech that goes against their views, according to Batchis. My research does suggest that even on hot-button issues like patriotism and traditional morality, many on the right have moved in a more speech-protective direction, he says. By contrast, progressives have been more likely to advocate constraints, particularly on speech that was seen as harmful to racial minorities and women, he says.

Still, there are exceptions to this rule on both sides. Many liberals still hold to the ACLU-style civil libertarian tradition even in the face of hate speech, says Batchis, while moralistic conservatives have advocated limitations on free speech such a ban on flag burning.

In the wake of Charlottesville, the California branch of the American Civil Liberties Union declared that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in protected free speech. And indeed, direct threats arent protected (pdf, pp. 3-4) by the first amendment. But to count as a threat, speech has to incite imminent lawless action, in the words of a 1969 Supreme Court ruling; merely advocating violence is allowed. That is why neo-Nazis are allowed to march, and to cast themselves as free-speech champions.

Read more:
How the American right co-opted the idea of free speech - Quartz

Can President Trump block citizens from following his own Twitter feed? Hear about the First Amendment aspects of this pending legal case.

The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University has filed suit on behalf of several Twitter users who were denied the ability to follow the Presidents Twitter feed after they made comments critical of him. The Institute claims that the ban is a violation of a First Amendment right to free speech and free assembly, and that a public officials social media page is a designated public forum.

The Justice Department, defending President Trump, says the courts are powerless to tell President Trump how he can manage his private Twitter handle and the Institutes requests would send the First Amendment deep into uncharted waters.

Joining our We The People podcast to discuss these arguments are Alex Abdo, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law.

CREDITS

Todays show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Ugonna Ezeand Lana Ulrich. Research was provided by Lana and Tom Donnelly.

Continue todays conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.

Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Please subscribe toWe the Peopleand our companion podcast,Live at Americas Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

We the Peopleis a member of SlatesPanoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm.

And finally, despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visitconstitutioncenter.orgto learn more.

Filed Under: First Amendment

More here:
Podcast: Trump, Twitter and the First Amendment - Constitution Daily (blog)

Piers Morgan is at it again:

Morgan is echoing an idea that has been advanced repeatedly in the last couple of days: To wit, that there is something particular about Nazism that makes it ineligible for protection under the Bill of Rights. This is flat-out wrong. And, more than that, its dangerous. Abhorrent and ugly as they invariably are, there simply is no exception to the First Amendment that exempts Nazis, white supremacists, KKK members, Soviet apologists, or anyone else who harbors disgraceful or illiberal views. As the courts have made abundantly clear, the rules are the same for ghastly little plonkers such as Richard Spencer as they are for William Shakespeare. If that werent true, the First Amendment would be pointless.

This is not a controversial statement. It is not an interesting view. It is not a contrarian contribution to an intractable grey area. It is a fact. There are a handful of limits to free speech in the United States, and all of them are exceptions of form rather than of viewpoint. Heres Eugene Volokh to explain that further:

To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with hate speech in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for fighting words face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight.

. . .

The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because hes black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because hes Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isnt because its hate speech; its because its illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speakers ex-girlfriend.

Under the doctrine laid out by a unanimous Supreme Court in the seminal Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, incitement to imminent lawless action may in some circumstances be prosecuted. But this rule is universal and narrow, and, crucially, is in no way akin to the sort of hate speech exceptions that obtain in every other country, and that so many Americans seem to believe exist here too. Under U.S. law it is legal for a speaker to say broadly that all the Jews should be killed or that it is time for a revolution, or that slavery is good, and it is not legal for a speaker to say to a crowd, lets all go and kill that guy wearing the yarmulke, or meet me in an hour at the armory and well start our insurrection at the Post Office, or look at that black guy over there in the blue t-shirt, lets chain him to my car.Who is saying these things, however, does not matter in the slightest. Whether one likes it or not, Brandenburg applies as much to neo-Nazis as to the Amish, as consistently to Old Testament preachers as to gay rights activists, and as broadly to my mother as to David Duke. It applies in exactly the same way to good people, to bad people, and to those in between.

It is, in other words, a principle a principle that cannot be obviated by cynical word games or by thinly disguised special pleading. I believe in free speech, but or I just dont think this is a free speech issue both popular lines at the moment simply will not cut it as arguments. On the contrary. In reality, all that the but and the I just dont think mean is that the speaker hopes to exempt certain people because he doesnt like them. But one can no more get away from ones inconsistencies by saying its not a speech issue to me than one can get away from the charge that one is unreliable on due process insisting in certain cases, well, thats not a due process issue to me. This is a free speech issue. Those who wish it werent just trying to have it both ways to argue bluntly for censorship, and then to pretend that they arent.

Leaving aside that the Supreme Court has been extremely clear on this matter, time and time again (inter alia, see: Brandenburg v. Ohio, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Matal v. Tam),it seems obvious as a philosophical matter that any robust free speech protections will have to be assiduously neutral if they are to be useful at all. The purpose of the First Amendment is to deprive the government of the capacity to determine at the point of a bayonet what is true, and what is not; what is good, and what is not; what is acceptable to the ruling class, and what is not. To accept this arrangement is not to suggest that one thinks the Nazis might have a point, or to imply that one believes that we need the Bill of Rights in case Richard Spencers race science turns out to be true. And, however rhetorically effective it might be to pretend otherwise,it is in no way to defend those people. Rather, it is to propose that the only effective way of preventing governmental abuses is to take away its oversight of viewpoints in toto. Moreover, it isto submit that, having been born with ahost of unalienable rights, free human beings are not obliged to ask their employees in the government for permission to speak their minds.

In a country such as this one, that means that disgusting reprobates such as those who marched in Charlottesville will be beyond the reach of the state at least until they go beyond speech and into the realm of action (which does not include carrying a torch or a flag or wearing a t-shirt, but certainly does include driving a car into another human being). Is that distressing? Yes, it is. Had I been in Charlottesville at the weekend,Id no doubt have been even more appalled than I was watching it on television.But the salient question is not whether the status quo can be upsetting, but whether it is better than the alternative. Piers Morgan believes that If America doesnt wake up to the fact that what these Nazis did in Charlottesville is not free speech . . . it is in deep trouble. It seems obvious to me that the precise opposite is true. No free speech for fascists is an incoherent, almost Orwellian, position.Happily andon a routinelybipartisan basis the Supreme Court concurs.

More:
There's No 'Nazi' Exception to the First Amendment - National Review