Mediaboss Marketing

In 2016, abillboard on a highway near Dearborn, Michigan mocked the then-presidential candidate. Using Arabic, the billboard addressed Trump, saying:

"Donald Trump, he cant read this, but he is scared of it anyway."

The location was chosen because of the large Arab-American population in the area.

Michigan is home to the second largest Arab-American population in the United States, and the largest mosque in North America is located in Dearborn.

Commenting on the billboard, Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told Detroit News:

"It is stating a feeling ... that Donald Trump has been a fear-monger about communities he really doesnt know. What Ive been hearing on the streets of Detroit and Dearborn ... I have not spoken to a person yet that theyre going to vote for (Trump) in this upcoming election.

The general statements are hes just a racist bigot and not just against people of the Islamic faith, but he made comments against Latinos and women."

Link:
The ACLU is trolling Trump with Arabic 'First Amendment' signs - StepFeed

AUSTIN A state lawmaker wants to make it easier for public figures and officials to sue newspapers and to force reporters to disclose sources, but opponents say his bills would chill important coverage.

Critics of House Bill 3387 and House Bill 3388, authored by Rep. Ken King, R-Canadian, also argued in a State Affairs committee hearing that the proposals, if enacted, would violate the First Amendment.

HB 3387 would require that news reports explain how a particular story on a public official relates to the persons public duties.

King said that his bill would allow public officials to seek justice, but press advocates argued that such a rule would not only make it easier for the subject of the story to win a libel suit, but ultimately cause newspapers not to cover public officials for fear of costly legal judgments.

The bill would make the question of who is or is not a public figure less clear cut, giving officials the opportunity to argue that they were acting as private citizens, not in their official capacity in a particular situation: for example, a county official who protested his tax valuation.

The public/private distinction is important because even if news reports contain false statements, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public figures and officials cannot collect libel damages newspapers without proving actual malice.

Courts have for over 50 years held that actual malice means that a newspaper knew the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth.

Salem Abraham testified in support of the HB 3387.

Abraham was a Canadian, Texas, school board trustee who in 2012 unsuccessfully sued an Internet blog for libel.

Abraham, who supported King in a race for state representative, argued that making him prove actual malice without showing a connection between his board position and the story had nothing to do with free speech.

But, David Donaldson, an attorney who represented the Texas Press Association and the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said that whether or not plaintiffs are public figures is an issue that has to be determined as a matter of law, by courts.

HB 3388 would alter Texas reporter shield laws, which protects journalists from being forced to testify or turn over sources and materials.

Stacy Allen, an attorney who represented the Texas Association of Broadcasters at the hearing, said that the states reporter shield law is considered a model.

Donnis Baggett, executive vice president of the Texas Press Association, said that as drafted, Kings bill violates the First Amendment.

Under the bill, reporters who had contributed to or worked for political campaigns within the previous five years would be unable to claim the shield protection.

The same rule would apply to reporters who work for media companies or newspaper owners who have made campaign contributions within the five years.

If enacted, it would also penalize those who claim the reporters privilege, but who are subsequently found not to be journalists.

Opponents noted that media companies may well have owners or shareholders who make political contributions, a fact that would limit what their reporters could shield under the law.

As for resolving who is or isnt a journalist, that is best left to the courts, Allen said.

King said that bill is aimed at those who go buy an iPad and call themselves journalists.

He was working on a committee substitute for the bill, King said at the hearing.

But Baggett said that we have grave concerns about where were starting from.

John Austin covers the Texas Statehouse for CNHIs newspapers and websites. Reach him at jaustin@cnhi.com.

Read more from the original source:
Texas lawmaker takes aim at journalists and the First Amendment - Huntsville Item

Our Constitution in every language is our greatest defense against bigotry.

The First Amendment Looks Especially [...]

(Photo courtesy of the ACLU)

This post originally appeared at the American Civil Liberties Union website.

In 2006, a human rights advocate, who is a friend, wasprevented from boarding his flight from New York to California because of Arabic.

My friend was wearing a T-shirt with the words We will not be silent in both Arabic and English. He was told he could not fly until the offending Arabic script was covered. And lest we think our issues with Arabic have resolved themselves in the last decade, remember that simplyspeaking Arabic on an airplanewas grounds for removal from a flight just last year.

How we got to this point is a complicated matter, but the path forward doesnt have to be.

Lest we think our issues with Arabic have resolved themselves in the last decade, remember that simplyspeaking Arabic on an airplanewas grounds for removal from a flight just last year.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Arab-Americans and American Muslims have come to be viewed by some of our fellow citizens and our own government as either victims of hate or potential perpetrators of violence. The latter view dictates we should be seen through a securitized lens and has produced profiling and surveillance of our communities,watch lists and special registry programs, to name but a few programs targeting us.

However, both oversimplifications fail to capture the experience ofbeing Arab or Muslim in post-9/11 America, and last years presidential campaign demonstrated that with extraordinary clarity. We have heard condemnation of thesurge in hate crimesbut little discussion on how the rhetoric during the election contributed to that hate, particularly by leading policy makers and candidates. Instead of challenging bigoted misinformation, some candidates furthered it.

At aNew Hampshire town hall, a voter declared to then-candidate Trump,We have a problem in this country. Its called Muslims. He concluded by asking, When can we get rid of them? Mr. Trumps answer: We are going to be looking at a lot of different things.

One could reasonably suggest President Trumps Muslim bans, inboth incarnations, were the logical continuation of that conversation in New Hampshire. The Muslim ban is a candidate delivering on a campaign promise unlike any we have seen in our lifetime.

Thankfully, it is not that simple in our country.

Standing in the path between bigotry and policy is our Constitution. In this case, specifically the First Amendment.

Standing in the path between bigotry and policy is our Constitution. In this case, specifically the First Amendment.

Among the five freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment are freedom of speech and the right to religious freedom. Thus far, numerous judges have found the bans to be in violation of our First Amendment and their implementation has been stalled. In the guise of keeping us safe, Trump has proposed unnecessary, ineffective policies that sow fear. Americans know it, and responded by showing up at our nations airports with banners and legal pads to defend our Constitution and protect the people most impacted, including those who speak the feared language of Arabic. In addition to winning the first stay of the ban, the ACLU has launched a We the People campaign that features the First Amendment translated into other languages, including Arabic, and is displaying it in ads and billboards. Seeing the First Amendment in Arabic is particularly satisfying at this moment as a fitting reminder that those words apply to all of us.

I worked on Capitol Hill on Sept. 11, and I was in the room when Attorney General John Ashcroft first presented the Patriot Act to congressional leadership. Many at the time asked: Are we striking the right balance between protecting our national security and our civil liberties? We should always remember that if we are told we must choose one or the other, we are being offered a false choice and a shortsighted remedy that will provide neither. The same goes for bigoted, undemocratic policies demanding that we choose between freedom or safety.

Like those who advance them, policy remedies can either move our country forward or take us back.

The slogan on my friends shirt belonged to a resistance campaign led by theWhite Rose, an extraordinary group of young people who were brutally executed for distributing leaflets in opposition to Nazi policies in Germany during World War II. The phrase We will not be silent is how they concluded theirfourth resistance flyer.

Our fear of Arabic or more specifically, of Arabs and Muslims remains a problem for some, including those who currently hold some important positions in our government. It is driving anincrease in incidents of hateand bad policies. We hope they will soon get over that irrational fear but until they do, we too will not be silent and are protected by the words of our Constitution and the judges sworn to uphold them.

After all, remember that my friend who was targeted for the two words of Arabic on his T-shirt is protected by the 34 words of Arabic or 45 in English appearing on a billboard near you.

Daily Reads: Former Goldman Sachs President Enjoys New White House Influence; Is Trump Dropping Big Bombs to Boost Popularity?

Margaret Atwood Reflects on The Handmaids Tale

See more here:
The First Amendment Looks Especially Beautiful in Arabic - BillMoyers - BillMoyers.com

Rewire

A Missouri church's playground is now a First Amendment exercise for Supreme Court Miami Herald A U-turn by Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens might let the air out of a highly anticipated Supreme Court challenge to the state's 2012 rejection of a church school's scrap-tire grant application. While the complex clash pitting the First Amendment against ... Will Gorsuch Reshape the First Amendment This Summer?Rewire all 32 news articles »

See the article here:
A Missouri church's playground is now a First Amendment exercise for Supreme Court - Miami Herald

News By Whitney McDonald | April 14, 2017

Amazon is using the First Amendment to argue that its customers commands to Echo devices should remain private. The company hopes to stop law enforcement from using the recordings in criminal investigations.

Customers may be unaware that their conversations with the Echos Alexa are being stored. Questions and Alexas answers are retrievable through the app.

I think it should be my option to release recordings and have myself recorded, Echo user Vanessa Ortolan said.

Amazon was asked to turn over the recordings during a murder investigation in Arkansas. Amazon denied the request at first and told authorities that they could obtain that information through a different source.

By implication they said that that should also prevent them from having to hand over search histories from the Amazon Echo, said Lansing attorney Collin Nyeholt. I can see that would be a logical extension (of the First Amendment) because whether youre typing a search into an Amazon search box as opposed to saying it outloud to an Amazon Echo I think that the same protection would apply.

Users are changing the way they use and trust Alexa considering the Echo stores personal information such as home addresses, phone numbers and credit card numbers.

Amazon has claimed that the conversations between the user and Alexa are protected under free speech in the First Amendment.

Amazon does not seek to obstruct any lawful investigation, but rather seeks to protect the privacy rights of its customers, Amazon said in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Amazons Motion to Quash Search Warrant. When the government is seeking their data from Amazon, especially when that data may include expressive content protected by the First Amendment, the memo said.

There is a very delicate balance that we strike in this society and what we let law enforcement do to keep us safe versus letting them go too far so we dont become a police state, Nyeholt said. The unfortunate result is that there are things law enforcement could be doing more of but we say thats too much of a violation of peoples rights were not going to let them do it even if it lets bad people off of the hook.

I am a student studying Journalism at Michigan State University. I am currently writing news concerning the "First Amendment". I aspire to report on politics and news as I continue on in my career.

This Michigan State journalism project looks at how First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition are exercised and tested during the first 100 days of the Trump administration.

Link:
Amazon uses First Amendment to protect users' Echo commands - Spartan Newsroom