Mediaboss Marketing

On Feb. 3, a conservative speaker was slated to speak at the University of California at Berkeley. That's when "Black Bloc" intervened.

According to CNN (cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/), "150 masked agitators caused more than $100,000 worth of damage at UC Berkeley ... when demonstrators gathered to protest Milo Yiannopoulos, who was scheduled to give a speech at the school.

"Black-clad protesters, wearing masks, threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police. Some even hurled Molotov cocktails that ignited fires. They also smashed windows of the student union center on the Berkeley campus.

"At least six people were injured. Some were attacked by the agitators -- who are a part of an anarchist group known as the "Black Bloc" that has been causing problems in Oakland for years ..."

If you haven't hear of Black Bloc, watch the video at usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/02/what-black-bloc/97393870/.

We are told by some that Black Bloc is not an organization; rather, it is a "spontaneous coming together of individuals" to act as a "protective shield" for "progressive protesters" against "police brutality." If you buy that, I've got a nice bridge to sell you!

As I watch the USA Today video, I can only come to one opinion: Black Bloc is a criminal conspiracy which engages in overt acts of violence intended to deprive other Americans -- with whom they disagree -- of their Constitutional rights of free speech, peaceable assembly and private property.

So what justifies rioting, the fires, the destruction of property? The left-wing anarchists disagreed with the political opinions of a man scheduled to give a speech.

So how long will the new administration put up with left-wing anarchists clad in black hoods and black masks? Are criminal thugs who run around and do violence in black hoods and black masks any better than the Klu Klux Klan? Are stormtroopers in black masks and robes any more noble than Klansmen in white robes and masks?

In 1870, The Congress, at the behest of President Grant, passed "An Act to enforce the Right of Citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of this Union, and for other Purposes."

The act was a response to terror, force and brutality used by the Klan (KKK) to prevent newly freed blacks from voting and exercising their newly granted Constitutional Rights. Section 6 criminalized "conspiring" or "going in disguise" to "intimidate" or to "hinder the free exercise" of any right granted by the Constitution. Conviction carried up to 10 years imprisonment.

Criminals, anarchists and rioters in hoods and masks -- whether those hoods and masks be white or black -- who riot in the streets to prevent anyone from exercising his First Amendment right to speak freely or assemble peacefully, or the right of any other citizen to own private property, are therefore playing a dangerous game.

The U.S. government virtually wiped out the first wave of the KKK using the Enforcement Acts. If the government decides enough is enough, 150 guys in black hoods and masks, as well as their financiers, may find themselves spending the next 10 years in federal prison.

Any thinking American should be revolted by Black Bloc's wanton destruction of property and attacks on police and bystanders. This rioting is exactly what the Nazi Brown Shirts, aka Stormtroopers, did in Germany in the 1930s.

The riots in Berkeley have the stench of Kristallnacht about them. Kristallnacht occurred Nov. 9-10, 1938. It was the night when Nazi Stormtroopers, wearing civilian clothes, to create the illusion of a "spontaneous demonstration," destroyed 267 synagogues and innumerable Jewish businesses throughout Hitler's Reich. Mobs of SA men roamed the streets, attacking Jews in their houses and forcing Jews they encountered to perform acts of public humiliation.

Our Constitution guarantees free speech. But free speech does not include incitement to riot, or the act of rioting. Attacking police and burning down buildings has never been constitutionally protected.

John Donald O'Shea, of Moline, is a retired circuit court judge.

See more here:
Rioting not protected by First Amendment | Don O Shea | qconline.com - Quad-Cities Online

Education Week (subscription) (blog)

More High School Students Support First Amendment Freedoms ... Education Week (subscription) (blog) The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation's sixth annual study on the topic finds a growing share of students support First Amendment rights. and more »

Read more from the original source:
More High School Students Support First Amendment Freedoms ... - Education Week (subscription) (blog)

Mauro Grigollo Westend61/Newscom"Today is Jim Stewart's birthday. Reply to post a wish on his Timeline or reply with 1 to post 'Happy Birthday!'" That's the text, from Facebook to Colin Brickman, that launched a legal battle between Brickman and the social-media giant.

You see, Brickman had opted out of receiving texts from Facebook via the platform's notification settings. In response to the unwanted birthday reminder, Brickman filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook, representing "all individuals who received one or more Birthday Announcement Texts from [Facebook] to a cell phone through the use of an automated telephone dialing system at any time without their consent."

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that Facebook's sending unauthorized text messages is a violation of the federal Telephone Communications Privacy Act (TCPA). "A valid TCPA claim requires plaintiff to allege (1) a defendant called a cellular telephone number; (2) using an automated telephone dialing system ('ATDS'); and (3) without the recipient's prior express consent," explains lawyer Jack Greiner in the Cincinnati Enquirer. "A text message is a 'call' within the meaning of the TCPA."

In its defense, Facebook alleged that the TCPA in unconstitutional. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Facebook attorneys argued that the TCPA's allowed exceptionsfor emergency communications and debt collectorsrender it an umpermissable, content-based restriction on speech. But the judge, while agreeing that the TCPA's restrictions are content-based (and thus subject to strict scrutiny, legally speaking), found that the law passed constitutional muster nonetheless.

The case will go forward with Facebook defending its text messages on technical grounds; it argues that the texts were not automated because Brickman and others who received them had supplied Facebook with their phone numbers. But, for now, Facebook's argument that it has a First Amendment right to send people text messages against their will has been rejected.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has twice found the TCPA to be constitutional in previous casesMoser v. Federal Communications Commission (1995) and Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez (2016)the Department of Justice pointed out in a memorandum in support of TCPA's constitutionality. In the latter case, the 9th Circuit rejected the idea that the government's interest with the law "only extends to the protection of residential privacy, and that therefore the statute is not narrowly tailored to the extent that it applies to cellular text messages."

"There is no evidence that the government's interest in privacy ends at home," ruled the 9th circuit in Campbell-Ewald. Furthermore, "to whatever extent the government's significant interest lies exclusively in residential privacy, the nature of cell phones renders the restriction of unsolicited text messaging all the more necessary to ensure that privacy."

Go here to read the rest:
Facebook Has No First Amendment Right to Send Unauthorized Texts, Says Court - Reason (blog)

News Release Norwich University Feb. 10, 2017

Contact: Daphne Larkin 802-485-2886 dlarkin@norwich.edu Follow us on Twitter @NorwichNews

NORTHFIELD, Vt. Norwich Universitys Sullivan Museum and History Center will host a lunch and learn program on the First Amendment in conjunction with a national, pop-up exhibit commemorating the 225th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.

On Wednesday, Feb. 22, at noon, The Sullivan Museum and History Center presents, A Living Document: The First Amendment, Past, Present and Future, a talk by Austin Gray, attorney and longtime professor of civil liberties and Constitutional law. The event includes a light lunch and is free and open to the public.

Gray, of law firm Gray Law PLLC in Barre, Vt., has been teaching at the university level for 20 years and is one of the founding faculty of the Master of Law program at Champlain College. He also teaches Civil Liberties and Constitutional Law at Norwich University. A graduate of Temple University School of Law, Gray is a member of the Vermont, Pennsylvania and New Jersey Bar Associations.

This presentation is held in conjunction with a new pop-up exhibition from the National Archives, The Bill of Rights and You, commemorating the 225th anniversary of the ratification of this landmark document. This exhibit spotlights one of the most remarkable periods in American history, explores the origins of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution (collectively known as the Bill of Rights), illustrates how each amendment protects U.S. citizens, and looks at how Americans exercise the rights outlined in the amendments. The Bill of Rights and You invites visitors to connect directly with the people, places, and events that mark this historic documents evolution. The exhibit will be on display in the Museums Rotunda through March 15, 2017.

The Bill of Rights and You co-curator Jennifer Johnson states: The Bill of Rights represents the Founders vision that it would be the people, through votes, that could change the Constitution with enough consensus. And when the people desired a Bill of Rights, our first 10 amendments were added to our governing charter.

Visitors are also encouraged to engage in a dialogue by answering the question: What Does Freedom Mean to You? A message board in the Museum Rotunda is available to post your own personal answer.

The Bill of Rights and You is organized by the National Archives and Records Administration, and traveled by the National Archives Traveling Exhibits Service (NATES). This exhibition was developed in collaboration with the National Archives National Outreach Initiative to commemorate the 225th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights. The exhibition is presented in part by AT&T, Seedlings Foundation, and the National Archives Foundation.

This exhibit is brought to you in collaboration with the Vermont Humanities Council and the Federation of State Humanities Councils. A statewide nonprofit organization founded in 1974, the Vermont Humanities Council strives to make Vermont a state in which every individual reads, participates in public affairs, and continues to learn throughout life.

Norwich Universitys Sullivan Museum and History Center is the only museum in Vermont to be named a Smithsonian Affiliate. Currently, there are two exhibitions focusing on the year leading up the 100th Anniversary of World War One and the 75th Anniversary of World War Two. These exhibits are on display through May 2017 and include various items from the university collection as well as borrowed materials. Some of the artifacts on exhibit include: trench art, World War One and Two posters, patriotic jewelry, artwork, uniforms, medals, objects from the field, weapons and other items from our collection.

The museum is open to the public from 8 until 4 Monday through Friday, but is closed on holidays. Admission is free. For more information about the programs or exhibit, please call 802-485-2183 or visit http://academics.norwich.edu/museum.

Go here to see the original:
Norwich University Hosts Program on First Amendment, National ... - vtdigger.org

The Channels Opinion Pages | STAFF COLUMN

Madeline Nathaus, Channels Staff February 10, 2017 122 views Filed under Columns, National, Opinion, Politics, Protest

The First Amendment was included in the Constitution by the founding fathers to guarantee citizens of the United States freedom of the press, religion, assembly and petition. It is this amendment that separates America from more than 40 percent of the worlds population.

Along with this right to freedom of speech comes the right to peacefully protest, march, and to publicly state ones beliefs in hopes of bringing attention to an issue or cause.

Protests and marches have been a vital part of forming modern day America and upholding democracy. Without citizens rising up against the government African Americans would not have civil rights, women would not be able to vote, and gay couples would not be able to get married.

Though most protests and marches remain relatively peaceful, there are times when they take a violent turn and end up disproving the point they are trying to make. For example, in the days following Trumps election, protests broke out among major cities and college campuses across the country. Unfortunately, protests in Los Angeles, Denver and especially Portland became violent in some form.

It is because of the First Amendment and the rights it provides that the Ku Klux Klan can legally march through the streets spreading a message of hate towards non-white citizens. It is why the Westboro Baptist Church can stand on corners chanting God hates fags all in the name of freedom of speech.

However, contrary to these organizations messages of discrimination and unacceptance, the Black Lives Matter movement spreads a message of lawful fairness towards African Americans.

The Womens March, which took place a couple weeks ago, brought attention to the constant sexism that women still face in the 21st century.

There is a reason why Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for peaceful protests. Imagine a mother yelling at her daughter for neglecting to wash the dishes, the daughter is less inclined to listen to her mothers reasoning if she is being aggressive.

Violent protesters ruin the movement for peaceful and lawful protesters. Peaceful and disruptive protests are the most effective forms of defiance. Vandalism, destruction of property, physically attacking other civilians, setting fires and other violent acts are illegal and indecent.

As long as protesters dont break any laws, police officers are more than happy to defend the rights of citizens. They are not the bad guys. After all, it is their job to prevent unlawful activities.

I respect everyones constitutional rights, as long as [the protests] are peaceful. Thats all that we can ask for, said Paul Espinosa, an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department.

Love sends a stronger message than hate. People will be more open to listening to a message that contradicts their own ideology if their personal beliefs are tolerated and their rights and properties are respected.

Protests and marches are the most effective form of displaying civilians disagreement with certain government choices, but they must be used as a tool, not a weapon. Do not abuse your rights.

Excerpt from:
The Channels : Keep protests peaceful; don't weaponize First ... - The Channels