Mediaboss Marketing

High Point University First Lady Mariana Qubein presided over the tree dedication and turned the first shovel of soil

HIGH POINT, N.C., March 23, 2017 In the years before the American Revolution, colonists gathered at the Liberty Tree, a large elm tree in Boston that served as a rallying point for important events and speeches. High Point University joined in celebrating freedom and commemorating First Amendment Day by planting its own Liberty Tree in David R. Hayworth Park on March 22.

Students, faculty and staff gathered to plant the tree, a Jefferson elm, which now stands on campus as an enduring symbol of freedom of expression. Jon Roethling, curator of the grounds for the Mariana H. Qubein Arboretum and Botanical Gardens at HPU, selected the tree because of its historical significance. Named for founding father Thomas Jefferson, the original plant is one of several hundred American elms planted on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. This variety of elm is known for being disease resistant and fast growing.

HPU First Lady Mariana Qubein, whose vision is for the gardens to serve as an inspiration to students and the academic environment on campus, presided over the dedication and turned the first shovel of soil.

We are proud at HPU to express our joy and our freedom through the gardens and arboretum, which focus our attention on the beauty and inspiration that can be found in nature, says Qubein. The planting of a tree is a fitting tradition to serve as a reminder of the freedoms we are so blessed to have in this country.

The tree dedication was part of HPUs second annual First Amendment Day celebration, organized by the Nido R. Qubein School of Communication and supported by Lambda Pi Eta communication honor society, Phi Alpha Delta pre-law fraternity, HPUs chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists and HPUs new Speech & Debate Club.

Dr. Dean Smith, assistant professor of communication, started the event last year as part of a larger discussion on free speech and academic freedom on college campuses.

Students and staff plant a Jefferson elm as part of HPUs second annual First Amendment Day celebration, organized by the Nido R. Qubein School of Communication.

First Amendment Day originally grew out of discussions about the declining understanding of Americas First Amendment traditions, especially among young people, and it is now being recognized at dozens of campuses nationwide, says Smith. As a First Amendment scholar, I wanted HPU to be a part of that tradition, including the planting of a Liberty Tree, because of the inspiring environment the gardens create on our campus.

First Amendment Day is a fitting project for HPU because one of our largest academic programs is communication, but the celebration of freedom of expression shouldnt be limited to communication majors. It is a tradition that belongs to all of us.

In addition to the tree dedication, this years First Amendment Day included a discussion on free speech, a First Amendment Free Food Festival that required students to give up their ability to express themselves in exchange for free food, and a keynote address by Nadine Strossen, an author and former president of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Here is the original post:
HPU Dedicates Liberty Tree for First Amendment Day - High Point University (press release) (blog)

In 1927, John Dewey wrote that the essential need of democracy, of self-government and freedom, properly understood, was "the improvement of the methods and conditions of debate, discussion and persuasion. That is the problem of the public."

That problem may well be getting worse. For years, beginning with Republic.com (2001), Cass Sunstein has issued warnings that with the advent of "The Daily Me," cyberspace entices us to filter out everything and everyone we do not wish to see and hear, thereby reducing shared experiences and opinions with which we do not agree. In #Republic, Sunstein, a former official in the Obama administration and a professor of law at Harvard, indicates that "echo chambers," "cybercascades," "conspiracy theories," and "fake news," spread to millions in seconds via the web, are producing fragmentation, political polarization, and terrorism. Ripped straight from the headlines, but informed by hard data, #Republic should command the attention of American citizens across the political spectrum.

Many of us, Sunstein points out, become more convinced we are right - and more extreme in our views - the more contact we have with like-minded people (by, for example, watching Fox News or MSNBC or getting information filtered by social media). On Facebook, efforts to debunk false beliefs are typically ignored, and at times produce an even stronger commitment.

Public policy, Sunstein maintains, has a role to play in setting a context for a more deliberative democracy. Acutely aware of the risks, he recommends a fundamentally different approach to the First Amendment. Demonstrating, quite persuasively, that "free speech" is not an absolute, he suggests that the "clear and present danger" doctrine has outlived its usefulness and ought to be replaced by an interpretation in which speech would be protected - or not - according to its content rather than its likely or actual consequences. After all, the benefits of allowing terrorist organizations to explicitly incite violence on social media might well be dwarfed by the costs.

Asked in 1787, "What have you given us?" Benjamin Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." The year 2017 may well be the right time to ask hard questions about the relationship between our choices and our freedom, and between citizens and consumers, questions about what we need to do to keep our republic.

Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.

Published: March 24, 2017 12:57 PM EDT The Philadelphia Inquirer

Over the past year, the Inquirer, the Daily News and Philly.com have uncovered corruption in local and state public offices, shed light on hidden and dangerous environmental risks, and deeply examined the regions growing heroin epidemic. This is indispensable journalism, brought to you by the largest, most experienced newsroom in the region. Fact-based journalism of this caliber isnt cheap. We need your support to keep our talented reporters, editors and photographers holding government accountable, looking out for the public interest, and separating fact from fiction. If you already subscribe, thank you. If not, please consider doing so by clicking on the button below. Subscriptions can be home delivered in print, or digitally read on nearly any mobile device or computer, and start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

Read more here:
'#Republic': A new First Amendment in cyberspace? - Philly.com - Philly.com

Paul MannMad River Union

EUREKA A defense motion to block the press and public from the next phase of the Jon David Goldberg murder case has forced another postponement in the prosecution of the man accused of the point blank gunshot killing of a Fortuna fire captain last September.

The defense motion clashes with the First Amendment prohibition against abridging the freedom of the press.

Superior Court Judge Dale A. Reinholtsen will rule April 11 on Public Defender Casey Russos motion that the evidence offered in the preliminary hearing by the prosecution be presented in a closed courtroom.

Presumably Russo will argue next month that only a closed hearing can avert prejudicing the prospective jurors who will hear the case against Goldberg. He is charged with killing Timothy Thomas Smith, Sr. September 26.

Jon David Goldberg

Smith allegedly cuckolded Goldberg, who is accused of taking revenge by shooting Smith five times in his front yard in Fortuna as his wife and son looked on during the noon hour.

Goldberg, 36, in custody on $1 million bail, faces additional charges of using a firearm against his estranged wife, Rachel Christina, including battering her and brandishing a gun in public. He has pleaded not guilty on all counts, including the murder charge.

In continuing the case until April 11 at 2:30, Judge Reinholtsen pointed out that the public must be given due notice before closing a preliminary hearing; several reporters were present in the gallery.

Reinholtsen noted that preliminary hearings, which determine if the prosecution has gathered enough evidence to warrant a trial, must be open to the press and the public, either in total or in part, except in rare instances. He cited a California case involving a television station in which the First Amendment protection prevailed.

In making his motion, Russo drew a distinction between closing the foundational evidence portion of the preliminary hearing and the hearing as a whole. He said he did not anticipate calling any witnesses in connection with the judges decision on whether to close the courtroom.

In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court judge in a case brought by the state of California against a nurse charged with murdering 12 patients with massive overdoses of the heart drug lidocaine.

The Supreme Court ruled that the state judge overstepped his authority when he granted a defense motion to close the preliminary hearing.

The judge had cited California statutory language that such a hearing could be closed if exclusion of the public is necessary in order to protect the defendants right to a fair and impartial trial.

The Supreme Court threw out that reasoning. The majority opinion, written by then-Chief Justice of the U.S., Warren Burger, stated that as opposed to grand jury proceedings, preliminary hearings in California traditionally have been open to the public and public access is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.

The absence of a jury from a preliminary hearing makes the importance of public access even more significant, the majority ruled.

As for the press, the Supreme Court held that since a qualified First Amendment right of access attaches to preliminary hearings as conducted in California, the proceedings cannot be closed unless specific, on-the-record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

That interest does not include the defendants right to a fair trial unless there is a substantial probability that that right will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent, and that reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the right.

The lower court failed to consider whether alternatives short of closure would have protected the defendants interests, Chief Justice Burger wrote.

Humboldt County Deputy District Attorney Luke Bernthal is expected to introduce evidence concerning the alleged battering of Rachel Christina Goldberg with a revolver, among several weapons charges.

Notably, the battery allegation spans the period Sept. 1, 2014 to Sept. 30, 2016, more than two years before Smith was shot.

Bernthal has arranged to call a civilian witness, Frieda Smith, not otherwise identified, to testify at the preliminary hearing. Appearing in court on three occasions, Smith has been sidelined by the repeated scheduling delays in the Goldberg case.

Goldberg is charged with felony assault of his wife with a revolver; of displaying a concealed firearm in public in the presence of another person, unnamed in Bernthals complaint; displaying and drawing his gun in a rude, angry and threatening manner; and using a firearm in a fight and quarrel.

The battery charge states that Goldberg willfully and unlawfully used force and violence against Rachel Goldberg.

Read this article:
First Amendment issue delays murder case again - Mad River Union

The U.S. border has been thrown into the spotlight these last few months, with border agents detaining travelers for hours, demanding travelers unlock devices, and even demanding passwords and social media handles as a prerequisite for certain travelers entering the country. As the U.S. government issues a dizzying array of new rules and regulations, people in the U.S. and abroad are asking: are there meaningful constitutional limits on the ability of border agents to seize and search the data on your electronic devices and in the cloud?

The answer is: Yes. As well explain in a series of posts on the Bill of Rights at the border and discuss in detail in our border search guide, border agents and their activities are not exempt from constitutional scrutiny.

In this first post, well focus on the First Amendment.

The First Amendment is meant to safeguard five fundamental rights: speech, assembly, religion, press, and petition to the government for redress of grievances. The First Amendment also protects the right to exercise these basic rights anonymously because, as Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:

But when border agents scrutinize the massive volume of sensitive information in our digital devices or in the cloud, they infringe on First Amendment rights in at least four distinct ways.

Border searches of our digital devices and cloud data thus implicate core free speech rights. Therefore, border agents should at least be required to obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before any such search of our private digital information.

Indeed, the First Amendment requires even more. For example, when police officers demand purchasing records from booksellers (implicating the right to access information anonymously), the First Amendment requires not only probable cause, but a compelling need, the exhaustion of less restrictive investigative methods, and a substantial nexus between the information sought and the investigation. Given that a digital device search is far more invasive upon First Amendment rights than disclosure of what books a person buys at a single bookseller, border agents should be required to do the same.

And the government should take special care with respect to journalists. The Privacy Protection Act prohibits the government from searching or seizing a journalists materials without probable cause that the journalist has committed a crime. While the statute exempts border searches for the purpose of enforcing the customs laws, it does not exempt border searches for other purposes, such as a criminal investigation.

Unfortunately, so far, courts have refused to recognize the free speech implications of digital border searches. But we hope and expect that will change as courts are forced to weigh the increasing amount of sensitive information easily accessible on our devices and in the cloud, and the increasing frequency and scope of border searches of this information.

Without First Amendment protections at the border, the threat of self-censorship looms large. Travelers faced with the risk of border agent intrusion into such sensitive data are more prone to self-censorship when expressing themselves, when considering private membership in political groups, or when deciding whether to access certain reading or media material. This is especially true for people who belong to unpopular groups, who espouse unpopular opinions, or who read unpopular books or view unpopular movies.

Likewise, confidential sources that provide invaluable information to the public about government or corporate malfeasance may refrain from whistleblowing if they fear journalists cannot protect their identities during border crossings. This is why EFF is calling for stronger Constitutional protection of your digital information and urging people to contact Congress on this issue today.

Were also collecting stories of border search abuses at: borders@eff.org

The good news is theres a lot you can do at the border to protect your digital privacy. Take the time to review our pocket guides on Knowing Your Rights and Protecting your Digital Data at the border. And for a deeper dive into these issues, take a look at our Border Search Guide on protecting the data on your devices and in the cloud.

View post:
The Bill of Rights at The Border: The First Amendment and the Right ... - EFF

We are in an unprecedented era when it comes to the First Amendment and what happens in the next few years could decide the limits of our right to free speech for generations to come. Part of what makes this time feel so foreign is the amount of outlets people now have access to for exercising free speech. The internet has given rise to social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, where open public discourse can happen easily and frequently. And nobody has taken advantage of the power of social media more than President Donald Trump through his infamous Twitter account. But this era is also unprecedented because of the unique way in which President Trump has tried to suppress the press so early in his presidency.

The President has a very strained relationship with the truth and has shown his capacity to use his influence by branding media outlets who dont align with his reality as Fake News. President Trump has even called what is known as the mainstream media the enemy of the American people. Breitbart a heavily right-winged outlet whose wanton reports more often than not instigate the Presidents Twitter tirades is getting preferential treatment over outlets like CNN. Both conservatives and liberals have agreed that the Presidents suppression of the media is troubling. Former President George W. Bush recently said that the media is indispensable to democracy and necessary for holding people in power accountable.

While the Loyolan is a university publication, we are responsible for truly expressing our First Amendment rights. In the world of today, the press is an easy target. If someone doesnt like something written about them, they blame the media for their image rather than themselves. As a college paper, it is our duty to ensure that the First Amendment remains vital to the people, calling attention to wrongs that the people cannot fight themselves. It is our job to make the world more transparent and try to keep the government honest in this age of confusion.

We at the Loyolan are not the only journalists who have cause for concern. In light of the current political climate and President Trumps clashing relationship with the media, the Washington Post updated its slogan in Feb. to Democracy Dies in Darkness. True though that slogan may be, we maintain that the Loyolan is Your Home. Your Voice. Your News. Especially in this nation where our president is constantly trying to shut out and shut down the press, it is crucial that people in positions of power, like Trump, understand that at the end of the day, we are just that, Your Voice.

This week marks the Loyolans annual First Amendment Week. However, this doesnt necessarily imply a celebration. While the current administration is trying to strip our freedoms from us, we must use events like these to open a discussion within the community so that we can all reach a common understanding of what the role of the media is.

Americas freedom of the press serves as a pillar to the First Amendment. In regards to the media and journalism in the face of the Trump administration, Oscar Wilde once said, In America, the President reigns for four years, and Journalism governs forever and ever. With this in mind, take this week to reflect on the importance of our First Amendment rights and how pertinent freedom of the press is to our democracy here in the U.S.

More:
Board Editorial: What will happen to the First Amendment? - Los Angeles Loyolan (subscription)