Mediaboss Marketing

Im 7-foot-4 and three times as smart as you. The president of Trinidad and Tobago bugged my smart TVlast summer and recorded me watching Moonshiners marathons. Disgraceful! Did you notice the cool new flag hanging on my porch? The design is called a Swastika. I created it.

The First Amendment, by the way, was a cockamamie idea, promulgated by men who favored powdered wigs and wooden teeth.

For those of you scoring at home, the preceding rant included outright lies, unprovable assertions, reckless accusations, infantile insults and provocative bravado. What do they have in common? Theyre all protected by the First Amendment and the right to free speech which isnt entirely free.

There is a price to pay when one has to listen ascousin Wilbur enlivens Thanksgiving dinner with pointed political discourse. Or when an extremist peddling incendiary rhetoric shows up at the local university intending to elicit mushroom clouds of outrage. Or when the president of the United States tweets yet another prefabricated whopper.

Unprecedented and dangerous times?

Been there, heard that, says Saint Marys College politics professor Steve Woolpert, whose academic research includes the Constitution and Supreme Court.

Its not pretty, and it doesnt make you feel great to be a citizen of a country where this stuff is going on, Woolpert said. Its not unprecedented. Look tothedebate over ratifying the Constitution. The rhetoric was extremely heated and nasty. Around the Civil War, it was worse, because people were killing each other. People were being more virulent in their rhetoric then.

Thats difficult to believe given howIowa Congressman Steve King recently advocated for stringent immigration policies: We cant restore our civilization with somebody elses babies.

Or the dismissive manner with which President Donald Trump regards courts and judges.

Or the Brentwoodman who has decided to fly the Confederate flag outside his house as a history lesson. Neighbors who have been subjected tothe drive-by honks and hollers no doubtwish free speech could be a bit more serene.

The First Amendment is something people support in the abstract, Woolpert said. Support for free speech is quite limited when it comes to speech we hate. Ideally, what would happen is that it would broaden their understanding of why free speech is important.

It didnt work that way Feb. 1 when MiloYiannopoulos, then a senior editor at right-wing website Breitbart, was scheduled to give a talk at UC Berkeley. It was unlikely his message would find a receptive audience on a college campus in the liberal-leaning Bay Area. But he had the right to deliver it. Instead,his right to free speech was abridgedby demonstrators at a cost of more than $100,000 in property damage.

Woolpert is right. We tend to regard the First Amendment as a subjective document, embracing those passages we can conform to our world view. Itcould probably be said for the entire Bill of Rights that we revere it more than we understand it.

Or as our president said recently:

If the Constitution prevented me from doing one or two things, Id chalk that up to bad luck, Trump said after his revised travel ban was struck down by a judge. When literally everything I want to do is magically a violation of the Constitution, thats very unfair and bad treatment.

Could be worse.

Woolpert reminds that our second president, John Adams, signed into lawthe Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to criticize the government. Such an act enacted today, of course, would result in the extermination of many websites and most cable news outlets.

I can remember the civil rights era when people were having crosses burned on their lawn and people were being shot and lynched for asserting their (free speech) rights, Woolpert said. And despite all that, the First Amendment, it seems to be aprinciple that people support.

Excerpt from:
No worries, Trump First Amendment still protecting free speech, even yours - The Mercury News

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 8:25AM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Kit Carson

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 8:25AM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Yuma

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 4:05AM MDT expiring March 19 at 8:00PM MDT in effect for: Fremont, Huerfano, Las Animas, Pueblo

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 3:20AM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson, Morgan, Washington, Weld

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 3:20AM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Boulder, Larimer, Logan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Weld

Fire Weather Watchissued March 18 at 9:09PM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson, Morgan, Washington, Weld

Fire Weather Warningissued March 18 at 9:09PM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Boulder, Larimer, Logan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Weld

Fire Weather Watchissued March 18 at 12:41PM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Yuma

Fire Weather Watchissued March 18 at 2:59PM MDT expiring March 19 at 8:00PM MDT in effect for: Fremont, Huerfano, Las Animas, Pueblo

View post:
First Amendment expert: DPD public records dispute raises ... - The Denver Channel

Someone asked recently why we have posted the First Amendment as a regular feature on this page.

Well its just a reminder that we can all have a voice in the defense and perpetuation of our great Democratic Republic.

The fact is, many people make reference to the First Amendment when theyve never actually read it, or else they havent read it in a very long time.

The First Amendment is the front door of our great Constitution. Without it, claiming the many protections for the individual in this document would be a cumbersome and inefficient process.

There have been efforts through the years to erode the First Amendment, but fortunately the concept attributed to Voltaire and echoed by Patrick Henry has prevailed. I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Such a noble stand!

Routinely we get comments from the public that paraphrased collectively say, He shouldnt be allowed to say that.

Well, we do have libel and slander laws which establish some parameters on our speech, but those provisions allow for evidence and a process of jurisprudence.

But the aforementioned reference, He shouldnt be allowed to say that typically involves contrasting opinions that come in the purview of fair game and often involves politics.

Keep in mind that the First Amendment also addresses freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is sort of an antidote to tyrants, big and small. It embraces concepts foreign to many governments around the world. It provides for broad discourse and robust debate elements that helped found our nation.Simply put, its the crown jewel of our Constitution and metaphorically speaking, should be worn on our sleeves!

Continue reading here:
First Amendment: Crown jewel of our Constitution - Moultrie Observer

Its Sunshine Week in the Sunshine State, and not just because its Spring Break.

Since 2005, open government and freedom of information advocates have designated March 13-19 as a time to celebrate public transparency and raise awareness about the critical importance of access to government records.

Sunshine Week is timed to coincide with the birthday of James Madison, author of the First Amendment.

True to form, the First Amendment Foundation has been busy at the Florida Capitol battling to ensure the publics right to know. The Tallahassee-based nonprofit helped restructure a bill this week that would have severely limited access to information if the government decided not to comply with public records laws.

Floridas sunshinelaw says that it is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records shall at all times be open for a personal inspection by any person.But the only real recourse against a government officer or agency that refuses to hand over public informationis to challenge them in court.

That can be expensive. As a safeguard, if a judge rules that the government violated public records laws, then the government must pay the record requesters attorneys fees.

The mandatory provision creates a level playing field for someone who can afford to pay for an attorney and those who cannot, according to the First Amendment Foundation.

Putting aside the issue of awarding attorneys fees with taxpayer money, a new bill would have made the mandatory fee provision optional. By changing the word must to shall, a judge could deny fees even if the court rules in favor of the citizen.

The potential consequences are enormous.

Without a penalty provision when the government is wrong, there is no incentive to be transparent and provide citizens with access to information about governmental decision-making. The result will be fewer challenges brought by citizens, which will certainly result in less government transparency, says the First Amendment Foundation.

But Tuesday, a compromise was reached and the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved it.

Under the bill as amended in committee, the fee provision remains mandatory, Barbara Petersen, the foundations executive director, told Watchdog.org.

Petersen sounded the alarm about the proposal in February, then outlineda fix, and recently worked with Sen. Greg Steube, R-Sarasota, the bills sponsor, and the Florida League of Cities to amend the bill.

As part of the compromise, the bill also includes a five-day notice requirement that would alert a public records custodian of a pending records request before a lawsuit can be filed, and an additional provision that allows courts to crack down on improper records requests the issue Steubes bill initially sought to address.

Hisapproach, however, also would have penalized legitimate inquiries and legal challenges.

In recent years, lawmakers have decried a cottage industry of records requests that are intended to trigger sunshine violations. Petersen calls them predatory requests.

Theyre designed to fail, she told Watchdog.org. When the agency doesnt respond, or doesnt respond quickly enough, then the requester files suit in civil court. A few days later, they call up the agency and offer to settle for a financial payout with the promise of dropping the lawsuit.

In 2014, the issue became a statewide concern when a circuit court judge ruled that Jeffrey Gray, a self-described civil rights activist from northeast Florida, was engaged in a baiting gesture meant to achieve personal financial gain, rather than a genuine effort to obtainpublic information.

According to the Florida Bar, the ruling said Gray had been a plaintiff in 18 separate lawsuits involving public records requests in Duval County, and that Grays lawyer had paid him when attorneys fees were recovered. The judgment said the practice was nothing more than a scam.

Knocking out Floridas mandatory fee provision would haltfrivolous, harassing and disingenuous records requestsdesigned to force sunshine violations, but not without collateral damage.

In doing that, the bill wouldnt just punish the people who are taking advantage of the system, but the 99 percent of people who make requests because theyre legitimately seeking public records, Petersen said.

The amendment adopted this week should fix that.

If Steubes amended bill becomes law, not only will courts continue to award attorneys fees when the government wrongfully withholds public information, but courts also would be able to assess attorneys fees against anyone who attempts to profit from scamming Floridas public records system.

See the article here:
Sunshine Week: First Amendment Foundation goes to bat for ... - Florida Politics (blog)

Steamboat Springs District Judge Shelley Hill on Thursday ruled that a Jan. 26 court hearing should not have been closed to the public, and the transcripts should be released.

On Jan. 26, a preliminary hearing for Miguel Diaz-Martinez was scheduled. Diaz-Martinez has been charged with 41 felonies related to accusations that he exchanged drugs for sex with underage girls.

Diaz-Martinez ultimately decided he did not want a preliminary hearing, and the case was bound over to District Court, where felonies are heard.

It was disclosed in court during the Jan. 26 hearing that Diaz-Martinez had been offered a plea deal.

In a rare move, Routt County Judge James Garrecht offered to close his courtroom to the public for a few minutes. District Attorney Brett Barkey said he wanted to state the plea deal on the record, but he did not think it was appropriate in this case to do it publicly.

The Steamboat Pilot & Today requested the transcripts, believing court should not have been held in secret.

Hill agreed.

Once the public is excluded, that First Amendment right has been abridged, Hill said.

The defense and prosecution argued that releasing the transcript containing the plea offer would harm the ability to seat an impartial jury. They were concerned that, if an impartial jury could not be found, the trial would have to be held in another county.

Because of that, District Attorney Brett Barkey said there was an overriding and compelling interest to close the courtroom to the public.

As we all know, there is a clash between two constitutional divisions, Hill said.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, while the Sixth Amendment guarantees a person the right to a fair trial.

Hill said there were times when the freedom of the press might be limited, but she had the ability to ensure Diaz-Martinez still receives a fair trial.

Hill said pre-trial media coverage helps ensure an open, competent judicial system based on integrity and fundamental fairness.

Without constitutional freedom of the press and public scrutiny, government, including the judicial, and for trials themselves, could easily become secret proceedings where fundamental fairness could always be suspect, Hill said.

The court is preparing the transcripts for the Steamboat Pilot & Today.

On Thursday, Diaz-Martinez was scheduled for an arraignment to either plead guilty or not guilty to the charges. The arraignment was postponed until 2:30 p.m. April 26.

Also on Thursday, Hill partially denied a request from the Steamboat Pilot & Today to take photos in the courtroom.

The defense did not want photos taken, because it felt doing so might endanger Diaz-Martinezs right to a fair trial.

Hill ruled photos could not be taken while Diaz-Martinez appeared in jail clothing. Diaz-Martinez was still in custody and in jail clothing Thursday.

Photos will be allowed if there is a trial. During trials, defendants are allowed to wear normal clothing to avoid the appearance of guilt in front of jurors.

The Steamboat Pilot & Today will still not be allowed to show Diaz-Martinez wearing shackles.

To reach Matt Stensland, call 970-871-4247, email mstensland@SteamboatToday.com or follow him on Twitter @SBTStensland

View original post here:
1st Amendment triumphs in court | Craig Daily Press - Craig Daily Press