Mediaboss Marketing

Is advertising protected speech? And can internet companies use your personal information in advertising without your permission?

These answer to these questions seems to be yes if you agree with the advertising trade associations that are asking the FCC to change its opt-in privacy rules for online service providers.

TheAssociation of National Advertisers, theAmerican Association of Advertising Agencies, theAmerican Advertising Federation, theData & Marketing Association,theInteractive Advertising Bureau, and theNetwork Advertising Initiativehave petitioned the FCC to reconsider its decision to require consumer to opt-in to having data collected, shared and used.

The group contends theFCCs orderimposes sweeping and onerous requirements and violates First Amendment protections of commercial speech.

"The Commission did this in a manner that unreasonably exceeds its statutory mandate by restricting a substantial amount of protected free speech counter to the First Amendment, and using a process that did not allow adequate notice and comment from interested parties." -Petition to FCC from Advertising Groups

The ruling in question requires providers to get opt-in approval from consumers in order to share customer information with any third party. The order, per the petition, includes information such as geo-location, childrens, health, and financial information, Social Security numbers, the content of communications, and all web browsing and app usage history information.

As someone that works in the advertising industry, I realize thats a huge change and will cause major headaches for ad tech and the way things are currently done. But on the consumer side, it seems a no-brainer that companies should have to ask before they share your info, doesnt it?

The group said in its filing, This ecosystem has functioned well for years under an enforceable self-regulatory framework which is broadly supported by industry and widely recognized as a highly credible and effective privacy self-regulatory program. The system works, they say, and allows consumers transparency about online data collection and a way to control the use of their online data while allowing data-driven innovation to flourish. I think a lot of consumers would disagree.

The group also says the FCC rules violate free speech. Part of its argument is that gathering information without consent and sharing that data with others is free speech.

The Order imposes restrictions on providers ability to use customer information for the purposes of commercial speech, without a customers opt-in to such use. As the Tenth Circuit held in U.S. West, effective speech has two componentsthe speaker and the audience; a restriction on either component is a restriction on free speech. The creation, analysis, and transfer of consumer data for marketing purposes constitutes speech. Non-misleading commercial speech regarding a lawful activity is protected under the First Amendment.Petition to FCC from Advertising Groups

View the entire petition here.

See the article here:
Advertising groups say online opt-in rules violate First Amendment - WAAY

Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.

Hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens have taken to the streets over recent weeks with sights set on, as William Faulkner wrote, changing the earth.

They marched in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles and plenty of places in between, including townslike Selinsgrove and Lewisburg. Groups traveledby the busload, trainload and carload, both for the inauguration and the Womens March, and on Friday for the annual March for Life in the nations capital. The overwhelming majority were marked by peaceful protests, a wonderful personification of the First Amendment.

Locals of every race, gender, sexual identity and religious belief either went in droves to Washington or gathered in Selinsgrove or Lewisburg. In Union County, those gathered read the Constitution aloud in public, an uncomplicated but quite effective way to get an important message across.

The U.S. Constitution is something we can all agree on, said Rabbi Nina Mandel, of Congregation Beth-El. It is here to protect our lives regardless of our political, religious or sexual affiliation. We didnt want to hold a rally that would further divide our country or our counties.

Fridays March for Life on Washington did not draw the crowds nor national media coverage as last weeks Womens March on Washington, but it was just as important. Thats why The Daily Item made its coverage prominent.

To me, the senseless destruction of human life is one of the biggest issues the nation is facing today, said Mike Seno, who drove the St. Pius X bus to D.C. for the March for Life Its the only issue I vote on. Its a major fight in my life.

Passionate people on any side of any argument havebeliefs they want to be heard.

Most important, these are people exercising a protected right for what they believe is just. Hard to find something more American than that.

Congratulations on these non-violent protests. It is a foundational right in America, exhibited perfectly over the past 10 days.

Read the original:
Personification of the First Amendment - Sunbury Daily Item

PortCityDaily.com is your source for free news and information in the Wilmington area.

WILMINGTON A second law enforcement official has issued a promise of enforcing the law when it comes to Sundays announced Revolutionary Black Panther march in Wilmington.

The Revolutionary Black Panther Party of Wilmington first advertised an armed march via its Facebook page on Jan. 22. Since the announcement,District Attorney Ben David on Thursday andWilmington Police Chief Ralph Evangelous on Friday, pledged to support First Amendment rights, but also to enforce state law disallowing the carrying of weapons during protests.

In a press conference on Friday, Evangelous said the department was notified about a planned march by the Revolutionary Black Panther Party several weeks ago. Evangelous said the department reached out several times to national and local leaders of the group to inform them about local code and state laws.

Evangelous specifically cited North Carolina State law (N.C. Gen. Stat. 14- 277.2), which prohibits the open carry of weapons during demonstrations, protests or marches that take place on public property.

The march is supposed to take place at 1:30 p.m. Sunday in the Creekwood Public Housing community of Wilmington, according to the Revolutionary Black Panther Partys Facebook page.

The page also advertises a human rights tribunal, to be held at 714 Emory St. at 1 p.m. on Saturday.

Though a permit is not required for a demonstration, Evangelous said the group was asked to fill out a notice of intent to picket form, so that the city would be placed on notice.

That particular form has not been received at this time, Evangelous said.

Evangelous said his departmentwas committed to protecting First Amendment rights, regardless of message.

With that in mind, we are also committed to making sure all citizens are safe and protected during this event, Evangelous said. Our officers, along with our law enforcement partners will provide security for this event and will ensure that all city and that all state laws are obeyed, and we will take appropriate enforcement action if necessary.

Evangelous statement echoed a similar statement issued in writing on Thursday by David. David also said his office supports First Amendment rights, but that state law will be enforced. The statement read, in part:

This statute will be enforced in this district without regard to the applicant who seeks to assemble or the viewpoints of that group. When the assembly is convened on public property, individuals are prohibited from possessing firearms while demonstrating or picketing without advanced permission. Anyone in violation of this statute will be prosecuted.

On Friday, Evangelous further went on to assure the residents of Creekwood that police would keep that community safe during the event.

There are some good people in this community and your well-being is important to us, he said. We will do everything in our power to keep your community safe and move forward from this event.

Evangelous declined to speak about specific plans for Sunday, but said it involved a command post and law enforcement partners.

I assure you, we will have this under control, he said.

Attempts to reach out to the Wilmington and national offices of the Revolutionary Black Panther Party were unsuccessful.

armed, Creekwood Public Housing Community, protest, Revolutionary Black Panther Party, Wilmington Police Department

See the article here:
Wilmington police chief says he's 'committed' to protecting First Amendment rights, as well as community, during ... - Port City Daily

It didnt take cynics long to trip on the First Amendment. More than 500,000 people, including busloads from Loudoun County, marched in Washington in an historic, peaceful expression of American freedoms. Then came criticism from those who seem to have an issue with The First.

We had rather hoped for something better for these 45 words:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Its an elegant sentence, clear in its intention. No alternative facts. No political cynicism. No contempt for the right of the people to express any of the five freedoms:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Muslims included.

Or abridging the freedom of speech, even when words may make some uncomfortable.

Or the press, especially when it practices accountability.

Or the right of the people to assemble, as 500,000 women did in Washington with a common mission of solidarity.

Or to petition the government for a redress of grievances, of which there many against the new administration.

We can still honor the 45 words. In the next 45 days, in the term of the 45th President of the United States, we can rededicate ourselves to the inalienable rights that our Founding Fathers held most sacred: the 45 words in the First Amendment.

***

Express your rights

Send us 45 words expressing a right you hold dear. This is our version of the 45 for 45 Project created by a citizen. Because the First Amendment protects free expression, you can interpret those 45 words however youd like. Participate solo, enlist your Facebook friends or make it a class project.

Email your expression to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) with the number 45 in the subject line. Well feature some of our favorites on LoudounTimes.com and in the Times-Mirror.

Comments express only the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website or any associated person or entity. Any user who believes a message is objectionable can contact us at [emailprotected].

Read this article:
EDITORIAL: There's nothing cynical about the First Amendment ... - Loudoun Times-Mirror

The Trump administration has taken steps to curb federal agencies from disclosing information about science and environment issues, according to a Reuters report on Tuesday. Employees at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services have been instructed to limit independent communications with the public, reinforcing concerns that Trump, a climate change doubter, could seek to sideline scientific research as well as the career staffers at the agencies that conduct much of this research, Reuters said.

To find out whether the muzzled agency employees have a constitutional right to defy the Trump directives, I asked Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who specializes in the intersection of the U.S. constitution and federal government secrecy whether the First Amendment allows the government to bar employees from speaking in their official capacity.

The answer, in a word, is yes, although there are some loopholes, Kitrosser said.

In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court considered an anti-retaliation case brought by Richard Ceballos, a longtime assistant district attorney in Los Angeles who claimed the D.A.s office denied him a promotion after he wrote a memo, spoke out to supervisors and even testified as a defense witness about inaccuracies in an affidavit investigators submitted to obtain a search warrant. The Supreme Court acknowledged in Garcetti v. Ceballosthat public employees dont surrender all of their constitutional rights when they enter public service, but it agreed with the L.A. District Attorneys office that Ceballoss memo about the troublesome affidavit was not protected by the First Amendment because the assistant D.A.s speech arose from his job.

We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the Garcetti opinion. Restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employees professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen. It simply reflects the exercise of employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created.

The Garcetti case would make it very tough for EPA or other agency officials to defy a presidential instruction not to speak publicly about the agencys work without risking their jobs. The Supreme Court said that in most cases, government agencies can tell employees what they may and may not say, Kitrosser told me.

In a dissent from the Garcetti majority, Justice David Souter said he hoped the courts ruling did not imperil First Amendment protection of academic freedom in public colleges and universities, pointing out that professors have an obligation to share the results of their research. Minnesota law prof Kitrosser said its possible that the Souter loophole for academics could apply as well to federal government researchers. That argument, she said, is supported by the Supreme Courts 2001 decision in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, in which Justice Kennedy said the federal government cannot restrict federally-funded lawyers for indigent civil clients from challenging welfare laws.

Just as such a restriction was held to compromise the essential duty of a lawyer, Kitrosser said, a restriction barring scientists from sharing the results of their research might be considered a violation of the scientists First Amendment rights.

But thats a long-shot legal theory -- not much help right now to supposedly muzzled government scientists. Kitrosser said history may provide a more immediate response. President George W. Bush, as she has frequently written, tried to centralize the flow of information and particularly information about climate change from executive branch agencies. In 2006, the New York Times reported that a 23-year-old political appointee at NASA was attempting to restrict senior scientists from disclosing their research. After a public outcry that included a Congressional investigation, the space agency changed its policy.

Bad press and public pressure help, said Kitrosser. The main thing right now is screaming.

Every day seems to bring new troubles for Qualcomm, the chip maker accused last week by Apple and the Federal Trade Commission of abusing its monopoly on a key broadband processor used in cellphones and tablets. Wednesdays headache: an antitrust class action by consumers who bought devices containing the Qualcomm processors.

In class action litigation after the U.S. Supreme Courts holding last year in Spokeo v. Robins, there seems to a big difference between cases based on the theft of personal data and those claiming defendants improperly held on to confidential customer information.

The public interest group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sued President Donald Trump Monday for allegedly violating the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, has dedicated more of its resources than it would like to investigating and explaining the new presidents extensive, far-flung business entanglements.

More:
Can the president control the speech of federal agencies? | Reuters - Reuters