Mediaboss Marketing

As this Post article (Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis) notes,

Trump administration officials instructed employees at multiple agencies in recent days to cease communicating with the public through news releases, official social media accounts and correspondence, raising concerns that federal employees will be able to convey only information that supports the new presidents agenda.

A student asked me whether this violates the First Amendment, and the answer to that is no, for a simple reason: Official government publications arent a place where employees are entitled to speak the publications are the voice of the government, not of individual speakers, and the First Amendment doesnt stop higher-ups from dictating or restricting what viewpoints are expressed there. That clearly flows from the Supreme Courts decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006); and while some argue that the decision is too broad, in allowing punishments for certain kind of government employee whistle-blowing, that decision is very firmly rooted when it comes to control over official government speech.

Now there might be statutes constraining some such presidential action (I dont know about that). Such action might not be within the presidents power when it comes to independent agencies (again, I cant speak to that). Such action may often be unwise. There are certainly political constraints on such action. And the First Amendment does in some measure constrain the government from restricting employees own speech, including on their own Twitter feeds, in op-eds, in scholarly articles and the like. (The rules there are complicated; see this post of mine for more on that, and Ken White (Popehat) also has a good summary.)

But the First Amendment doesnt give subordinates the right to choose what official government speech contains, over the objections of their superiors.

See more here:
No First Amendment problem with the president restricting what ... - Washington Post

There is no such a thing as a First Amendment in France. One reason is that libert de lesprit (freedom of thought and expression, as well as irreverence toward the powers that be) has been part of the French psyche, culture, and custom for too long.

It actually predates the Revolution of 1789: the Old Regime was deemed to be "an absolute monarchy limited by satiric songs."Under the French modern regimes in the 19th and 20th centuries, public intellectuals -- from Franois-Ren de Chateaubriand to Victor Hugo to Emile Zola to Jean-Paul Sartre -- enjoyed extensive influence and extensive, if not complete, immunity.

In 1898, when Zola published Jaccuse (I Accuse), a devastating indictment of the handling of the Dreyfus case by a French military court, he was sued for "defaming"the military judges and sentenced to one year in jail and a 3000 francs fine. He was, however, pardoned two years later by the president of the Republic, Emile Loubet.

Seventy years later, in 1968, when Interior Minister Raymond Marcellin considered suing Sartre for supporting a subversive Maoist newspaper, another president -- Charles de Gaulle -- tersely reminded him: "Marcellin, one does not send philosophers to jail."

However, recent developments may point to a completely different situation, and may turn a French First Amendment into a necessity after all.

Consider the cases of Pascal Bruckner and Georges Bensoussan.

Pascal Bruckner, 68, is one of Frances finest public intellectuals, the author of no fewer than twenty-eight books. He served as assistant or associate professor at Sciences Po (the famed Institute for Political Science in Paris) and at several American universities. A Catholic and the son of a Protestant pro-Nazi engineer, he was a Marxist sympathizer in the late 1960s.

By the mid-1970s, he had rejected both right-wing and left-wing extremism, along with suchNouveaux Philosophes(new philosophers) as Alain Finkielkraut, Bernard-Henri Levy, Christian Jambet, and Jean-Marie Benoist. This has remained his stand ever since then.

It turned him into an admirer of American democracy, a loyal -- if moderate -- supporter of Israel, and a critic of radical Islam: three major crimes according to French political correctness.

In 2015, shortly after the Bataclan massacre, an Islamist terrorattack in Paris that killed 130 people and wounded or maimed about 368, Bruckner remarked on a radio program that such "anti-racist"militant groups as Les Indivisibles (The Indivisibles)and Les Indignes de la Rpublique (The Republics Natives), known to show systematic partiality for non-Caucasians and Muslims whatever the issue, provided "ideological justification"for jihadism.

He was subsequently sued for defamation by both groups.

Even if Bruckner was cleared on January 17 by a Paris court, one wonders whether the defamation charge should have been considered in the first place, and whether it was not part of a larger attempt to harass and silence him. One reason why Bruckner may have been targeted is that he frequently wrote about anti-Semitism, including in a 2014 personal memoir, Un Bon Fils (A Good Son), in which he described his own fathers pathological hatred for Jews.

See the original post here:
Prosecutions Show France Needs a First Amendment to Discuss Islam - PJ Media (blog)

The Constitution can be heartbreaking sometimes.

The free speech protections enshrined in the First Amendment do not apply to the rogue National Park Service employees who have been tweeting out facts about climate change, courageously defying the Trump administrations stance on the environment.

Many people have rallied around these government workers, whose social media postings on climate science and research could very well land them in trouble, according to First Amendment experts.

Federal agencies, not individual employees, control messaging on their official accounts,explained Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA who specializes on free-speech issues.

The First Amendment doesnt protect [these employees] right to speak on the employers Twitter feed in a way that the employer disapproves of, he said, pointing to an important Supreme Court case dealing with the speech of government workers.

Esha Bhandari, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Unions Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project,more or less concurred with that assessment.

The new administration is entitled to use the official channels of government whether they be press briefings or websites or social media accounts to put out its own messages, and it can decide what federal employees are allowed to communicate when they are on the job, Bhandari wrote in a blog post.

This means that these brave employees couldnt raise the First Amendment defense if they get in trouble at their jobs for these tweets, although there may be other civil service protections available to them.

In addition, nothing prevents these workers from using their personal Twitter accounts to speak out about issues of public concern but even there, Bhandari cautions that First Amendment protections are strongest when they are speaking about issues that do not relate to their job duties.

There are also whistleblower protections for federal workers who would like to sound the alarm about unethical or otherwise illegal activity occurring at their agencies.

The federal government must foster an environment where employee disclosures are welcomed, Carolyn Lerner, the head of theU.S. Office of Special Counsel, said Wednesday in a statement.This makes our government work better and protects taxpayer dollars through disclosures of waste, fraud, and abuse.

But on the broader realm of freedom of speech, things are more complicated. Ken White, a longtime criminal defense attorney and First Amendment lawyer, wrote acheat sheet on these issues for people who would like to learn more, which may come handy in the Donald Trump era.

Those limitations aside,public outcry may ultimately play a role.

Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, told Reuters that the Bush administration caused an outcry in 2006 after The New York Timesreported that a public affairs appointee at NASA was essentially placing a gag order on a climate scientist who wanted to speak freely to the press. Things changed at the agency after a congressional investigation.

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

See the original post:
The First Amendment Doesn't Protect The Federal Workers Tweeting ... - Huffington Post

For all his talk of protecting religious freedom, one of the First Amendments five sacred rights, its taken President Donald Trump less than one week to start kicking the legs out from under each of the others.

The new administration has launched aggressive attacks on a free and fair press, freedom of speech, and the right of the citizenry to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. One could even argue that hes weakened the free expression of religion (or lack thereof), particularly as it refers to contraception, LGBT rights, and any non-Christian faith practices.

Take the freedom of the press and the right to assembly. At least six journalists are being charged with felony rioting for covering Inauguration Day protests that turned violent, according to The New York Times. Such severe charges against journalists who were, by all accounts, reporting on a newsworthy public event, are highly unusual in modern American history. The formal charges against the journalists allege that demonstrators were carrying what the Times calls anarchist flags, but nowhere does the document accuse any individual journalist of criminal activity.

Couple this with Press Secretary Sean Spicers hostile introduction to the White House Press Corps, which itself suggests the incoming administration will have a chilling effect on the press, and it begins to feel like were just seeing the tip of the iceberg. As Mashable notes, the new administrations relationship with the press is already resembling that of Richard Nixon or, more ominously, Russian President Vladimir Putins systematic dismantling of the independent press. In fact, top White House adviser Steve Bannon last nighttold the Times that he views American news media as the opposition party, which should, in his words, keep its mouth shut.

Of course, Trumps gag order extends well beyond the White House Press Corps. Among a cascade of executive actions authored in his first few days, the new president ordered federal agencies to stop communicating with the press, freeze all current reports and studies, and, tellingly, tried to discourage them from using Twitter.

No one in the administration has directly commented on the irony that the chief executive, who prefers to issue his fiats in 140-character outbursts, feels it necessary to censor government agencies that dare to tweet facts about the resources they protect. Regardless, this kind of content-specific censure goes against longstanding American standards that (at least in theory) champion a vibrant and open socio-political national conversation.

Finally, draft versions of the presidents proposed immigration restrictionsuggest that all the nations involvedwill be Muslim-majoritynations, which makes is difficult to square with the principle ofreligious freedom. As The Atlantic explained:

If implemented, the Trump administrations order would suspend the entire U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days while security measures are reviewed and ban Syrian refugees from U.S. entry indefinitely. It would also temporarily block entry visas from seven countriesIraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libyafor 30 days as part of a broader security review of visa-admission programs, after which permanent visa bans could be enacted for those countries and others.

Take thistransparent attempt to privilege Judeo-Christian faith traditions in immigration policyand combine it with the so-called First Amendment Defense Act, which Trump has promised to sign, and VP Mike Pences long history of deployingreligious freedom as a weapon to restrict LGBT and reproductive rights, and the administration is, at best, boldly picking favorites when it comes to faith-informed morality. Theres no reason to suggest this early trend will reverse itself, and if one of Trumps preferred Supreme Court nominees is confirmed, the nation may be in for a religious reckoning, where not burdening sincerely held beliefs categorically outweighs protecting civil and human rights.

Visit link:
The Religious Freedom President is Gutting the Rest of the 1st Amendment - Religion Dispatches

I am just trying to understand. This quote from an onlooker summed up the feelings of many last week. This past election compelled thousands to the streets of Washington D.C. to exercise their freedom of speech. Students from Conant High School heard a variety of viewpoints.

While interviewing supporters at Trumps welcome ceremony the night before his inauguration, two men from Denmark spoke about the loss of national pride in their country. One said, Think of Mexican food and Chinese food. They are both good flavors but when mixed things become flavorless. He was incredibly happy for the election of Trump and felt it will help Europe regain its former glory.The man said that many more in Europe felt the same way. Immigrants are ruining Europe. A woman nearby said she had heard an Italian reporter tell her If Trump does not win, Europe is lost.

Another man was wearing a red shirt that read Blacks make racial slurs and commit crimes too. He was spotted arguing with an African American woman. After an interview with both the man and the woman, it was clear that he was angry with a corrupt government.He was upset that in his eyes the black community protested for equal rights yet they did not care about those truly struggling in other countries. He also felt that by giving the poor welfare assistance, the black community had become lazy.The woman was eager to let us know that she disagreed with what the man was saying and that she was proud to be an educated black woman.

At the same event one man spoke of the similarities between the story of Shrek and President Trump. Shrek threatened to build a 10-foot wall to get the fairy tale creatures out of his swamp, Trump did the same. Many had more personal reasons in supporting Trump. One woman was especially concerned with the loss of work in America. My community is damaged because the factories got bought out by foreign companies.

The city was full of Trump supporters the night before the Inauguration, but afterward protesters went to the streets with signs saying No KKK, no fascist USA and Not my President. A man passed by the a sign saying Pay politicians minimum wage.

One protest in particular caught much attention. An interracial group of religious protesters, who had a permit to protest that day, carried signs reading God Hates Abortion,America time for you to bless God,and The only real Muslim is a jihadist. As the crowd of onlookers grew restless, a military truck blocked the road and a group of nearly 20 members of the National Guard created a barricade around the group for protection. The protesters had a man on each side of the street with giant speakers under their arms screaming into a microphone. A few of their signs read fake Bible verses which would receive reaction from the crowd. One man yelled out to the protesters You guys are messing with peoples perception of Christ! Come on, you know Jesus is Lord, you are not reaching the people and You are not preaching Gods will in love to which a protestor replied You dont know the meaning of love. A Trump supporter in the crowd told this reporter, Its freedom of speech, but these guys are idiots. Another man supporting LGBT rights commented, This is amusing but a waste of time. One man was especially upset with the groups comments against Muslims and immigrants saying, I am pretty sure Christians killed more people than Muslims. About 15 minutes into the protest, one of the protesters threw an LGBT flag on the pavement and stood on it, causing an uproar in the crowd. Throughout the day and night, one could hear the constant sound of police helicopters and see trucks full of National Guard zooming down the street.

Saturday was a huge contrast from the Inauguration. The sea of red Trump hats changed to a sea of pink as thousands of women and men gathered in D.C. They were marching for many different reasons equal rights for everyone, the right to choose abortion, and a few who simply were upset that Trump won. One man wearing a Trump shirt in the midst of these protesters said, I am glad they are protesting;its their right. I just hope they stay safe.

In general, although people did not always agree, there was a common appreciation for acting on the First Amendment.

Joe Wiley is a senior at Conant High School.

Read this article:
First Amendment rights in action - Monadnock Ledger Transcript