Mediaboss Marketing

UC Berkeley

Milo Yiannopoulos's College Tour and the First Amendment: An Explainer CALIFORNIA The Supreme Court has emphasized that the First Amendment is intended to protect 'uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,' public debate, Farber stated in an email, so in terms of general principles, it seems to me that universities should be very ... Chancellor's message on campus appearance by Milo YiannopoulosUC Berkeley all 5 news articles »

Read more here:
Milo Yiannopoulos's College Tour and the First Amendment: An Explainer - CALIFORNIA

New York Times

Don't Expect the First Amendment to Protect the Media - The New ... New York Times When President Trump declared on Saturday that reporters are among the most dishonest human beings on earth, it was not the first time he had disparaged ... and more »

Continue reading here:
Don't Expect the First Amendment to Protect the Media - The New ... - New York Times

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump's selection for Attorney General. Associated Press

President Donald Trumps nominee for Attorney General Sen. Jeff Sessions is standing firm on his support of a bill that would allow for discrimination against the LGBTQ community on the basis of a firmly held religious belief.

In a response to questions sent by Sen. Al Franken, Sessions objects to a characterization of the bill as being deceptively named and argues for why he feels is is needed.

The First Amendment Defense Act, or FADA for short, would allow landlords, business owners, healthcare providers, and employers to refuse to provide goods and services to whomsoever they choose so long as they can argue that doing so would conflict with their chosen set of beliefs.

Some have argued that FADA is necessary to protect pastors, ministers, and churches who fear that theyll be forced to marry gay and lesbian couples, writes Franken. But the First Amendment already prevents clergy or churches from being forced to marry a couple if doing so is contrary to their beliefs. It always has. The Supreme Courts decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized that same-sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states, did not change that.

Why do you believe that a bill like FADA is necessary? And how do you reconcile your support for FADA, which would sanction discrimination against lawfully married gay and lesbian couples, with your claim to understand the demands for justice and fairness made by the LGBT community?'

First, I reject the characterization of the First Amendment Defense Act as deceptively named,' Sessions responds. During the oral argument in Obergefell, Justice Alito asked former Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether a private university or college could lose its taxexempt status if it opposed same-sex marriage. General Verrilli responded: its certainly going to be an issue. I dont deny that. Thus, the purpose of the legislation was to prohibit the federal government from taking discriminatory actions against any person based on their belief or action in accordance with a religious or moral conviction. I supported this legislation because I believe that we can, and should, protect the rights of all citizens including LGBT individuals and those with traditional views of marriage. I do not see freedom as a zero-sum game. I understand the critical and historic role of Department of Justice in upholding our nations civil rights laws. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce those laws to the letter.

If FADA manages to become law, it would overturn the executive ordersigned in 2014 by former president Obama prohibiting anti-LGBTQ discrimination among federal contractors.

Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on Monday that he does not know whether or not the order protecting these workers would remain in place.

Trump has signaled support for FADA as well, pledging to sign it on his website under the title Issues of Importance to Catholics. It was added in September of last year and remains on the siteat time of writing.

Franken also grills Sessions on a number of other topics, including whether Sessions would continue the work of his predecessors in the Department of Justice to work for advancing and protecting LGBTQ rights.

The Civil Rights Division has a historic and proud record of defending the civil rights of all Americans, particularly the most vulnerable. That will certainly continue under my leadership, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, Session writes.

Franken then asks Sessions why he opposed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, which then President Obama signed into law.

Any statement I made during debate over the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 reflected an opinion that I reached based on information available to me at the time. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will work diligently to ensure that all Americans receive equal protection under our laws, Sessions answers.

Franken then notes that federal law does not require state or local law enforcement to report hate crime incidents.

Do you agree that underreporting of hate crime incidents by state and local law enforcement remains an obstacle to combatting hate crimes? If not, why? Franken asks Sessions.

While I am generally familiar with Director Comeys concerns about underreporting, but am unable to thoroughly evaluate his assertion or offer an opinion as I have not been presented with information necessary to do so. However, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I would expect to learn more about this issue and give it my careful consideration, he responds.

If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, the Department will be vigilant in the full enforcement of all federal laws, he adds. I will endeavor to direct and utilize the resources of the Department in the most effective manner possible to ensure the enforcement of federal law. The specific steps I will take to ensure the enforcement of any particular law will be decided after careful evaluation of any current practices of the Department and the effectiveness of those practices.

Franken then asks about Sessions stance on homeless LGBTQ youth.

You were one of three senators who opposed the effort to reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act in the Judiciary Committee in the 113th Congress. Why exactly did you oppose?

I was concerned with what I believed to be overly broad and vague language in the bill that could have discriminated against faith-based organizations that help form the fabric of the United States social services, and would have undermined the goal of the bill by making it more difficult to protect and provide services for at-risk individuals, Sessions writes.

The back and forth covers a number of other topics, including abortion and government surveillance. You can read the entire exchange here.

See the original post here:
Attorney General nominee defends anti-LGBTQ 'First Amendment Defense Act' - LGBTQ Nation

Lights Out

Re: News Ticker, January 19: Spanoss Sweetheart Chargers Park Deal

Good riddance to the Chargers and to Spanos. The NFL and Spanos do not pay taxes on any profit they make. Yet, he expected us tax-paying citizens to fund his stadium. Mr. Spanos, have you driven on any of San Diegos pot-holed roads lately?

Dont forget to shut the light off when you leave.

Re: News Ticker: SDG&E Again Asks for 2007 Fire Cost Reimbursement

Ouch. We SDG&E ratepayers have learned of the monopolistic companys plan to once again stick it to us (see smart meters). SDG&E is hoping we ratepayers will pay $1.67 monthly for six years to cover the companys costs of the terrible 2007 fires. Unconscionable and unfair.

The costs were indeed tremendous, but shouldnt they more properly be borne by the companys owners, i.e. the stockholders, including the board of directors? Its as if the owner of a rental property expected payment by the renter for expenses incurred, such as a new water heater or a new roof. Lower dividends and reduced salaries are the proper sources for the fires cost.

Re: Neighborhood News: No Affordable Housing in Tavara Ridge

This article is terrible. If I was Julie Stalmer I would take my name off of it!

Apparently the editors/publisher have decided to run with the affordable housing narrative. Am I the only one who noticed that the developer decided to forgo the increased density allowance and opted to pay an additional fee to leave out affordable housing units?

Mini mansions, WTF? Did you actually check the square footage of average new homes and the remodeled homes in Clairemont? Zillow is a hell of a research assistant.

Anybody asking the City Housing Commission just what they have accomplished with the millions and millions of taxpayer dollars they have siphoned out of the local economy?

How about those millions that the SDUSD got for selling this (and other properties) are we seeing dramatic improvements in school sites and student outcomes? Why is Horizon School having such a hard time finding a suitable site to lease?

The Reader has lost a huge amount of cred, in my opinion!

Im calling about the News Ticker item regarding the gas protests in Mexico. Im really glad the Reader got this in the news. This is a really big story. Its affecting thousands and thousands of Americans who live in Mexico, many of whom got stuck without any gas for awhile.

Its a nationwide protest, including three border shutdowns, one on Sunday, January 15. Whats very interesting about this protest, as big as it is, is that there dont seem to be any reports coming in about police violence against these protestors.

Now, Ive worked as a journalist in Mexico and I do know that the Mexican papers would be likely report it. Theyre always happy to put violent episodes on the front of the newspaper. But theres nothing coming in from social media either. It seems these protestors are being permitted to go ahead and protest as peacefully as possible. Theres been a few small incidents, but mainly, for a nationwide protest of this size, no news is coming out about violence against the protestors.

I would compare this to the situation in North Dakota thats been taking place for the last six months where they militarized police action against the Native Americans water protectors, as well as many other regular Americans who went up to the Standing Rock location in the early weeks of December. These protestors have been really brutalized by the police and the local Morton County Sheriffs Department. Theyve been sprayed with water hoses at freezing temperatures, hit with rubber bullets (one lady almost lost an eye), hit with concussion grenades (one lady almost had her arm blown off), attack dogs, mace, tear gas, tasers, you name it.

Were supposed to be living in a free country, and we tend to look at Mexico as a third-world country. Its kind of hard to understand why, when a protest breaks out in our own country particularly this situation in North Dakota why these protestors are brutalized by the police. But not in Mexico. None of this happens to protestors in Mexico.

There was recently a protest in El Cajon over a young black man being shot by police. They were peacefully praying at the site of the shooting, and the San Diego police declared that they were conducting an unlawful assembly and they were forced to leave. This also happened at the June Trump rally were they declared it an unlawful assembly as well.

We need to look at our First Amendment rights and whats happening in this country. Its a shame that Mexico has to set the example for us about protecting free speech.

See original here:
Our First Amendment rights - San Diego Reader

Democrats exercised their First Amendment rights through the boycotting of Donald Trumps inauguration this past week. Sixty-six Democrats publicly spoke out against Donald Trumps comments describing Representative John Lewis as a man of no action.

In an NBC interview one week before Trumps inauguration, Lewis described the 45th president as not legitimate and attributed Russian hacking of the election to Clintons loss. After hearing this interview, Trump took to the Twittersphere to voice his own opinion on the matter.

Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk-no action or results. Sad! the president tweeted in response. It is the last line here which mobilized Democrats to boycott the inauguration.

Democrats took to Twitter themselves using #StandWithJohnLewis to announce their plans to sit out the inauguration.

Lewis played a key role in organizing the 1963 March on Washington as chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Also known as the youngest member of the Big Six, whose members included the esteemed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Lewis coordinated the Mississippi Freedom Summer campaign to register African American voters in the South.

Democrats were outraged by Trumps attempt to discredit such an integral figure in the civil rights movement and community. For this reason and other concerns about the legitimacy of the Trump presidency, many Democratic members of Congress boycotted the inauguration, including Texas Representatives Lloyd Doggett and Joaquin Castro.

Outspoken Final Thoughts reporter Tomi Lahren ridiculed the protest as a crybaby moment awarding Democrats not in attendance with her less-than-coveted Snowflake trophy. Republicans believe this demonstration inhibits the peaceful transition of power.

Just as Lahren used her freedom of speech to call out these whiners, Democrats demonstrated their First Amendment right with last Fridays boycott.

The Democrats are not infringing upon anything that is not granted to anyone under the First Amendment of the Constitution to every other citizen of the United States. Congress shall make no lawprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, Framers of the Constitution specifically wrote this after escaping the heavily repressive government of the British Empire.

Members of the Democratic party saw this demonstration as an opportunity to stand up for one of their own. Regardless of what your political stance is, the notion is to protect those who are for you. Democrats defended a respected civil rights leader. Many of those who boycotted the event participated with the intention of supporting John Lewis and his statement against the soon-to-be inaugurated Trump.

Just as Lahren voiced her opinions to her large audience, Democrats have the right to visibly indicate their displeasure with the status of the next administration with Trump at the helm. Democrats and Republicans are both equal under the clauses of the Constitution, which translates to both parties having an unalienable right to demonstrate how they feel with the current affairs.

Trump is not your traditional politician.

This outsider status attracted many of the electorate, his platform resonated with them. In the 2016 election, it appealed to many people to have someone who has not been a politician his entire life. The American people rejected the status-quo in favor of a man with no political experience. This metaphoric draining of the swamp comes with certain risks to the establishment as a whole.

The Democrats have shown their form of protest and the Republicans have also shown theirs. Democrats have decided to stand behind one of their leaders just as Republicans have decided to stand behind theirs. Perhaps before another staunch Republican such as Tomi Lahren gives out these satirical awards, a moment of self-reflection is necessary.

See more here:
Inauguration attendance: First Amendment rights and fights - The ... - UTSA The Paisano