Mediaboss Marketing

The First Amendment of our U.S Constitution gives the press freedom of speech. I firmly believe this refers to commentary on the editorial pages only, which I believe is sacred, but even then it doesn't protect the press from libel for commentary (through the use of lies, distortions and outright fabrication) designed to hurt, distort and/or mislead the readers in some way.

As for the rest of a newspaper, I believe it is reserved for truthful news free of the author's opinion. Any opinion and bias blended into "news articles" should not be constitutionally protected. Beware of descriptive adjectives, descriptive adverbs and descriptive phrases blended into news articles to bias the reader for or against the topic being written about.

Also, some people read only the headlines to get the "gist" of the article. Others read a few paragraphs, then move on. Others read the entire article as continued onto other pages. For example, refer to the following article in Sunday's Reporter-Herald, "Trump's America after a Month."

Read the headline and write down how you understand what the article is about. Then read the first few paragraphs and do the same. Then read the entire article and do the same. Now go back through the article and cross out all descriptive adjectives, adverbs and phrases, then reread the article and document how you understand what has been written. Is your understanding of what has been written the same as before? If not, you now understand why the press has such a low rating among the American readers.

Try this on several different articles on different days.

Dennis Carr

Loveland

Read the original:
First Amendment shouldn't protect biased news articles - Loveland Reporter-Herald

Mike Kemp/Blend Images/NewscomLast week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overturned a censorious Florida law that tried to stop doctors from pestering their patients about guns, sacrificing the First Amendment in the name of protecting the Second. Such laws, which the National Rifle Association supports, show how fake rightsin this case, an overbroad understanding of the right to armed self-defenseendanger real ones.

Florida's Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, enacted in 2011, was a response to complaints that pediatricians and family practitioners had become excessively nosy about guns in the homes of their patients. The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians encourage their members to ask parents about guns, treating them as hazards analogous to alcohol, swimming pools, and poisonous household chemicals. Sometimes gun owners object to such inquiries, especially if they seem to be colored by a moralistic anti-gun ideology. The 11th Circuit's decision describes half a dozen examples that influenced Florida's legislators:

Assuming these accounts are accurate, the behavior of these doctors may have been unreasonable or even (when they misrepresented Medicaid requirements) unethical. But their requests for information about guns were not unconstitutional, since the Second Amendment applies only to the government. The law passed in response to these anecdotes nevertheless purported to protect the Second Amendment rights of Floridians by regulating what doctors say to their patients. As the 11th Circuit notes, that makes no sense (citations omitted, emphasis added):

There was no evidence whatsoever before the Florida Legislature that any doctors or medical professionals have taken away patients' firearms or otherwise infringed on patients' Second Amendment rights. This evidentiary void is not surprising because doctors and medical professionals, as private actors, do not have any authority (legal or otherwise) to restrict the ownership or possession of firearms by patients (or by anyone else for that matter). The Second Amendment right to own and possess firearms does not preclude questions about, commentary on, or criticism for the exercise of that right. So, as the district court aptly noted, there is no actual conflict between the First Amendment rights of doctors and medical professionals and the Second Amendment rights of patients that justifies [the law's] speaker-focused and content-based restrictions on speech.

In addition to prohibiting doctors from discriminating against gun owners (a provision the appeals court upheld), the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act forbade them to request or record information about guns unless it is "relevant to the patient's medical care or safety, or the safety of others"a standard that rules out routine inquiries about firearms. The law also instructed doctors to "refrain from unnecessarily harassing a patient about firearm ownership during an examination." As 11th Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus notes in a concurring opinion, that "incomprehensibly vague" provision raises due process as well as free speech concerns, since doctors are "left guessing as to when their 'necessary' harassment crosses the line and becomes 'unnecessary' harassment." Violations of these rules were punishable by fines and disciplinary actions such as letters of reprimand, probation, compulsory remedial education, and license suspension.

The speech restrictions imposed by Florida's law are clearly content-based, since they target communications dealing with a specific subject. The Supreme Court generally views content-based speech restrictions as "presumptively invalid" under the First Amendment, meaning they are subject to "strict scrutiny," which requires showing they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The 11th Circuit concludes that the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act fails even the more lenient standard of "heightened scrutiny," which the Supreme Court applied in a 2011 case involving state regulation of pharmacists. That test requires the government to show the challenged law "directly advances a substantial governmental interest and that the measure is drawn to achieve that interest," meaning there is a "fit between the legislature's ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends."

Noting that state legislators "relied on six anecdotes and nothing more" when they enacted the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, the appeals court finds the official rationales for the lawwhich, in addition to the Second Amendment, invoke patient privacy, protection against discrimination, and public healthinadequate to justify its speech restrictions. "Florida may generally believe that doctors and medical professionals should not ask about, nor express views hostile to, firearm ownership," the 11th Circuit says, "but it 'may not burden the speech of others in order to tilt public debate in a preferred direction.'" As for patients who object to questions about gun ownership, the appeals court says, they are not required to answer them, and they are free to choose less inquisitive doctors.

Florida's attempt to protect gun owners from offensive questions is reminiscent of the Oklahoma law requiring businesses to let employees keep firearms in company parking lots. When ConocoPhillips challenged that law in federal court, the NRA launched a boycott of the oil and gas company. "We're going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights," said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

ConocoPhillips cannot take away people's Second Amendment rights any more than Florida doctors can. And just as doctors have a right to ask patients about guns, even if that makes some patients uncomfortable, businesses have a right to control their own property, which includes the right to ban guns there. In both cases, the NRA argues, in effect, that the Second Amendment requires violating people's rights.

Continue reading here:
NRA-Backed Law Violates the First Amendment in the Name of Protecting the Second - Reason (blog)

A freedom of speech lawsuit against the city of Chiloquin has been settled out of court and a motion to dismiss the suit was approved Friday.

Plaintiff Richard Twamley confirmed Monday his lawsuit against the city was resolved through a settlement agreed upon by both parties. Twamley said he found the terms of the settlement agreeable, but said specific details were under seal and wont be made public.

Twamley said he would need to contact his attorney before offering further comment.

Story continues below video

He sued Chiloquin and former Mayor Joe Hobbs Oct. 27, 2016, for an incident Dec. 15, 2015, during which Hobbs allegedly denied Twamley an opportunity to speak during public comment at a city council meeting. Twamley sought $1.7 million for the denial of his First Amendment rights as well as emotional distress.

According to the lawsuit, Twamley intended to speak to the council that night regarding a 2014 legal settlement between the city and the Chiloquin Rodeo Association, which Richard Twamley said occurred without proper authority. Twamley said his comments were ruled out of order by Hobbs and the plaintiff was not allowed to continue speaking on the topic.

At the beginning of council meetings in Chiloquin, a disclaimer is read saying officials will rule out of order comments of a discrediting nature, as well as personal attacks on officials and city personnel.

A response to Twamleys allegations was not filed in court by Chiloquin. A representative of City Hall could not be reached Monday for comment due to the federal holiday.

Twamley has been an outspoken critic of Chiloquin along with his wife, former Mayor Patricia Twamley, and Dennis Jefcoat, who acted as Patricia Twamleys adviser. In addition to letters to the editor printed in the Herald and News, the three each filed lawsuits against Chiloquin, though Patricia Twamleys suit was settled in the citys favor in 2014 and Jefcoats suit was dismissed for lack of evidence in 2016.

When asked Monday if he will continue to voice criticisms of the city, Richard Twamley said he would need to consult his attorney before responding to the question.

Continued here:
Chiloquin settles First Amendment lawsuit | News | heraldandnews ... - Herald and News

Michael Richards

A doctor turned businessman whos served since last spring on the board that oversees the three state universities is pledging his full support of tenure for professors and the free speech rights of campus protesters.

Im a strong supporter of freedom and that includes free speech and academic freedom in and outside of the classroom or on the campus and in the community, even if that free speech or those ideas differ from my own. The First Amendment is the bedrock of our freedom, Michael Richards, a member of the Board of Regents, saidMonday afternoon.

Richards has served on the boardsince last May. Hes a 1967 graduate of Osage High School and a graduate of the University of Iowa College of Medicine.

Last year, when there was an open Regents seatI volunteered, so that I might give something back to the state that has given so much to me and allowed so many opportunities, Richards said.

Richards current term on the Board of Regents expires in 2021, but he must get yes votes from 34 of the 50 state senators to win confirmation and remain on the board. On Monday afternoon, Richardswas quizzed by members ofthe Iowa Senate Education Committee.

Democrats on the committee asked him about bills Senate Republicans are hoping to pass and he gave careful answers. One bill would no longer let University of Iowa researchers use stem cells in their research. Richard didnt say whether he supports or opposes that bill.

As a practicing physician for 22 years, I support medical research, Richards said. Senator Liz Mathis pressed him, asking again: Including fetal tissue? Richard replied. I have supported medical research and Im not opposed to medical research.

Another bill essentially would get rid of the guns free zone designations for the three college campuses. Richards didnt say whether he supports the idea of letting people legally carry concealed weapons on the campuses, but he did tell legislators the Regents and the university presidents, rather than legislators, should make that decision.

With respect to guns on campus, I think the primary concern is to keep our students and faculty and staff safe, Richards said. I believe its best left up to the institutions to determine the best way to do that. I also believe there is a role for the Board of Regents in reviewing that.

Thecurrent president of the Board of Regents is leaving the board when his term expires in two months. Richards doesnot want that job.

No! Richards forcefullytold reporters after the meeting. I dont.

Richards, who lives in West Des Moines, is currently the managing partner of a business in Orange City that makes equipment used in medical facilities and the aerospace industry.

Original post:
Regent Richards says 1st Amendment 'bedrock of our freedom' - Radio Iowa

In many ways, free speech is the right that protects all others, reinforcing every freedom that we hold dear and that so many have fought and died for.

This Presidents' Day, we should reflect on the reasons our Founding Fathers enshrined this right in our First Amendment. And we must acknowledge that this fundamental right is under attackeven for those who have fought to protect it.

Brandon Coleman, a Marine Corps veteran, began working as a therapist at the VA hospital in Phoenix to provide care for his brothers and sisters in arms. When he found that veterans there were dying due to negligence, he spoke upand for that, he was punished. When he told management what was going on, they told him thats how people get fired. They even tried to use his own personal medical records against him, and issued a gag order to silence him.

Colemans VA experience reminds of President Abraham Lincoln, who famously said that we as a nation will never be destroyed from the outside. "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher, he said if the United States loses its freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

Veterans like Brandon fought to defend us against external threats, but more and more are realizing that the biggest threat to our freedom is a government that is quick to limit our inalienable rights. The oath servicemen and women take to support and defend our Constitution doesnt end when we hang up our uniforms and return to civilian life.

Brandons case is one of many instances in which the very same government thats supposed to be protecting the right to free speech has tried to suppress it. Its not just happening at the VAlook at the way the government has intimidated religious groups by leaking donor lists, or the scandal at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in which the agency targeted certain groups because of their views on public policy.

Time and again, the government has silenced those it disagrees with by using citizens private information against them. Which makes it all the more concerning that a growing number of states are now trying to get more information about Americans who exercise their First Amendment rights.

In South Carolina, legislation was recently filed in the state Senate that would force essentially every nonprofit organization that educates citizens about public policy to disclose to the government the names, addresses, and employers of supporters who donate more than a certain dollar amount. Similar efforts have surfaced in both Nebraska and South Dakota. Touted under the banner of transparency, these so-called disclosure laws are nothing more than thinly-veiled attacks on free speech.

Throughout our history, the First Amendment has allowed citizens to challenge the government and powerful groups in all sectors, rooting out fraud and corruption. It has allowed marginalized groups to speak out against injustice, spurring progress toward equality. It has allowed millions of Americans to contribute to a marketplace of ideas, fostering a free society, a thriving culture and the largest economy in the world.

All too often today, our free speech right that was designed to hold the government accountable is being used by the government to harass, intimidate, and silence the very citizens the right is meant to protect.

With a new administration and a new Congress, there may now be a real opportunity to scale back and prevent further threats facing our First Amendment rights. But during these turbulent political times, we cant take that for granted.

Abolition, the womens movement, civil rights the inalienable right to free speech is what gave the foot soldiers in all of these movements the ability to speak up for themselves. Now that free speech is under attack, will we speak up for it?

Mark Lucas is the executive director of Concerned Veterans for America.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read more:
This Presidents' Day, defend the First Amendment - The Hill (blog)