Mediaboss Marketing

Toronto Sun

The clogging arteries of America's First Amendment Toronto Sun If the First Amendment is indeed the beating heart of the American experiment, as one politico recently put it, then U.S. President Donald Trump is giving it a coronary. He should be ignored, but the self-absorbed talking heads in the mainstream ... The upside to Trump's CNN wrestling tweetWashington Examiner CNN's Jeffrey Lord outdoes himself in defending Trump's CNN-beating tweetWashington Post (blog) Trump's Strain on Free SpeechU.S. News & World Report The Atlantic -The Guardian -Newsmax all 932 news articles »

More here:
The clogging arteries of America's First Amendment - Toronto Sun

When Donald Trump began to block a growing number of Americans from seeing his tweets, the Knight First Amendment Institute shot back. The organization warned the President in June that the Twitter account is a public forum, and that excluding citizens (novelist Stephen King is among those blocked ) violates the Constitution.

The argument is novel and not every legal scholar thinks it will succeed. But whatever the outcome, the dispute over Trump's tweets reflects how free speech fights are changing in the digital age. Today, many of the legal battles turn on technology, surveillance and who should control powerful communications platforms, like Facebook and Twitter.

Fortune spoke to the Knight Institute's first director, Jameel Jaffer , and staff attorney, Alex Abdo , to learn more about free speech flash pointsand how they intend to stand up for the First Amendment in the time of Trump.

Free Speech on Facebook's Public Square

Jaffer is an affable, ardent 40-something with a sparkling legal resume: Harvard Law Review, clerk to the Chief Justice of Canada and, most recently, deputy legal director of the ACLU. Now, he has the biggest job of his life leading the Knight Institute.

The goal of the center, which opened this year as a $60 million joint initiative of the Knight Foundation and Columbia University, is to defend free speech through research, lawsuits and education. It will pay close attention to technology.

New technology has transformed the landscape. A lot what used to take place in the public square now takes place on proprietary networks," Jaffer says, pointing to the influence of Facebook and other social media companies on politics.

Get Data Sheet , Fortunes technology newsletter.

Today, these companies have more influence than traditional news outlets. Yet they are less willing to take up the torch when it comes to fighting for the First Amendment in court. Unlike the newspapers that foughtand wonmany landmark First Amendment cases at the Supreme Court in the 1970s and 80s, tech firms are absent from many big free speech fights.

What's more, Jaffer worries the likes of Twitter and Facebook possess too much power over what people can hear and say in the first place. And when it comes to challenging them, it's an uphill legal fight since they are private companies , which are not subject to the First Amendment.

But that doesnt mean its not a free speech issue. Its probably the most important free speech issue of our agethe power of social media companies over the speech we are allowed to hear, says Jaffer.

This why controversies like the one over Donald Trump blocking citizens from seeing his tweets are so important. They involve traditional free speech concernsthe President could never block people from seeing a government web siteand new social media technology.

In July, following another social media rant by the President, the Knight Institute's case that social media is subject to the First Amendment got a little stronger:

Speech in the age of Surveillance

While social media companies control over public discourse is a major threat to free speech, its hardly the Institute's only concern. Another worry is creeping surveillance technology and the government's ability to obtain enormous amounts of informationincluding our location right from the devices in our pockets.

Jaffer fears that increased ability of governments to spy produces a chilling effect. If people know their phones can be tracked, or their contents seized and extracted, they may be less willing to speak freely or criticize the government.

Meanwhile, even as the government expands its surveillance powers, it is getting more adapt at using laws to silence journalism and cover up its own activities.

According to Abdo, the staff attorney at the Knight Institute, the Justice Department has been particularly aggressive in invoking the Espionage Age to threaten reporters. In doing so, he says, it is using unproven legal theories to undermine the ability of journalists to talk to sources and conduct important reporting.

No court has decided how broadly that statute reaches or if it reaches as broadly as the government says it does, and if it violates the First Amendment, says Abdo.

In response, the Knight Amendment intends to advance the legal cause of whistleblowers. Specifically, Abdo says it will make a case that the First Amendment offers a shield for journalists and others who reveal information in the public interest.

Jaffer adds that the Institute will also focus on so-called structural litigation, which aims to reform government practices that stymie free speech and access to documents.

One such example is the growing number of current and former government workers who are subject to security clearance, which bars them from speaking without prior permission. The restraints may be sensible in the context of sensitive intelligence or military operations. But today more than 5 million Americansmany of whom possess little in the way of classified informationare subject to this censorship.

Its the largest system of prior restraints still in place in the United States. We think its unconstitutional, says Jaffer.

Here is the original post:
Fighting for Free Speech in the Age of Trump and Twitter - Fortune

In yet another case trying the first amendment, ABC settled a $1.9 billion libel lawsuit from Beef Products Inc (BPI) in a state court in Elk Point, South Dakota on Wednesday. The suit stemmed from a 2012 story from ABCs World News, in which the broadcast repeatedly used the term pink slime to refer to lean, finely textured beef (LFTB).

BPI claimed the story, which highlighted the production LFTB and its USDA approval process, defamed the company and their beef product, which was at one point found in 70% of all ground beef from around the country. As a result of the story, BPI claimed they were forced to shutter three of their plants, and lay-off hundreds of employees, resulting in billions of dollars in damages.

The case had the potential to be one of the largest defamation suits in Americas history, due in large part to South Dakotas Agricultural Food Products Disparagement Act, which allows claimed damages to be tripled. This meant that BPIs 1.9 billion dollar claim could have resulted in a 5.7 billion dollar pay-out for ABC.

While the BPI case had been loitering in various courts for the past five years, the settlement earlier this week marks the third such high-profile libel case in recent years.

In 2016, a Florida jury found Gawker media guilty in a case stemming from the sites decision to publish wrestler Hulk Hogans sex tape. In November, a Virginia jury found the Rolling Stone guilty in their explosive 2014 report A Rape on Campus.

These cases come at a time in which the media is increasingly working against the court of public opinion, in a climate where fake news is a buzzword, and under a president who has been making headlines over the past week due to his attacks on journalists and news organizations.

Its this pernicious environment that has many first amendment lawyers concerned.

Part of it is the current political climate, said Alan Chen, a first amendment lawyer and professor of constitutional law at the University of Denver. Theres this wholesale onslaught against the media as sort of an untrustworthy institution. Sometimes the plaintiffs are bringing these cases in places where the juries are likely to be sympathetic with the businesses.

Indeed, ABC did attempt to persuade a judge that the case should not be heard in a South Dakota state court, largely because federal courts are viewed as more sympathetic to media organizations.

Chen argues that in a town like Elk Point, it would be difficult for ABC to get a fair shake.

The plaintiff is big employer. ABC is an outsider and an East coast news entity. Theres going to be bias because ABC is being accused of defaming an important employer, said Chen.

Further, Union County (the county in which Elk Point sits) went 67% for Trump who has repeatedly targeted news organizations in recent months and more intensely in recent days.

Though the terms of the settlement arent clear, the potential payout from the lawsuit was enough to prompt the Disney Corporation (ABCs parent company) to include the lawsuit on their 10-Q report, according to the Hollywood Reporter. Such a move indicates that the company believed the suit was potentially damaging enough to have a material impact on their bottom line.

Its that sort of belief that has scholars like Chen concerned. If a libel lawsuit has the possibility to impact the bottom line of a multi-billion dollar corporation like Disney, the potential impacts on a smaller media organization could be catastrophic.

Still, in most cases, the larger company does not carry an incentive to be very careful about what to report and how to report it. Even with will resourced companies, its hard to imagine there wouldnt be some hesitance to publish certain stories, said Chen. The downside of this is that I think they will start to censor themselves out of potential fears. Think about a much smaller entity. With much fewer resources theyre going to even be more hesitant.

The first amendment battles are far from over for the media, however. On Tuesday, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin filed a defamation lawsuit against the New York Times for their recent op-ed. Battles for the press may very well migrate from the Twittersphere to courtrooms, affecting constitutional press rights and how business is done within these organizations.

See original here:
Pink Slime: The Latest Battle over the First Amendment - MediaFile - MediaFile

The U.S. Constitutions Bill of Rights rightly gives robust protections to Americans free expression of ideas, even when those thoughts are out of the mainstream or repulsive.

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black summed up that vital concept in 1961 when he wrote that the right to expression under the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate, or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish.

That principle received worthwhile discussion and elaboration recently when the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the importance of preserving free speech rights on college campuses.

First Amendment experts offered thoughtful observations on the enduring importance of promoting free thought and expression.

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer with a background in First Amendment cases, said the proper approach cannot be to limit expression but to discuss it not to bar offensive speech, but to answer it. Or to ignore it. Or to persuade the public to reject it. . . . What is unacceptable is to suppress the speech.

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles, said, To let hecklers and thugs generally control what is said on campus . . . is an abdication of the universities responsibility to educate to teach their students about the importance of responding to speech with arguments and not with suppression. . . .

Outside the university, when youre trying to persuade voters whom you cant threaten with expulsion or firing, you need to know how to listen and rebut even views that you find wrong even disgusting. That takes practice and what better place for that practice than a university, an institution that is supposed to be all about ideas, debate, reasoning and arguments? Precisely.

J. Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center which is studying hate groups, said his organization is sometimes contacted for advice by students who want to take a stand against a campus speaker they consider offensive.

We suggest creating an alternative event, Cohen said, to provide an open and accepting space for those who want to promote unity rather than divisiveness. We tell leaders that it is their obligation to communicate to their community that they stand for the values of inclusion, pluralism and respect.

The nations universities, Cohen said, should be places where students learn to dissent in thoughtful and constructive ways. To do so is to uphold societys highest ideals.

The principles explained by those testifiers dont mean that every idea is worthy or admirable. The point, rather, is that society is best served by open, energetic debate in which arguments are rigorously tested. Such debate exposes mistaken, outlandish or abhorrent ideas to the light and makes them vulnerable to rebuttal and, as needed, ridicule.

Theres another reason why Americans should hold tight to First Amendment principles: We live in a lamentably polarized society. Many people isolate themselves within their political tribe and are so disdainful of the other side that they see little value in engaging in serious debate.

Such thinking undermines productive discussion of key issues. It also harms the country by preventing us from seeing ourselves as one people.

Our society is well served when we encourage strong, open debate under the First Amendment. Our institutions of higher learning need to be unwavering in promoting free expression and the defense of free speech.

Go here to see the original:
Editorial: First Amendment means free people have free expression - Omaha World-Herald

Its a report that I have been reading every year since its inception in the late 1990s, and while it might not be on your radar, I highly recommend the annual State of the First Amendment.

This is the 20th survey in this series, and the report is compiled after a survey by the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute.

Many years ago, I was part of a group of journalists who visited with those who conduct the survey.

They asked us some of the questions. It was interesting how even journalists sometimes had issues with the amendment that is virtually the only license we need to do our jobs.

First, as a refresher, heres the First Amendment:

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.

While it may seem simple and straightforward, the First Amendment and how it can be applied is often misconstrued and often debated.

Here are a few of the questions on the survey. Before you leap ahead, try answering them for yourself.

Question 1: The First Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution more than 225 years ago.

Based on your own feelings about the First Amendment, please answer whether you agree ordisagree with the following statements: TheFirst Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.

Question 2:It is important for our democracy that the news media act as a watchdog on government.

Question 3:Overall, the news media tries to report the news without bias.

Question 4: In general, do you prefer news information that is aligned with your own views?

So how do your views line up with those of the more than 1,000 people surveyed in May of this year? By the way, this is the first year question four has been on the survey.

If youve jotted down your answers, read away for a comparison.

Twenty-three percent of those surveyed said they agreed that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting rights. In 1999 when the question was asked, 28 percent of those surveyed thought it went too far.

The news media still must act as the watchdog on government said 68 percent of those surveyed. That number was higher in 2004, when 77 percent agreed.

Based on some of the comments I hear, this one pleasantly surprised me. Forty-three percent of those surveyed agreed that the news media tries to report the news without bias. In 2004, only 39 percent agreed with that statement.

Question No. 4 indicates that 16.5 percent of the respondents strongly agree that they prefer news from outlets that are aligned with their views; 36.7 percent somewhat agree; 24.5 percent somewhat disagree; 17.3 percent strongly disagree and 5 percent either didnt know or refused to answer the question.

The short version of the report included interesting insight on the divisions in attitudes toward the First Amendment depending on whether the respondent was liberal or conservative.

Conservatives were more likely than liberals to believe that government officials who leak information should be prosecuted and that the government should be able to hold Muslims to a higher level of scrutiny. However, liberals were more likely than conservatives to think that colleges should be able to ban speakers with controversial views and that people should not be able to express racist views on social media.

Its a timely read in advance of the Fourth of July. Go towww.newseuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/state-of-the-first-amendment to take a look for yourself.

As for me, I feel honored to be a part of a profession that exists because of the foresight of the Founding Fathers. A nation without a free press simply would not be America.

Carol Stark is the editor of the Globe. Her email address is cstark@joplinglobe.com.

View post:
Carol Stark: Survey says First Amendment still in high regard - Joplin Globe