Mediaboss Marketing

After reading a column titled "Setting the record straight," written by Pat Mitchell and published in the Saturday, May 13, edition of the Vail Daily, a concerned community member emailed me, calling into question my decision to allow Mitchell to use the newspaper as a forum to share his thoughts on homosexuality and the church.

As journalists, we live and die by the First Amendment, which protects all manner of expression, with a few notable exceptions. These exceptions have been defined by case law and include such things as obscenity, child pornography and inciting others to lawlessness.

When it comes to determining whether a submission makes it onto the commentary pages of the Vail Daily, the above-mentioned exceptions to free speech rarely, if ever, come into play. The three categories we are much more likely to come across are defamation, or in our case, since it's written, libel; what's called a "true threat," which is a verbal assault that threatens physical harm to a specific person; and fighting words.

Fighting words are "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace," wrote Justice Frank Murphy in the 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision for Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, a case that helped define those unprotected elements of speech.

Mitchell concluded his column by saying, "The Bible accepts homosexuals, both men and women, to the faith. They don't, however, condone their sexual behavior. Churches welcome them willingly as they would adulterers, thieves and others seeking forgiveness."

By describing homosexuals in the same breath as adulterers and thieves, was Mitchell using fighting words, inciting immediate action from those who read his remarks and thereby wandering into the narrow realm of speech not protected by the First Amendment? I don't believe so.

Whether or not I agree with Mitchell's conclusion did not factor into my decision to print his column. If I censored every opinion that ran contrary to my own, then I would not be a very good steward of this newspaper. Instead, I weighed his words against established tenets of free speech and, after careful consideration, published his column.

I believe it's critical that submissions to the commentary pages of the Vail Daily remain as free from my or anyone else's intrusion as is possible under the law, in order to cultivate a robust community dialogue. As a newspaper, we cannot demand the protections provided us by the First Amendment if we don't also uphold them within these pages.

Krista Driscoll is the editor of the Vail Daily. You can reach her at kdriscoll@vaildaily.com.

Continued here:
Vail Daily column: First Amendment and the commentary page - Vail Daily News

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Sometimes theres a nugget of something good in the daily ration of bad news. A T-shirt printer in Lexington, Ky., one Blaine Adamson, won a state court ruling early this month that he was within his First Amendment rights to refuse to print an offensive message on T-shirts ordered by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization for a gay pride parade.

The court overturned a ruling by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission that Mr. Adamsons firm, called Hands On Originals Christian Outfitters, violated a city ordinance barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Writing for the court majority, Chief Judge Joy Kramer agreed that the ordinance prohibits such discrimination, but discrimination was not at issue. Objecting to being compelled to propagate a message Mr. Adamson finds odious is not the same as refusing to serve the group because of the sexual orientation of its members.

The right of free speech does not guarantee to any person the right to use someone elses property, Judge Kramer wrote. The conduct [that] Hands On Originals chose not to promote was pure speech. Nothing in the fairness ordinance prohibits Hands On Originals, a private business, from engaging in viewpoint or message censorship.

Indeed, Mr. Adamson said hes willing to print LGBT T-shirts as long as the message he is asked to print on them does not promote homosexuality. Hands On Originals prints messages on mugs, pens and other things as well as T-shirts. Mr. Adamson has in the past declined printing jobs for a strip joint and for pens promoting a sexually explicit video.

The Kentucky ruling runs contrary to similar cases in Colorado, Oregon, New Mexico and elsewhere, in which Christian bakers, photographers and florists were penalized for exercising religious beliefs in refusing to participate in same-sex weddings.

The Kentucky ruling should encourage Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop of Lakewood, Colo., who has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a 2013 ruling by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, upheld by state courts, to punish him for refusing, for religious reasons to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding reception.

The high court has avoided taking the Phillips appeal for months while the court lacked a ninth justice in the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. With the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch as the ninth justice, the high court is now fully manned and ready for business.

View original post here:
EDITORIAL: Good First Amendment news - Washington Times - Washington Times

On Tuesday, protesters outside the Turkish embassy in Washington were beaten up, allegedly by security guards for Turkey's president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Video showed protesters being kicked and stomped, sometimes in the head. Eleven people were injured, including a D.C. police officer. Two men were arrested, and police are seeking more suspects though if they are members of Ergodan's security detail, they may have diplomatic immunity. The Trump administration has stayed silent on the violence in the nation's capital.

Also Tuesday, in The New York Times' bombshell story about then-FBI Director James Comey being asked by Trump to lay off the investigation over Russian meddling in the 2016 election, there was this disturbing tidbit: Trump, an associate of Comey's said, told Comey to think about putting reporters in prison for publishing classified data. Marty Baron, executive editor of The Washington Post, told The Times that Trump's request was "an act of intimidation."

On Wednesday, after a speech to the graduating class of the Coast Guard Academy in which he complained about his treatment by the media, Donald Trump was presented with a ceremonial saber. With the mic still on, John Kelly, Trump's Homeland Security secretary, joked to Trump, "Use that on the press, sir." Trump laughed.

Each of these examples, in isolation, would be troubling coming from "the leader of the free world," as we often call the president of the United States. But these are just the latest examples of a clear pattern of disrespect and distrust from a man who has called the press an "enemy of the people."

PEN America, the human-rights organization that defends writers, recently issued a report detailing the attacks on the press in the first 100 days Trump has been in office. For lovers of free expression and good journalism, it reads like something by Stephen King.

In the report, PEN America listed 76 instances of Trump or his people undermining the press by attacking either the media in general or specific outlets as "fake news," or by restricting access to government officials. The administration has placed gag orders on government employees, threatening them with their jobs if they talk to reporters.

Other actions don't just affect journalists, PEN America reports. The administration has removed information from government websites. It has accused people at marches, rallies and town halls of being paid professionals, an effort to delegitimize peaceful protest. It requires travelers to give U.S. border agents access to their electronic devices, including passwords to their social media which could have a chilling effect on free expression.

The reason these attacks from Trump are so dangerous is the same reason the Founding Fathers made the press the one profession mentioned in the Bill of Rights. It's because without a free press, vigorously keeping a check on the government, there would be no democracy and no United States of America.

Sean P. Means writes The Cricket in daily blog form at http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/moviecricket. Follow him on Twitter @moviecricket. Email him at spmeans@sltrib.com.

More:
Sean P. Means: Trump's attacks on First Amendment aren't just saber-rattling - Salt Lake Tribune

Representative Val Demings may be the first Democrat to admit to how the left views the First Amendment. The Florida Congresswoman replied to a critical comment by saying, My First Amendment Right is different from yours. Any honest political observer has to admit that this is a salvo in the war the left and Democrats are currently waging on free speech. They try their best to silence any speech that does not fit their dogma, and Demings, intentionally or not, just revealed the game plan.

Whether it comes in the form of campuses silencing speakers who offend their student snowflakes or via government officials regulating elections, efforts to stop or limit opposing viewpoints should be deeply troubling to all. Most troubling are the movements being led by Democrat lawyers and liberal law professors, the very people who traditionally have been defenders of the First Amendment.

The American legal system tells us that Justice is blind, but someone should tell that to the Democrats who propose election speech initiatives that only benefit their side. A great example is Sen. Chuck Schumers, and other Senate Democrats, sponsorship of the very-misnamed We the People reform package. This package would restructure the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to include three members of the Presidents party and two of the opposition party, a change from its current composition of three Democrats and three Republicans with the possibility of deadlock as a check on power.

The FEC is set up to limit partisan restrictions of speech by one party or the other by making the FEC evenly split between the parties, with the votes of four commissionersa minimum of bipartisan agreementrequired for it to take any action. This legislation was an obvious effort by Schumer and Democrats to chill or limit the political speech of Republicans, libertarians, Green Party members, and even non-establishment Democrats when they thought Hillary Clinton was a lock to win the White House. It comes as no surprise they have not reintroduced the proposal under President Trump.

No one should doubt the lefts ideals on speech go only one way. Democrat members on the FEC went after Fox News for get this too much speech in allowing too many candidates in a Republican primary debate the network hosted, while ignoring CNN when it did the same thing. Fortunately, the three Republicans on the commission blocked their colleagues, followed the law and were ideologically consistent in opposing efforts to go after CNN and Fox, so nothing came of the Democrat witch hunt.

One of those Democratic commissioners, Ann Ravel, who has since resigned, even proposed regulating the internet, including individual Facebook and blog posts. She even voted to regulate internet speech despite a longstanding FEC policy not to regulate such speech. Is there any doubt that three Democrat commissioners under the Schumer FEC plan would fine and regulate Republican posts while ignoring Democrat posts? (In fairness, Democrat party leaders would also go after an outsider candidate like Bernie Sanders over an establishment candidate like Hillary Clinton. Remember the leaked DNC emails?)

More frightening than limiting and regulating the speech of everyday Americans trying to speak on political issues is government seeking to punish and prosecute those who want to speak out against them. Make no mistake, the IRSs political targeting of Tea Party and other conservative non-profit groups beginning in 2010 was an attempt to silence opposition voices that were not friendly to Democrats or government power.

The left continues to double down and stop opposing speech even among its own members. Consider the liberal outcry against the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Yes, Democrats oppose integrity in the electoral system, apparently.

Marc Elias, Hillarys lawyer and now the lawyer of choice in Democrat fights against free speech, leveled a warning to any Democrat who serves on a commission to study vote fraud and how to make elections better. He said: No Democrat should serve on Trumps new voter suppression commission. Period. Similarly, Bob Bauer, President Obamas lawyer and Elias current colleague, said: [E]lection administration experts should keep their distance from the commission. Professor Rick Hasen, promoter of liberal talking points, wrote on his Election Law Blog Not sure what Democrat or election professional would be on a commission with Secretary of State Kris Kobach or former Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Hasens probably correct: its safe to assume few Democrats are courageous enough to cross Elias.

And remember, freedom of association is part of our First Amendment rights. But according to Elias, Bauer, and Hasen, a Democrat cannot even associate with Republicans without repercussions.

Fortunately for the country, some Democrats are willing stand up to the bullying from the Democrat legal establishment. The commission does include Democrats, including arguably the most qualified election official in the country and longest-serving Secretary of State, William Gardner of New Hampshire, the only truly purple state in the Northeast. Gardner has done such a good job in the opinion of the people of New Hampshire that he has survived the changing tides of Republican and Democrat leadership.

The real problem for Elias, Bauer, and Hasen is they fear that Gardner will be an honest broker, not a blind partisan, who will look past who is President and how much the results of the commission benefit Democrats. He will assess the true state of elections in this country, determine public confidence in election results, evaluate election integrity, and very likely not simply regurgitate Democratic talking points.

One wonders if the establishment left fears free speech in our electoral process so much because in a free debate, they will lose. And lets not forget that Democrats, including Elias, are privately very concerned about ineligible voters, but only when their favored candidates victories are at stake.

To his credit, Bernie Sanders showed that at least some Democrats still support free speech and intellectual discussion, even if they are increasingly outsiders within their own party. Sanders condemned the successful effort to stop Ann Coulter from speaking at UC Berkeley: But you know, people have a right to . . . give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation. . . . To me, its a sign of intellectual weakness . . . . Confront her intellectually. Booing people down, or intimidating people, or shutting down events, I dont think that that works in any way.

Of course, that sort of intellectual discussion and competition is what establishment Democrats fear most. Dissent is not allowed among todays establishment Democrats, which may be why they rigged the primary to defeat Sanders and continue to fight every effort to protect the right to speak freely regardless of political party or ideology.

Read the original post:
Democrats Think Their First Amendment Is Different (And Superior) - The Daily Caller

On May 3, Desiree A. Fairooz, of Virginia, was convicted of disorderly conduct for laughing during the Jan. 10 confirmation hearing of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

On May 10, reporter Dan Heyman, of Public News Service, was arrested after questioning U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price at the Charleston, S.C., Capitol building. Police charged Heyman with misdemeanor willful disruption of state government processes after he repeatedly asked Price whether domestic abuse would qualify as a preexisting condition under President Donald Trump's health care reform bill. Heyman said he was simply being persistent after the secretary refused to answer.

Meanwhile, also on May 10, Trump met with top Russian officials in the Oval Office, but prohibited U.S. reporters from entering the room. Instead, a photographer from state-run Russian news agency TASS was permitted to serve as witness. Since Trump's closed-door chat with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, it has been reported Trump divulged sensitive intelligence information, further rocking his already tempest-tossed administration.

On May 14, in one of his customary crack-of-dawn Twitter meltdowns, Trump pooh-poohed the idea that his "surrogates" should be expected to speak to the press with "perfect accuracy," and suggested he may "cancel all future 'press briefings'" in favor of prepared, written statements.

If the events of the past two weeks or so have you feeling a little jittery about the safety of the First Amendment, it probably means you've been paying attention. In this edition of Boise Weekly, we have two stories that deal with free speech.

The first, on Page 6, digs into yet another lawsuit filed against Idaho State Police for busting a burlesque show, ostensibly because it mingled "obscenity" with alcohol. The second, on Page 8, highlights a recent legal victory over ISP for conducting just such a sting, and how artists will be celebrating with a risque cabaretfeaturing plenty of libations with which to toast the mighty First Amendment.

Zach Hagadone

More here:
Toasting the First Amendment - Boise Weekly