Mediaboss Marketing

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

On the same day the president of Northwestern University told the Wall Street Journal it was sometimes appropriate to restrict speech on campus, disruptive students prevented an in-class speech by an official from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

An ICE spokeswoman was scheduled to talk to a Northwestern sociology class on Tuesdayone half of a two-part lesson, now cancelled, that would have also included a speech by an undocumented immigrant.

Protestors initially stood outside the classroom chanting F**k ICE. They were then admitted to the classroom, where they interrupted the talk and aggressively confronted both the ICE representative and the professor who had invited her, the student newspaper reported. The ICE officer left without completing her speech.

That same day, the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Northwesterns president, Morton Schapiro, where he defended safe spaces and said that offensive speech targeting specific individuals or groups might, in some circumstances, be considered assault, not free speech.

You want to protect the First Amendment, obviously, but it isnt absolute, Schapiro said. People reduce it to slogans or free speech at all costs.

Schapiro also said: I will just say that if you shut down freedom of speech, you better have a really good reason. I think if you shut down anything, you better be really sure that you have a moral and legal justification to do it. Thats my view.

The protestors came from MEChA, a campus Chicano group; Black Lives Matter, the Immigrant Justice Project, the Asian American Pacific Coalition and various LGBT campus groups, the Daily Northwestern reported.

On Facebook, MEChA defended shutting down the ICE officials talk:

Dialogue with any ICE official legitimizes their position as state actors of violence.The presence of an ICE PR agent whose sole purpose is to make ICE look good and recruit students implies university complicity and encouragement of the actions of this organization. We do not engage in conversations with ICE in any way, shape or form regardless of their position.

Citing security and privacy concerns, Beth Redbird, the professor who invited the ICE official to speak, said she had cancelled a scheduled talk by an undocumented immigrant. Her class focuses on inequality in American society with an emphasis on race, class and gender.

In a discussion with students, Redbird defended her decision to invite the ICE representative, the Daily Northwestern reported. All they did was come here today to answer questions so you know whats going on, so that you are informed and so you can make decisions. If you want to make change in a community, you need to know whats going on, she said.

In a jointstatement, Schapiro and Northwesterns provost said they were deeply disappointed in students disrespectful, inappropriate behavior Tuesday.

While we understand the point of view expressed by the students protesting the guest lecturers invited to speak here, the resulting disturbance not only limited the academic inquiry central to our campus, it also forced invited speakers to leave and violated the rights of other enrolled students who were present to learn. Free expression must be protected and should be countered with more debate, close examination and critical thinkingnot censorship, their statement said.

The university also said it was reviewing the facts around the protests so it could take appropriate action.

Earlier this week, the Northwestern chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine hosted Rasmea Odeh, a woman convicted for a terrorist attack; her group, the PopularFront for the Liberation of Palestine had planted a bomb in a box of candy, which killed two college studentswhen it detonated agrocery storein Jerusalem.Pro-Israel groups on campuscondemned the event as an affront to the sanctity of life, saying it crosses a moral line.

In a statement, Northwestern Hillel announced it would hold a silent vigil for Odehs victims outside of the venue. This will be a silent, non-confrontational vigil, the group said. We will not attempt to disrupt the event in any way.Our goal is not to protest free speech, but instead to mourn the victims ofthe convicted terrorist who is speaking on our campus.

Schapiro joined about 150 students, professors and staffers who attended the vigil.

Jillian Kay Melchior writes for Heat Street and is a fellow for the Steamboat Institute and the Independent Womens Forum.

Read this article:
Northwestern Students Shut Down Speech as President Says First Amendment 'Not Absolute' - Heat Street

Inside Higher Ed

Critics of proposed legislation on First Amendment rights at Wisconsin public universities say it goes too far Inside Higher Ed He also praised a new free speech law in Tennessee that's been lauded by FIRE and other groups for strengthening the First Amendment on campuses without requiring punishments for disrupters. The bill abolishes designated free speech zones for ... Is free speech fading at colleges? - Chicago Law BulletinChicago Daily Law Bulletin Freedom of Speech Attacked, Defended During Public Hearing ...MacIverInstitute all 5 news articles »

Here is the original post:
Critics of proposed legislation on First Amendment rights at Wisconsin public universities say it goes too far - Inside Higher Ed

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (NEWSPLEX) -- The First Amendment, at its core, protects all forms of speech. That includes hate speech.

So while people are taking issue with the rallies this weekend in Charlottesville over the Robert E. Lee Statue, under the First Amendment, those rallies are protected even from city permits.

"Under the First Amendment, free speech is free," explained John Whitehead from The Rutherford Institute.

Whitehead said the creation of the First Amendment was to empower people to speak up, and protect people from their own government.

"The government cannot target one specific group or several groups and say 'You don't have the right to speech because we don't agree,'" he said.

According to Whitehead, even though certain forms of speech make people uncomfortable like hate speech, it is still protected by the Constitution.

"You can say 'I hate this. I hate that. I don't like these people.' Whatever, but that's protected," Whitehead said.

The reason for allowing hate speech, explained Whitehead, is because that type of speech can actually drive a conversation about an issue.

"If I say something to you that really offends you out there listening to this program, it makes you think. It makes you want to debate. And that's what the founding fathers wanted," he said. "They wanted a debate."

However, Charlottesville city code states people should get permits for large gatherings like Saturday's alt-right rally in Lee Park.

"People are suppose to get permits when they do these things on public property," said City Councilor Bob Fenwick. "No permit was applied for. It was an ambush, a sneak attack. It was one of the dumbest things I have seen in my life."

Regardless, the First Amendment lets demonstrators hold rallies without getting the proper permission from localities.

"While we prefer protesters get permits like any other event, such assemblies are protected by the First Amendment and we do not interfere unless we perceive a legal or safety issue," added a Charlottesville city spokesperson.

But there is a point at which the First Amendment stops protecting speech.

"If you're advocating violence, that's where it stops," said Whitehead. "In other words, you're saying 'Lets go out, blow them up, lets shoot them, kill them,' That's no longer protected under the law."

Reflecting on the rallies over the weekend, Whitehead said people who did not like what they saw should speak up and express their opinions. He said that is why the First Amendment was created.

Originally posted here:
Weekend rallies protected by First Amendment, including torch burning - The Charlottesville Newsplex