Mediaboss Marketing

The First Amendment is even for those embrace-debate sports shows you see on ESPN and Fox Sports 1. You know the ones. Guys yelling about why this coach should be fired and why that quarterback should be benched and why the Dallas Cowboys are the best (or worst, depending on the last game) team ever.

And while sometimes they say some ridiculous things, its good to know that the First Amendment is for them, too.

That was proven this week when a lawsuit by legendary football Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre against Hall of Fame tight end Shannon Sharpe was dismissed.

This all goes back to a rather serious topic: Favres alleged involvement in a Mississippi welfare fraud scandal. More than $77 million intended for the poor in Mississippi ended up on a variety of other projects, including a new volleyball facility at the University of Southern Mississippi, where Favres daughter was playing at the time. Favre also was involved in other parts of the story, although he has yet to be charged with a crime.

Back when he was on the Undisputed show with Skip Bayless on FS1, Sharpe said things such as Favre stole money from people that really needed that money.

Favre sued, claiming he didnt steal money from anyone. But a federal judge dismissed the suit, saying Sharpe, who now works at ESPN, was just using rhetorical hyperbole.

U.S. District Judge Keith Starrett wrote in his 12-page ruling: No reasonable person listening to the Broadcast would think that Favre actually went into the homes of poor people and took their money that he committed the crime of theft/larceny against any particular poor person in Mississippi. Sharpes comments were made against the backdrop of longstanding media coverage of Favres role in the welfare scandal and the States lawsuit against Favre. Listeners would have recognized Sharpes statements as rhetorical hyperbole robust language used to express Sharpes strong views about the new information that emerged about Favres participation in the welfare scandal.

Starrett went on to write, The context in which Sharpes remarks were made including the tenor of the Broadcast as a whole, the format of the program and its audience, and the fact that viewers were told Favre was not charged with a crime forecloses Favres claim that a reasonable viewer would have thought Sharpe was actually accusing him of committing larceny. Because Sharpes comments are constitutionally protected rhetorical hyperbole using loose, figurative language, they cannot support a defamation claim as a matter of law.

The ruling could not have been any more dismissive of Favre, doing just about everything shy of calling him a crybaby.

Favre also previously had sued podcaster Pat McAfee. Favre eventually dropped his suit, even though McAfee did not apologize or pay Favre any money.

So this all is good, right? First Amendment victories, yeah?

Well, not so fast, Deadspins Julie DiCaro writes. She wrote, Because in taking on Sharpe, who is thought to be worth around $14 million, Favre took on someone who had the money to fight back against what seemed to be a lawsuit designed to infringe upon free speech. Same with McAfee. Once word got out about Favre suing McAfee and Sharpe, some outlets likely backed way off criticizing Favre, and I wouldnt be surprised if some even scrapped stories entirely. At least one other reporter was threatened by Favres legal team, though not sued, for making similar comments about Favre on Twitter.

DiCaro asks if Favre (as well as other suits filed by former Major League Baseball pitcher Trevor Bauer over allegations of sexual assault) are even meant to win in the court of law.

But, DiCaro wrote, they are extremely effective in chilling free speech. That means people who might have otherwise negatively reported or commented on Favre and Bauer now refrain from doing so in order to avoid being sued. Thats bad for journalism, and bad for our country, which depends on an informed and educated electorate.

Continuing with the sports theme today, here are two more items of interest

Game 2 of the World Series was played last Saturday between two teams the Arizona Diamondbacks and Texas Rangers that were among the last to even make the playoffs and arent exactly marquee franchises in the eyes of most fans. Thats strike one.

Strike two: Game 2 went up against college football.

And, the final score was a blowout 9-1 for the Diamondbacks. Strike three!

It was a strikeout among fans. The game averaged 8.153 million viewers on Fox and another 225,000 on Fox Deportes. That 8.378 million total made for the least-watched World Series on record.

That comes on the heels of the least-watched Game 1 of a World Series on record. An average of 9.17 million viewers tuned in.

But wait! Were not done.

Game 2 was the least-watched World Series game until Monday nights Game 3. The viewership for that was only 8.126 million watched, meaning that is now the least-watched game. (Game 3 went up against Monday Night Football, and that game between the Detroit Lions and Las Vegas Raiders drew 15.2 million viewers, according to Sports TV Ratings.)

Why are the baseball numbers so low?

Well, for starters, Front Office Sports Michael McCarthy writes, TV ratings for the Fall Classic have been falling for years as baseball becomes more of a regional than national TV draw.

The Athletics Richard Deitsch adds, This series was always going to be viewership challenged as anyone who studies or writes about sports viewership would have told you prior to the first pitch. The question was how low would the numbers be. These numbers are low. You cant spin them. Because fans too often personalize this stuff, its important to note this isnt an attack on either team. Its actually a fascinating baseball matchup. But the Diamondbacks and Rangers are not national draws based on historic television data outside of when they are playing a team with broad appeal or a series going long (which is what Fox has to really hope for with this series).

A scene outside Newark Liberty International Airport in Newark, New Jersey. (AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey)

If you follow sports closely, you know the names of reporters such as ESPNs Adam Schefter and Adrian Wojnarowski, and Shams Charania from The Athletic and Stadium. They make their living, mostly, from breaking stories: trades, firings, signings, and so forth. And its a good living. They are paid in the millions.

But is it a good life?

Check out this story. On his podcast, The Woj Pod, Wojnarowski, who covers the NBA for ESPN, relayed how he broke the big news early Tuesday that superstar James Harden was being traded from Philadelphia to the Los Angeles Clippers.

Wojnarowski said, Really got into it Monday night. I was at Newark airport, I was getting ready to fly to LA to go out and be out with our NBA Countdown crew this week and NBA Today. It was suggested to me to not get on a plane, that you might be its always my worst fear with this job that youre on a plane and the wireless is spotty and you cant get to what you need to do so I sat in Newark airport, watched the place close down and then almost start to reopen again. So from like 5 p.m., they threw me out of the (United) lounge at 10:30 p.m. when it closed and then I just went and sat downstairs until I left about 3:30 in the morning.

Sitting in the Newark Airport until 3:30 in the morning?

The Big Leads Kyle Koster wrote, Thats dedication. And just a nightmare lifestyle if you really think about it. There are certain moments when the news pops and the television cameras are rolling that the whole enterprise looks glamorous but a sad New Jersey airport growing increasingly deserted is a bleak office for the day. At least the copious aggregator accounts that shared it minutes later presumably have the comforts of home to enjoy while they wait for the action to begin. But hey, like Don Draper said, thats what the money is for.

The News Leaders Association, an organization of journalism editors formed in 2019 by the merger of the American Society of News Editors and the Associated Press Managing Editors, has recommended to its members they vote to disband the group, according to a memo sent to members Tuesday.

Alison Gerber, NLA board president, said the decision was a difficult one, but necessary to ensure that NLA-run efforts including leadership training, an annual news industry diversity survey, press freedom efforts and journalism awards could continue in the hands of other nonprofits the NLA is selecting.

From the beginning, the new NLA has faced obstacles, starting with the COVID-19 pandemic combined with the vast challenges facing the news industry and the financial markets, Gerber said. These headwinds created a perfect storm, making it difficult for the NLA to expand and flourish.

Voting will take place in November.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.

The Poynter Report is our daily media newsletter. To have it delivered to your inbox Monday-Friday, sign up here.

Originally posted here:
Opinion | Those guys yelling on sports shows? Yeah, the First ... - Poynter

Californians like to brag that their home has it all mountainous forests, cerulean lakes, otherworldly deserts and Kevin Kiley, the Republican representing the Golden States 3rd District, is no different.

But he rarely passes up the opportunity to express how loathsome he finds the actions of the states governor, Gavin Newsom. When you look at the fact that we lead the nation in poverty, in homelessness Ive seen why it is that these problems have gotten worse in California, says Kiley.

After an unsuccessful attempt to recall the Democrat from office in 2021, Kiley sees it as part of his mission to keep the flame alive and make the case in Congress that the brand of politics that has prevailed in the state is not where we want to go as a country.

The Yale Law graduate and former state assemblyman sat down earlier this fall to talk about his first year in Washington, his view from the DCCC target list and what he has in common with Rep. Jamie Raskin. This interview has been edited and condensed.

Q: Your district is nearly 450 miles long. Its massive. Do you have a favorite among the desert, the mountains and the lakes?

A: I dont I love all parts of my district. Total political answer, I know. But Im serious now, there really is no district like it in the country. From Lake Tahoe to Death Valley, who would have thought both of those would be in one district?

I spend a lot of time on the road. Of course, I have to spend a lot of time in D.C., but I try to be as present as possible.

As large as the district is, there is a commonality of concerns. From north to south, we have areas that have been affected by devastating wildfires, so that has been a top priority of mine. Everywhere in the district, the cost of living is a huge impediment to the quality of life, so thats been at the top of my priorities as well.

Q: You worked with Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland to reintroduce the PRESS Act, which was marked up in the Judiciary Committee this summer and got bipartisan support. Why do you care about a press shield law? Why did you pick this issue as a freshman?

A: Well, its about the First Amendment, and its about the ability of our democracy to function as the founders intended. Whats the quote from Madison? A popular government without popular information is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy, or perhaps both.

The founders put freedom of the press in the First Amendment because they understood how vital it was to have the ability to provide the public access to the information they need to participate in the great experiment of self-government. And when you have impediments to the exercise of that right, or when you have the potential for government compulsion of source material or communications or work product, then that can only serve to chill the exercise of those First Amendment freedoms to the detriment of our body politic.

As you can see from the bipartisan support its received [from 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats], its an issue where we can come together to advance First Amendment principles. And Im always looking for those kinds of opportunities.

Q: I think its fair to say that youre best known as a critic of Gavin Newsom. You were one of the GOP challengers who had your name on the ballot and tried to recall him from office in 2021. Why has he been a continued focus for you since youve come to Washington?

A: My first and foremost focus is representing my district and serving my constituents. Thats the core of the work we do.

Now, I spent time in our [state] legislature, and its true that I fought very hard against many of the actions that Gavin Newsom took, particularly during the COVID era. For example, he shut down schools longer than any governor in the entire country, which everyone now acknowledges was a mistake. And in fact, Newsom himself said just [a couple months ago] on Meet the Press that he would have done everything differently.

The brand of politics that has prevailed in the state is far outside the bounds of the normal parameters of either the left or the right. It has gone so far in one direction, and its not where we want to go as a country.

And so I feel like, having experienced that firsthand in California, it is important to share with my colleagues in Congress what the results have been.

Lets take a very clear example. The president has nominated Julie Su to be secretary of Labor. She was Gavin Newsoms secretary of labor in California. California has the second-highest unemployment in the nation right now and the highest poverty rate. As labor secretary, Julie Su aggressively enforced one of the worst laws that has ever passed when it comes to economic opportunity, AB 5 [that reclassified some independent contractors as employees], and she squandered $32 billion in unemployment fraud.

I felt like my experiences dealing with her and the administration in California prepared me to make the case against her ascension to lead the U.S. Department of Labor.

Q: Permit me a cynical follow up. It sounds like you want to run for governor, based on that response.

A: Im running for reelection to the House. Right now, my focus is on serving this vast district that I now have the great opportunity to represent.

Q: Youre on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committees target list, which means you can expect therell be some added help for your opponents next year. Are you worried about how your partys agenda will reflect on you as House Republicans keep pursuing an impeachment inquiry into President Biden?

A: You know, this is a constitutional process. Its not or at least its not supposed to be a product of politics. Its specifically the domain of the legislative branch to hold the executive branch to account in these matters. So my approach to the investigations that are underway now would be the same regardless of who the president was.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, which is ultimately the committee of jurisdiction for any impeachment, my guiding philosophy will be to follow the facts where they lead and then to assess whether they reach the constitutional threshold of a high crime or misdemeanor. That goes for this president, it goes for any other president, and it goes for any other administration official that is subject to that constitutional provision.

I view myself as a juror, and I want to be in a position to evaluate the facts as they are then presented against the standard set forth in the Constitution.

And just like a juror, I dont think you should go out and be announcing your conclusion before youve had an opportunity to evaluate the evidence or indeed, before the full breadth of the evidence has even been gathered.

Last book you read? Interstellar by Avi Loeb, about space exploration.

In politics, can the ends justify the means? To an extent. Were not elected to be philosophers, but rather to get a job done but its also important to have guiding principles and lines you wont cross. That is a balance you always have to keep in mind, between principles and pragmatism.

Your least popular opinion? Im a big Sacramento Kings fan, and I hold out hope that theyll win a championship, lets say within the decade.

One thing your friends know about you that your constituents dont? Im recently engaged.

One thing youve learned in Congress? There are a lot of different ways to make an impact, and its important to pursue every possible avenue. Sometimes that might mean introducing a bill and getting it passed. Sometimes it might mean pressing an administration official, participating in an oversight hearing or taking a stand on an issue within your community. Having that sense of flexibility and resourcefulness really pays dividends.

Go here to see the original:
Gov. Newsoms biggest critic might be this California congressman - Roll Call

AJ Jones is a writer. She is a creator of art and expresses herself across different mediums. She embraces her neurodivergence as a unique way to view the world and create a better future.

"No more apologies for a bleeding heart when the opposite is no heart at all. Danger of losing our humanity must be met with more humanity." -Toni Morrison

It isn't by mistake that I begin with a quote from an author whose books have been banned in more than a dozen Iowa school districts. Nor do I think it is a mistake that five women in Pella have been fighting a clean fight for democracy and have conducted themselves in a way that is neatly depicted in the second sentence of the quote.

These five women, driven by a sense of community, civil rights, civil liberties and fair play have been standing up for an American institution under attack within their community. They are encouraging Pella residents to Vote No for the public library, so that the library board can maintain exclusive authority to manage library affairs.

They have kept honorable methods of outreach and truth. They have focused solely on the idea of community and talking to each other, as neighbors do in a pristine, village-like community located in central Iowa. When a bait and switch measure ended up on the ballot, they responded by reaching out to EveryLibrary.org for guidance.

I had the pleasure of speaking with John Chrastka, founder of EveryLibrary.org, who has been assisting the Vote No campaign in Pella for the past eighteen months. "Vote Yes folks are a special interest group with a social agenda," Chrastka explained. In effect, the Vote Yes folks banked on the idea that Pella residents would automatically support giving the city council oversight of the library. They made that bet because when "library" and "yes" are on the ballot together, the usual assumption is that the measure would be good for the library. People who expect a "yes" vote to be something good are being deceived.

I was surprised to find out this is not the first time activists have used this bait and switch. EveryLibrary.org has been called in to help other libraries navigate through murky policy concerns. Chrastka offered up a community in Michigan (which like Pella has a large Dutch Reformed population) as an example. Their platform was about eliminating groomers and pedophiles, which is something we can all get behind. Except: it was actually about book banning.

Now, Patmos District Library in Jamestown Charter Township, Michigan, is in danger of closing. The library is not in compliance with state law, which has resulted in no funding. "It is a small place," Chrastka reflected. "There are subdivisions being built there now and they are wanting to build a school. They shouldn't be losing their library."

There is also Jonesboro, Arkansas, where 150 "frustrated banners" got together to get a measure on the ballot. Again, Vote Yes. People voted in good faith, and the "yes" side won by 54 votes. People who thought they were doing something good for their local library ended up shrinking the funds available to the facility by 50 percent.

Vote No campaigners moved from being a group of volunteers who have hope for their participation in the democratic process to being a group of volunteers who have come together to really form what I think is a very American thing, which is a local political action group, said Chrastka. "They are focused on maintaining the freedom to read...

He continued,

The First Amendment isnt just about the freedom of speech; part of the First Amendment is the freedom of assembly. You get together and you talk about the things that matter to you. You move public policy forward. And their right to assemble is as core is that freedom of speech. It's a nice thing to see that intersection point between those two freedoms in the First Amendment like that.

Libraries provide the space and location for both parts of the First Amendment to occur.Any assault on such a necessary institution is a direct assault on a communitys First Amendment rights.

Win or lose in Pella's election today, the Vote No volunteers have shown what it is to be American. They have done so using truth and honest dealings with their friends and neighbors. Isn't that what community is all about?

Top image of books in library is by GNT STUDIO, available via Shutterstock.

Continued here:
Bleeding Heartland - Bleeding Heartland

All four writers of letters to the editor published in the Sun Sentinel on Friday, Nov. 3, were highly critical of your recent editorial that defended the speech of the pro-Palestinian student organizations that were recently banned at two public universities in Florida. The writers reactions are understandable, but their commitment to freedom of speech is too weak, I think.

One writer lists some of the judicially recognized exceptions to freedom of speech in America, but makes no attempt to connect any of those specific exceptions to the speech of these student groups and, in fact, none of those exceptions has any application here. The concept of defamation refers to demonstrably false factual statements about individuals. A punishable threat must, explicitly or implicitly, take the form of a statement of intention by the speaker to do harm. Its not enough that the speech may be perceived as threatening in some less direct way. And incitement is unprotected by the First Amendment only when a speaker advocates imminent lawless action that is likely to occur.

Speech does not lose constitutional protection in America merely because it expresses hate, or because it expresses approval of bad behavior by like-minded people. Nor does an association with such criminals change the analysis.

The only complication here is the fact that the speech at issue is speech by a student organization on a college campus. But my understanding is that every student organization must be treated equally, without penalty based on the groups viewpoint. If student organizations pursue this matter in court, I expect them to prevail.

Its a safe bet that some who read this will think, Well, if thats the law, then the law is wrong. I wish to persuade you otherwise. You may believe that speech should be punishable if it is hateful or dangerous, but you might come to regret the use of such elusive and manipulative standards.

The Sun Sentinel deserves praise, not vilification, for its courageous editorial.

Marc Rohr, Plantation

The writer is professor of law emeritus at Nova Southeastern University.

Re: A little girl hit by a bullet asks, Why? | Editorial, Nov. 2

Thank you to the Sun Sentinel Editorial Board for yet another well-written editorial, this time on the mass shooting in Maine and the ever-present pandemic of gun violence.

Kind regards. Stay healthy and safe.

Barney Agate, Tamarac

With the obvious open border crisis where illegal immigrants continue to arrive in the United States, I would like to propose that the first step in the assimilation process would be to have immigrants serve in the military for four years, after which they would be pre-qualified to become U.S. citizens. After an additional two years of proven gainful employment, they would then become fully qualified to be U.S. citizens.

This would solve the issue of paying for their existence in the U.S., and it would fulfill current recruiting shortfalls in the military.

Jack Conill, Fort Lauderdale

Its clear that the pro-Russian Republican chaos caucus does not care about our military or dealing with the many current national and international crises. The GOP-controlled Congress wont even pass a bipartisan Ukrainian aid bill. The GOP leadership in the Senate is allowing one senator to block military promotions.

Why doesnt the GOP just skip the middleman and select Vladimir Putin as Republican nominee for president?

Lanny Budd, Fort Lauderdale

View post:
Hate speech is wrong, but it's protected by the Constitution | Letters ... - South Florida Sun Sentinel

Published 9:00 am Tuesday, November 7, 2023

By a 4-3 vote Monday night, Albemarle City Council rejected a proposed text amendment that would have added a definition of drag shows to the citys code of ordinances, and which would have prohibited minors from attending such events.

The decision concluded a four-month trek for the highly-controversial proposal, which generated passionate and intense public comment at each consideration by appointed and elected officials.

The matter was on the citys planning board agenda on Aug. 3, but was tabled to the groups September meeting. When heard by the citys planning board before an overflow crowd on Sept. 7, the advisory group voted unanimously (9-0) against its adoption, and in turn passed the matter on to City Council for a final decision.

An Oct. 16 public hearing, conducted as part of that evenings regular City Council meeting drew another capacity crowd to City Hall, during which citizens expressed views both for and against adoption. However, with Councilman Bill Aldridge unable to attend the meeting, council members voted 5-1 to honor Aldridges request to delay the vote so that he could vote on the matter, as well as express his views in person.

Before another full house on Monday, council members discussed the matter prior to voting.

Five of my six fellow council members honored my request (to delay voting on the matter), and Id like to thank those who did, said Aldridge, who described the matter as a great opportunity for City Council.

We have the opportunity to show everyone that we are willing to do anything and everything to protect our children, he said. Im in no way against drag shows, those who participate in them, or even attend them, but what I do want to assure is that we protect our children until they reach an age of maturity when they will be able to choose whether to attend or not.

Councilman Chris Whitley expressed concerns with legal consequences that could arise from adoption of the text amendment, citing a play he had recently attended.

I saw a play in downtown Albemarle last week that fits that (referring to the wording of the proposed text amendment), he said. Under this (proposed) ordinance, if someone had a problem with that, they would complain, and the police department would have to address it.

Whitley also noted the recommendations of the planning board and city staff, as well as concerns over potential litigation relating to first amendment issues.

Noting that both Aldridge and Whitley had expressed valid points, Councilman Chris Bramlett cited personal freedoms in his reasoning for opposing the amendment.

I dont want to infringe on the freedom to have drag shows, because once we start taking freedoms like that away, then there are some freedoms that I cherish that you might want to take away also, he said. But I also dont want children under 18 in those (drag show) programs. Remember, we dont let you vote until youre 18, and theres a great deal of common sense in that kind of thinking. Its saying that youre not quite ready to take on the totality of adulthood.

I want to thank everybody, regardless of your position on the matter, who has come out and spoke during the public hearings, Councilman Dexter Townsend said. Ill take every comment thats provided to us as council members that will help us make our decisions. But, I also value the opinion of our planning and zoning board, which voted unanimously to deny this request, as well as the opinion of our professional staff, noting City Attorney Britt Burch had informed council members at the Oct. 16 meeting that no other municipality in North Carolina has an ordinance of this nature.

Mayor Pro-Tem Martha Sue Hall expressed that she believed protection of children was not the only issue behind those pushing for adoption of the amendment.

For 40 years Ive been protecting children, said Hall, who was employed by the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts prior to her 2014 retirement, but, I personally do not believe thats what this is all about. However, I do appreciate everybodys comments on this very divisive issue.

Upon vote, Aldridge, Bramlett and Hunt voted in favor of the text amendment, with Dry, Hall, Townsend and Whitley in opposition.

Toby Thorpe is a freelance writer for The Stanly News &Press.

More here:
Albemarle vote 4-3 against drag amendment - The Stanly News ... - Stanly News & Press