Mediaboss Marketing

The Subtext of the First Amendment

To the Editor:

As a fellow Harvard grad (though not a former Lampoon editor!), Id like to reply to the letter from David Binger ( Charlie Isnt Funny or Helpful, Jan. 14) about Charlie Hebdo. He takes issue with the title, the quality of the cartoons and the editorial tone, and asks how a country that loved Honor Daumier could support such trash.

First, I would posit that our own beloved land is the world leader in the degradation of taste. Were the country, after all, that not only produced Larry Flint and Hustler but supported his right, in the Supreme Court, to publish a highly offensive cartoon that depicted not the Prophet Muhammad, May Peace Be Upon Him, but a known, specific individual. Virtually all American newsstands hawk tabloids full of salacious trash, partially fabricated stories and outright lies. All of this is protected by our glorious (and widely misunderstood) First Amendment, the first item in the Bill of Rights.

More to the point: Certainly there is a world of difference between Charlie Hebdo, on the one hand, and The Harvard Lampoon and The New Yorker on the other. I grew up with and appreciated both publications, but they clearly appeal to different audiences and readerships. There is a place for the high and the low, and times have changed since Daumiers day. A certain amount of shock value is needed to gain the attention of readers in this high speed, Internet-crazed world. The tragedy in Paris, albeit horrific and a shock in its own right, at least elevated Charlie Hebdo, for a time, into the ranks of newspapers known around the world. Thankfully, we Americans are free to choose what we think and read, and I would suggest that an unwritten subtext of The First Amendment is that any one of us has the right, if he or she chooses, not to hold any religion, not to petition the government, not to peaceably assemble, and not to read anything offensive.

A. E. Norton

Woodstock

Bring Vermont Inmates Home

To the Editor:

Thank you for the article by Laura Krantz of VtDigger covering the modest reduction in out-of-state placements in the Vermont Corrections system (Vt. Out-of-State Prison Population to Dip, Jan. 14).

Follow this link:
Sunday Forum: The Subtext of the First Amendment; Bring Vermont Inmates Home; Universal Health Care Cant Wait

C.A.B.B. Notes: First Amendment Rights - 10/10/14
Topic: "First Amendment"

By: CATTV Bennington

View original post here:
C.A.B.B. Notes: First Amendment Rights - 10/10/14 - Video

Know Your Rights: What Isn #39;t Free Speech?
Yes, you have a right to free speech as an American citizen, but where does that right end? AJ+ gives you a cheat sheet on which kinds of speech are NOT protected under the First Amendment....

By: AJ+

Here is the original post:
Know Your Rights: What Isn't Free Speech? - Video

January 15, 2015|7:42 am

(Photo: REUTERS/Gary Cameron)

The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington March 5, 2014. U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday appeared to look for a compromise that would enable them to avoid overruling a 26-year-old precedent that made it easier for plaintiffs to negotiate large class action settlements.

On January 12th, I attended Supreme Court oral arguments in a caseReed v. Town of Gilbertwhich will determine how easily the government can restrict signs giving directions to church services. Specifically, the Court is set to decide whether, under free speech protections of the First Amendment, a local government's mere assertion that its sign code (despite on its face discriminating based on content) lacks a discriminatory motive renders the sign code content-neutral and justifies the code's differential treatment of signs pointing the way to a church's meeting location.

In this case, the Town of Gilbert had divided signs up based on whether they were ideological, political, or directionaland imposed different restrictions on each category of sign. Good News Community Church in Gilbert, Arizona, and its pastor, Clyde Reed, sued, claiming that signs pointing the way to their Sunday morning service (which contained religious speech and directions, and thus resulted in them being placed in the directional sign category) were treated less fairly and that this unfair treatment violated the First Amendment.

At oral arguments, both sides received their fair share of questions, but the justices were noticeably more skeptical of the town's argumentespecially its claim that it could severely restrict a sign containing ideological content announcing an event if the sign also included directions to that event, while at the same time easing restrictions on a sign containing the same exact ideological content and yet lacking directions.

The town attempted to defend itself by arguing it had an interest in preventing roadside clutter arising from numerable directional signs. But then it admitted it was granting preference to ideological and political signs because of the special First Amendment protection offered them, which prompted questions from the justices asking how the town was not impermissibly discriminating based on the content of the signs.

A breakthrough moment occurred when the town's counsel admitted under questioning by Justice Breyer that the town could put up a sign saying: "Come to the next service next Tuesday, 4th and H Streets," but could not add "three blocks right and two blocks left" to that same sign because that would make it a directional sign. Justice Breyer's response: "Well, my goodness. I meanI mean, on that, it does sound as if the town is being a little unreasonable, doesn't it?", pretty well captured the justices' view of the case.

The justices will now consider the legal issues and issue a written opinion deciding the case sometime before the end of June 2015.

While seeming more innocuous than some of the other high profile social issues which have reached the court over the last year or so, this case matters (significantly) to free speech law. It therefore matters a lot to Americans of all opinions and interests who want to take part in public debates and discussions over numerable issues in our country. Even if it doesn't matter to them personally, it shouldfor it affects their legal rights under the First Amendment.

See original here:
US Supreme Court: Can Government Restrict How a Church Can Use Signs?

Washington State Ferry personnel assault photographer
On 10 JAN 2015, I was conducting a follow up First Amendment Audit of the Washington State Ferry Terminal when I was assaulted by staff. Evidently, if you wear a high visibility jacket, you...

By: Rogue Reflections

Read more:
Washington State Ferry personnel assault photographer - Video