Mediaboss Marketing

Last week, the Supreme Court heard a case about a Colorado man, Billy Ray Counterman, who was sentenced to over four years in prison for stalking due to threatening Facebook messages that he sent to a singer named C.W. Counterman argued that the charges violated his speech rights and that his messages were not true threats, which is a kind of speech not protected under the First Amendment. The issue in the case is whether or not his messages actually constituted under true threats (or if conduct like stalking should be distinguished); and if so, how should courts determine what a true threat is? In this episode, we dive into the facts and issues in theCounterman v. Colorado case, the history of true threats doctrine under the First Amendment, and recap the oral arguments, including whether the justices might decide that true threats should be determined by an objective test, such as if a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence; or whether they might find that it depends on the speakers specific intent.Genevieve Lakierof the University of Chicago andGabe Waltersof FIRE join hostJeffrey Rosento discuss.

Please subscribe toWe the PeopleandLive at the National Constitution CenteronApple Podcasts,Stitcher,or your favorite podcast app.

Todays episode was produced by Lana Ulrich, Bill Pollock, and Sam Desai. It was engineered by Greg Scheckler. Research was provided by Sam Desai.

Participants

Genevieve Lakieris a professor of law and Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar at the University of Chicago Law School, where she teaches and writes about freedom of speech and constitutional law, including the fight over freedom of speech on social media platforms. She coauthored a brief in support of the respondent, the state of Colorado, in theCountermancase.

Gabe Waltersis an attorney at FIREthe Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. He joined FIRE after nine years with the PETA Foundation, where he litigated freedom of speech and freedom of information cases in federal and state courts across the country. He and FIRE filed a brief in support of the petitioner, Bill Ray Counterman, in theCountermancase.

Jeffrey Rosen is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization devoted to educating the public about the U.S. Constitution. Rosen is also professor of law at The George Washington University Law School and a contributing editor of The Atlantic.

Additional Resources

Stay Connected and Learn More

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [emailprotected].

Continue todays conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.

Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Read the original post:
What are True Threats Under the First Amendment? - Podcast ... - National Constitution Center

The First Amendment is perhaps the most cherished set of constitutional rights we have as Americans. It covers freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, religion and the ability to petition the government for the redress of grievances. That covers a lot of ground.

This amendment, like all constitutional rights, comes with limitations. Paraphrasing the great Oliver Wendell Holmes, you cant falsely yell fire! in a crowded theater (this may not technically be true, but you get the point). Furthermore, you cant intentionally use speech to incite violence against a person or place. Finally, although the American press has wide latitude to make mistakes in its reporting, it cannot intentionally defame someones reputation without consequences.

So, what does violating the First Amendment cost these days? About $787,500,000 if youre Fox News Corporation.

Thats the amount Fox paid to settle a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems, which Fox accused of being complicit in the stealing of the 2020 presidential election. It is by far the largest defamation award in the countrys history.

The settlement raised the hackles of people on both the right and left. Right-wingers who managed to pry themselves away from Fox News long enough to read about the settlement are outraged that Rupert Murdoch caved. Those on the left are outraged Dominion didnt take this to trial and hold Foxs feet to the fire on the witness stand.

As a retired lawyer who negotiated dozens of settlements in my day, I can tell you this case had very little to do with the First Amendment and everything to do with business. In the end, Fox cut its losses and Dominion got the biggest windfall it will ever see.

If youre a right-winger who is ticked off that Fox settled, your anger is misplaced. If anything, Fox didnt settle soon enough. Speaking from experience, settling a lawsuit sooner rather than later is generally going to be cheaper. Seeing a case through to trial is time-consuming and expensive. Plus, trying to figure out what a judge or jury will decide is an inexact science at best. In this case, you could argue that Foxs lawyers should have seen the handwriting on the wall and tried to get out of this early before all of the embarrassing discovery became public. Defamation cases are difficult to prove in America especially when the plaintiff is declared a public figure however, this case was about as slam-dunk as you can get for Dominion. Allowing this process to drag on up to the trial date arguably cost Fox hundreds of millions of dollars.

On the other hand, if youre one of those people who are mad Dominion didnt take this to trial and hold Fox accountable for its alleged malfeasance, I have some news for you. Dominion Voting Systems is not in the business of the First Amendment. Its in the voting machine business, which means its in the business of making money. This settlement is worth several times what the private equity firm paid for the entire company. In other words, being the target of a conspiracy theory is the best business decision Dominion ever made.

The whole reason Dominion brought the lawsuit in the first place is three-fold: defend its reputation, deter future actors from defaming its reputation, and money. Holding the press accountable for bad actions has nothing to do with it unless doing so adds a few more zeroes onto the settlement. Plus, theres no guarantee what a jury will award in damages, or what an appellate court will allow. Dominion was seeking $1.6 billion in damages. Even if it got that much, an appeals court could knock that down considerably. Maybe down to $0. Furthermore, the appeals process can take years. With inflation the way it is these days, that award gets less and less valuable by the month. A bird in the hand as they say.

But dont worry. Fox is being sued for defamation by a voting software company called Smartmatic, which Fox also (allegedly) looped into the 2020 presidential election conspiracy theory. Smartmatic is seeking $2.7 billion in damages. Maybe Fox will change course and go to trial on that case, or perhaps Smartmatic will become a trailblazer for First Amendment accountability.

I wouldnt hold my breath.

The First Amendment may be the most valuable constitutional right we have, but its valuable in more ways than one. In the case of Fox News, that value can be measured in dollars, not principles.

Let freedom ring!

Jeremy Gugino was a full-time volunteer as communications director for the Idaho House/Senate Democrats and Reclaim Idaho.

View post:
Opinion: Crazy like a Fox: Buying the First Amendment for $800 million - Idaho State Journal

Daniel Kokoszka, a young man evidently with a lot of free time on his hands, decided one day last year to exercise his First Amendment rights by strolling into the rear parking lot of the New London Police Department and start videotaping with his cell phone.

This is an area that probably should be off limits to the public, given it is where city-owned police cars equipped with weapons are parked every day. In fact, about a month before Kokoszka's self-indulgent skit, police discovered a man in the same lot who later admitted he wanted to steal a police vehicle.

So, when a guy no one knows starts walking around the parking lot filming with a cellphone, it's going to arouse suspicion, concern, even anxiety. Is he a videographer working on a documentary? Is he mentally unstable and carrying a weapon? Or is he a self-righteous, if misguided, American citizen conducting what he calls a First Amendment audit by seeing if police will fall into his trap?

I'm a firm believer in the First Amendment and its protections. Still, I'm going to climb way out on a limb here and suggest that Kokoszka's baiting of NLPD Lt. Joshua Bergeson had more to do with self-aggrandizement and, possibly, disdain for police, than it did with the First Amendment.

"Hey, dudes, wait'll you see what I did in New London today!"

He is the same type of guy who yells "Baba Booey!" at televised golf tournaments and goes shirtless at football games when the temperature is in single digits. Pay attention to me!

For allowing himself to be drawn into a confrontation with Kokoszka - which is precisely what Kokoszka had hoped for - Bergeson drew an eight-day suspension and was ordered into retraining by Police Chief Brian Wright. Later on the day of the confrontation, New London Mayor Michael Passero and Chief Wright received emails with links to a video of the incident and a suggestion that Bergeson be fired. An internal investigation ensued, and Bergeson was suspended for violating department policies regarding respect and courtesy, conduct unbecoming an officer and use of force reporting.

It should be noted that about a month before the confrontation, Chief Wright emailed a reminder to his officers that the public has a right to record in public settings. The email included a link to a news story about four Danbury police officers who were disciplined for removing another such agitator for filming in the city's public library.

"Please do not let yourself be baited or engage in a manner that does not display our professionalism," the chief wrote.

Which, unfortunately, is exactly what Bergeson did. So, it is understandable that Wright would be upset about this and take disciplinary action.

However, Bergeson has a side to this story, too:

"There have been numerous acts of violence against police officers at police stations," Bergeson said in his own defense. "Subjects have attempted to force entry into buildings, and even light occupied police buildings on fire. So while their recording on the property is not suspicious, I believe in light of recent events and the current climate toward law enforcement, individuals wandering through our police department parking lot would be deemed suspicious."

During August 2022, the same month Kokoszka entertained himself by baiting a veteran cop, six American law enforcement officers were shot to death in the line of duty. A total of 64 were shot to death during 2022, while 14 others were killed in vehicular assaults. It's a safe bet that none of them expected when they began their shift that they would die before it was over. Thousands of other police officers are assaulted in the line of duty every year. Thus, Bergeson's concern is understandable.

In the wake of George Floyd's killing by Minneapolis police, there were calls in some parts of the country to defund and, in some cases, even disband police. The riots that ensued caused billions in property damage - some even to police property. The riots included violent attacks on police, relatively few of which resulted in arrests, and even fewer that brought convictions and any meaningful punishment.

Yes, there are bad cops, awful cops, racist cops - ones who willfully abuse their authority to bully and harass; they protect their friends and punish people they don't like, use excessive force, even injure and kill people in their custody. They should be deplored, weeded out, and punished. In an era when there is far less tolerance for police misconduct, that is what is happening now with greater frequency. In many departments, body cameras now record their on-duty movements. And that's as it should be with a function that protects the police as much as the public.

For varying reasons, some people don't like cops ... until, of course, they need one. Love 'em or hate 'em, police work around the clock - 24/7/365 and put their lives on the line every time they put on a uniform and go on patrol. Some die and are injured in the line of duty. They often find themselves waist deep in violent crime, personal hardship, death and injury at accident scenes, domestic fights, child custody disputes, neighborhood arguments, and the plight of the mentally ill.

Not that any of this excuses bad behavior, but they are spit upon, cursed, belittled, threatened, assaulted, criticized and second-guessed, often by people who know little or nothing about law enforcement. It's no wonder state and local police departments throughout the nation are having trouble attracting sufficient numbers of competent recruits.

Then, on top of all that, they encounter the likes of Daniel Kokoszka - smarmy know-it-alls who want to impress their dimwitted friends and YouTube viewers by filming their confrontations with a cop on the cop's turf, baiting and standing up to him and getting him punished - all under the guise of First Amendment protection. Be assured, this isn't exactly what The Founders intended when drafting the Constitution.

If it was up to me, Bergeson would have gotten chewed out for allowing himself, on duty and in an NLPD unform, to be taken down to Kokoszka's level; ordered to re-read the July 2022 email from the chief and the department regulations he violated; never allowed himself to be baited like this again; go back to work and stay safe out there.

As for Kokoszka, he would do better to heed what Bergeson told him during their encounter last year behind the police station: "Go find something better to do with your life."

Bill Stanley, a former Day reporter, is a retired vice president of Lawrence + Memorial Hospital.

Go here to see the original:
First Amendment and the New London police parking lot - theday.com

DAYTONA group of Columbia County residents is circulating a petition to dissolve the Dayton Rural Library District. Jessica Rufficorn posted a photo of the petition on Facebook in March. She and other community members who wish to dissolve the library district have posted their dissatisfaction with the librarys collection, the Library Board of Trustees, and Library Director Todd Vandenbark on the Facebook pages, including Dayton Speak freely(sic).

The dissolution efforts follow the groups dispute over 11 books on gender identity, sexual identity, or anti-racism. There is a protocol the board of trustees and the director follow to address complaints over books in the collection.

After the board completed the review of the books, it decided to retain all of them. The specific placement of the books in the library was addressed, ensuring access to appropriate aged readers.

Unfortunately, Vandenbark has been the focal point of the groups anger over the books not being removed. He and the board have addressed the concerns in writing and public meetings. He has asked anyone concerned to come to the library and speak with him.

The following message from the director was included in the April CCRLD newsletter.

A truly great library contains something in it to offend everyone.~ Jo Goodwin, librarian.

Recently, Ive learned of questions that some community members have asked about the librarys response to concerns about certain titles being available in our collection and Id like to take a moment to respond to these and some related questions.

Does the library put books in the Little Free Libraries?

The Friends of the Dayton Memorial Library are the generous folks who put up and stock these gems. When books at the Columbia County Library are withdrawn, we turn them over to the Friends book sales and to put in the free libraries. So, you may see some books stamped, Columbia County Rural Library District in a little free library. But neither I nor my staff add items to these boxes.

Why are these books in the library?

As a Library Director, it is my responsibility to make sure our collection represents all residents of Columbia County, and not just people of a certain religious or socio-political group. For example, a recent Gallup survey found that a record 7.1% of U.S. adults identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or something other than heterosexual (LGBTQIA+), up from 5.6% in 2012. And one in five Gen-Z adults (people born between 1997-2003) also identify as LGBTQIA+. Our collection lacked fiction and non-fiction titles for these groups so some were added in time for Pride Month in 2022.

Suicide is the second leading cause of death among young people ages 10-24. LGBTQIA+ youth are four times more likely to attempt suicide than their peers. More than 1.8 million LGBTQIA+ youth ages 13-24 are estimated to seriously consider suicide each year in the US and at least one youth attempts suicide every 45 seconds. (The Trevor Project) And making such materials available also serves as resources for parents, friends, and other loved ones who want to understand what being LGBTQIA+ is about. If having these titles in the library may prevent someone from taking their own life, then your library will make them available.

Why not just put controversial books behind the desk or in another part of the library as a compromise?

The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees that each patron has the right to find the information they choose. Libraries have a responsibility to provide information for a wide variety of users, also known as intellectual freedom. Intellectual freedom is the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause, or movement may be explored. (Dr. Tamara Meredith, Intellectual Freedom: Key Concepts for Training and Policy Development. Presentation at the CCRLD Board Meeting, Feb. 28, 2023) Shelving items in a way that restricts access to them is a direct violation of a patrons First Amendment rights and is a form of censorship. A parent or guardian has the right and responsibility to decide what materials are acceptable for their own family. But no one has the right to make rules restricting what other people use, or to make decisions for other families.

For example, lets say that one patrons favorite movie is American Sniper, the story of Navy S.E.A.L. sniper Chris Kyles pinpoint accuracy that saves countless lives on the battlefield. But another library patron comes to the front desk and claims that as a Christian, he believes in the Commandment Thou shalt not kill. This Christian patron goes on to demand that American Sniper be removed from the library because it glorifies killing and war. To remove the video from the collection, or place it behind the desk, denies the first patrons right to find the information they want. So, the video will be kept in the collection.

Your Columbia County Library seeks to offer the widest array of materials possible so that any patron who walks in the door can find materials that reflect who they are, their point of view, and the kinds of information they are seeking, every single day.

More here:
First Amendment protects freedom of information for all library patrons - Waitsburgtimes

Posted on: April 28, 2023, 02:59h.

Last updated on: April 28, 2023, 04:21h.

This weeks uproar over Tucker Carlsons and Don Lemons surprise departures from high-profile cable news jobs shows the limitations of First Amendment protections, according to legal experts.

The sacking of the media stars provides a lesson for TV celebrities that freedom of speech and freedom of the media exist in the Constitution, but wont provide them job security.

As far as the First Amendment goes, its just a reminder that media owners can fire anybody anytime, for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons, UNLV professor and attorney, Stephen Bates, told Casino.org.

Carlson seemingly got pushed out because of what he said and did at Fox, Bates said.

Also, the First Amendment guarantees a person the right to speak, but does not insulate him or her from the consequences of their speech, further advised Robert Jarvis, a law professor at Floridas Nova Southeastern Universitys Shepard College of Law.

Will the firings of Carlson and Lemon give some on-air personalities pause? Perhaps, he told Casino.org. But in the end, people tend to speak first and think later. On-air personalities are no different.

Bates also noted that many of the people who cheered when hearing about Carlsons ouster were upset when CBS pushed anchor Dan Rather out of his job.

When asked about the issue, Jarvis linked Carlsons and Lemons departures to Foxs recent $787M settlement with Dominion Voting Systems over its defamation lawsuit against the network.

I think they needed to send a clear message that a new day has dawned and that on-air personalities are going to be on a much shorter leash in the future, Jarvis said.

CNN management also was rattled by the Dominion settlement. CNN executives realized it sent a similar signal to its shareholders, Jarvis said.

The ousters are part of a broader and continuing debate over how news gets generated and disseminated, and what qualifies as news, according to Jarvis.

Clearly, the public is very distrustful of all media right now. And when you factor in the recent court judgments against Alex Jones and InfoWars, it is obvious that the system is breaking and a day of reckoning was going to come at some point. Of course, one could argue that the day of reckoning was already in motion.

In recent years, CNN also fired host Chris Cuomo and MSNBC forced host Chris Matthews to leave.

Still, from a First Amendment perspective, the reason for the turnover is a lot better than the blacklists of the 1950s, when people lost their jobs because of what they believed or did on their own time, Bates explained.

Carlson was no stranger to controversy at Fox News Channel. In 2017, he advocated conspiracy theories on the Las Vegas mass shooting, Salon reported.

Carlson raised questions about Jesus Campos, a security guard who reportedly confronted shooter Stephen Paddock on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel just before the massacre.

There were conspiratorial suggestions Campos had some connection to the shootings, but evidence was never presented to verify the suspicions.

Read the original post:
First Amendment Fails to Save Tucker Carlson's Job at Fox News - Casino.Org News