Mediaboss Marketing

The man who was issued two traffic citations after he flipped off a Flagler County Sheriff's Office deputy on Aug. 8 has had his day in court, with both tickets dismissed by the judge.

FCSO Master Deputy Kyle Gaddie issued two citations one for following too closely and one for impeding traffic in the left lane to St. Augustine resident Jeff Gray, who calls himself a civil rights investigator and First Amendment auditor. Gray, a retired truck driver, regularly posts about his interactions with law enforcement on his YouTube account, HonorYourOath Civil Rights Investigations.

Gray said the citations were retaliatory because he'd flipped Deputy Gaddie the middle finger as Gray passed the FCSO agency vehicle on Interstate 95.

The case was overseen by Judge Andrea Totten at the Kim C. Hammond Justice Center in Flagler County on Oct. 30. Totten dismissed both citations levied against Gray.

Gray has already uploaded a video of the dismissal to his YouTube account. In Gray's video, Gray's attorney, Eric Friday, said Gaddie attempted to use Gray's own video of the incident to prove Gaddie's case.

Gray's video includes an audio recording of Gaddie's testimony, referencing Gray's YouTube video of the incident.

"Before I even finished," Friday said in Gray's video, "the judge said she didn't need to hear anymore."

Read more from the original source:
Flagler County judge dismisses traffic tickets against 'First ... - Palm Coast Observer and Ormond Beach Observer

(The Sentinel) In a victory for free speech rights, a federal jury recently sided with Olathe resident Jennifer Gilmore who was removed from an Olathe Board of Educationmeetingin 2022.

Gilmore, who ran for a seat on the Olathe Board of Education in 2021 and lost by 65 votes, was awarded $1 by the jury.

TheKansas City Starreportsthat after a four-day trial earlier this week, a jury found that her First Amendment rights were violated when she was prevented from speaking during the meeting last year when then-president of the board Joe Beveridge disliked her views.

The award comes after the Olathe school district spent some $300,000 on attorneys fees.

The Board majority sought to cover up Beveridges wrongdoing by spending over $300,000 and counting of the taxpayers dollars in this lawsuit, Gilmores attorney, Linus Baker, said in a statement. In the end, the board majority spent $300,000 to avoid paying Ms. Gilmore one dollar.

TheStararticle states the jury did not find that punitive damages should be assessed against Beveridge. In order to find that Beveridge should pay damages to Gilmore, the jury would have needed to agree there was proof he acted with evil motive or intent, or reckless indifference to her rights, according to court documents.

U.S. District Judge Holly Teeter had previously denied Gilmores attempt to ask for damages against the district and school board, but the $1 in nominal damages acknowledges that her rights were violated.

In the fall of 2021, Gilmore was running for a seat on the board, campaigning partly against mask mandates andcritical race theory, but was narrowly defeated by Julie Steele who earlier this yearsuggestedparents who are critical of diversity, equity and inclusion training should leave Kansas.

Gilmore attended the January 2022 Board of Education meeting, where new board members were to be sworn in.

During the public comment section, she stated, Good evening. I didnt buy my board seat, but Im still here because I care about this district.

Beveridge started to interrupt her at that point but let her continue.

Gilmore then said: We were told prior to enrollment that masks would be optional. Were doing the same thing year after year. I agree that liars lie, but the only liar that lied in this election was Jim Randall.

Randall, who is a former Olathe City Council member, is Steeles father and Beveridges father-in-law.

Beveridge, at this point, cut Gilmore off and said, Ok, youre done, and asked to have her removed, stating she was done talking and that she had mentioned a person.

TheStarreports that at this point, Gilmore said: Your father-in-law that spent $37,000 for her (Steeles) board seat? Gilmore replied to Beveridge, and noted that Steele raised nearly double the amount that Gilmore did leading up to the 2021 election, reporting about $60,000 in contributions, more than half coming from loans Steele made to her own campaign.

The boards public comment rule at the time said the board would not hear personal attacks or rude or defamatory remarks of any kind about any employee or student of the School District or any person connected with the School District.

The policy also allowed the board president to interrupt any comments that were not germane to the business of the board.

A new policy, adopted in April of 2022, retains the germane language but omits the language about personal or defamatory remarks.

Earlier this summer, Teeterthrew outmost of the claims by Gilmore in denying in part a request for summary judgment.

Teeter dismissed the claims against the board and the district and also dismissed as moot Gilmores claim against the revised policy for lack of standing, as it was not in force at the time Gilmore was removed from the meeting.

However, Teeter let stand Gilmores primary claim, saying a jury could reasonably conclude her First Amendment rights had been violated because she had been blocked from speaking because of her views.

Teeter had also said in court documents a reasonable jury might conclude Beveridge acted in anger because of Gilmores criticism of his father-in-law rather than because of board policy.

The judge and both parties did agree that a board meeting is what is called in law a limited public forum where governmentcanput reasonable restrictions on speech, so long as they are not being used to prevent viewpoints from being expressed. The jury found Beveridgedidengage in viewpoint discrimination against Gilmore simply because he disliked or did not want to hear her opinion.

Visit link:
Kansas resident removed from meeting wins First Amendment case ... - Heartlander News

If you want to see how the nutty, biology-defying gender ideology of the radical left has infected school boards and administrators even in conservative, saner parts of the country, you need only read the recent opinion of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Parents Defending Education v. Linn Mar Community School District.

A three-judge panel of the court overruled a district court and instructed it to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a school board policy in Iowa that would have disciplined students for expressing opinions that diverge from leftist gender orthodoxyspecifically, for refusing to respect a students gender identity.

In April 2022, the Linn Mar school district board passed a policy intended to address the needs of transgender students, gender-expansive students, nonbinary, gender nonconforming students, and students questioning their gender.

The policy prohibited school administrators, teachers and counselors from informing parents that their children were having to cooperate with or were undergoing gender support accommodations for transgender students regarding names, pronouns, restroom and locker facilities, overnight accommodations on school trips, and participation in activities.

>>>Liberal Hypocrites Are Destroying Womens Sports

Any refusal to respect a students gender identity would violate the schools prohibitions against bullying and harassment, which could lead to suspension and expulsion. Gender identity was defined by the favorite psychobabble of progressivesnamely, a students deeply-held sense or psychological knowledge of their own gender.

Parents Defending Education sued on behalf of parents with students in the Linn Mar system. They claimed violations of the First and 14th amendments for violations of their substantive due process right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children and violation of their childrens right to freedom of speech.

Fortunately, the school boards secrecy provision was overridden when the Iowa General Assembly passed a bill, signed by the governor, in the middle of the litigation that prohibited school districts from hiding information from parents or giving them false or misleading information about a students gender identity or intention to transition to a gender different from what is listed on his or her birth certificate.

The new law requires school administrators to notify parents of a students request for gender accommodation.

As for the First Amendment claim, the court determined that at least one student in particular was being prevented from speaking his mind out of fear that he would be disciplined, thus giving him and his parents standing to sue.

The school boards contemptuous attitude toward the free-speech rights of students was evident. As the 8th Circuit summarized in its opinion, one of the parents explained that her son wanted to state his belief that biological sex in immutable, disagree with another students assertion about whether they are male or female, state that biological males should not be allowed to compete in female athletics, and express discomfort about sharing bathrooms with teachers or students of the opposite biological sex.

Yet the school board argued that the suggested activity and speech of the student was not affected with a constitutional interest because harassment or bullying on the basis of gender is not protected speech within the school environment.

Fortunately, the appeals court didnt buy it: A school district cannot avoid the strictures of the First Amendment simply by defining certain speech as bullying or harassment.

The court concluded that the parents would likely succeed in their claim that inflicting punishment on students for failing to respect a students gender identity is void for vagueness and thus a violation of the First Amendment.

>>>Hiding Students Gender Identities From Their Parents Is Immoral

A government policy, the court said, is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to provide adequate notice of the proscribed conduct and lends itself to arbitrary enforcement.

The failure of the school board to define respect, the court concluded, means that the policy could cover any speech about gender identity that a school administrator deems disrespectful of another students gender identity.

Students cannot know whether they are violating the policy when expressing discomfort about sharing a bathroom with someone who is transgender, argues that biological sex is immutable in a debate in social studies class, or expresses an opinion about the participation of transgender students on single-sex athletic teams.

Moreover, the lack of clarity over the meaning of respect left the policy open to differing interpretations by teachers and administrators and created a substantial risk of arbitrary enforcement.

The school board has the right to appeal this decision by either asking for an en banc review, which is when the entire appeals court reviews the case, or to go directly to the Supreme Court to ask it to review the decision.

What the school board should do instead is realize that it made a grievous error in implementing this restrictive, unconstitutional policy and get rid of it in its entirety.

Read the original:
Woke Iowa School Board Disrespects Parents, Students and the ... - Heritage.org

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