Mediaboss Marketing

It's not unusual for politicians and candidates for office to express their fervent and unwavering support for the Second Amendment.

Now would be an ideal time for them to show the same allegiance to the First Amendment and its guarantee of a free press.

Journalists across the nation are coming under attack as they go about covering the protests and unrest washing across the nation one of the most consequential stories in recent American history.

Reporters and photographers are clear-eyed in understanding their job might include covering potentially dangerous situations.

But what's so appalling about many of the attacks on American journalists is they're coming at the hands of law enforcement officers, peacekeepers who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Dozens of reports from around the country describe journalists getting shot at, manhandled, abused and arrested by police officers even after identifying themselves as part of the media.

Some incidents occurred in the fog of conflict, as when tear gas drifts into a crowd that includes journalists. We wouldn't be writing this editorial if that were the extent of it.

We're writing this because of what happened to Jintak Han, a UCLA journalist who was shot at with rubber bullets by Los Angeles police even though he was wearing a helmet, vest and pass clearly labeled "Press."

In Minneapolis, TV photojournalist Tom Aviles was hit with a rubber bullet and arrested even though he identified himself and attempted to comply with an officer's order to leave.

In Louisville, Ky., police shot TV reporter Kaitlin Rust and photojournalist James Dobson with pepper balls even after they complied with an order to move away.

In New York City, police struck and injured Wall Street Journal reporter Tyler Blint-Welsh with their riot shields even as he was trying to comply with an order to back up.

In Tampa, a police officer shoved Tampa Bay Times reporter Divya Kumar to the ground, zip-tied her hands and put her under arrest, all this after she showed the police her press pass.

In many instances, reporters are trying to comply with police or, after identifying themselves, are told "I don't care" or "shut up," showing these incidents aren't human error. In New York on Tuesday, two Associated Press journalists who had identified themselves were surrounded and shoved around by police.

Protesters have gone after journalists, too. A Fox News crew was assaulted by a mob outside the White House while another TV news crew was grabbed and chased by a crowd in Rochester, N.Y.

Journalists shouldn't be targeted at all, but the violence is more alarming when it's at the hands of police, whose job is to protect the public and preserve the Constitution.

The number of assaults and their brazen disregard for the First Amendment rights of journalists are unprecedented, and they're an affront to our values.

The media generally are not allowed in meetings where police chiefs and sheriffs are giving instructions to officers and deputies, so we have no way of knowing if the message to rough up journalists is coming from on high or whether some officers are taking matters into their own hands.

Whatever the case, elected officials, who like the police are sworn to uphold the Constitution, should be outraged. We feel safe in saying attacks on journalists by officers of the law is not what the founders had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment.

Are they outraged? On Wednesday morning we asked spokespeople for these elected officials whether they had said or written anything about the spate of assaults on press freedom: Florida Sens. Marco Rubio and Rick Scott, central Florida U.S. Reps. Val Demings, Stephanie Murphy, Darren Soto and Michael Waltz, and Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Murphy responded with a statement that acknowledged freedom of assembly and press were "cornerstones of American democracy (that) are under attack. We must stand up and defend them." Bravo.

Waltz's statement acknowledged the sometimes dangerous work of journalists but placed the blame for violence on "anarchists and looters" without acknowledging the role of police.

On Thursday morning, Soto tweeted that Congress "must step up to address these attacks to protect transparency & accountability in our democracy."

We generally like bipartisan consensus, but not when the agreement is indifference over a dangerous threat to freedom of the press.

Through it all, President Donald Trump has continued his relentless verbal attacks on the press even as members of the press are physically attacked by police.

Not all heads of state are as contemptuous of a free press as Trump.

The prime minister of Australia asked his ambassador to the United States to investigate after two of his country's journalists were attacked by officers in Washington during the now infamous attempt to clear out the rabble so Trump could stroll to an Episcopal church for a photo op.

The ambassador in turn released a statement on Twitter that said, in part: "Freedom of the press is a right that Australians and Americans hold dear. We take mistreatment of journalists seriously, as do all who take democracy seriously."

If only every American politician could muster the will to stand up and defend the value of a free press at a time when it's under assault.

View original post here:
Orlando Sentinel: Police targeting journalists during protests is an assault on the First Amendment - The Decatur Daily

Calling Texas an important battleground that he thinks he can win in November, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden spoke to the virtual Texas state Democratic Convention in a recorded speech on Saturday.

The former vice president started his speech addressing the coronavirus pandemic and the death of George Floyd at the hands of police, then spent a significant portion of his remarks addressing Latino Democrats.

He brought up the imminent Supreme Court decision on President Trumps ending of the DACA program, which allows relief from deportation to some young immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

Let me tell you something, as President, I will protect Dreamers and their families, he said. On day one I will introduce immigration reform, making sure we protect Obamacare, rebuild our economy, and ways to bring everybody along.

He called President Trumps agenda anti-Latino and anti-immigrant, citing the presidents efforts to reduce health care benefits, build a wall on the Mexican border, and reduce border crossings by separating children from their parents.

Latinos make up about 40% of the Texas population.

Democrats have long waited for demographic change to turn statewide Texas campaigns into real contests. The state has 38 electoral votes. A Democratic presidential candidate has not won in Texas since 1976. President Trump won the state by 9 points in 2016.

A recent Quinnipiac poll showed Biden trailing President Trump by one percentage point in the state.

Biden used his speech to Texas Democrats as an opportunity to repeat his mantra that the very soul of this nation is at stake in the election. It was also at the center of remarks he made in response to the death of Floyd and the Trump administrations use of law enforcement and National Guard troops to forcibly remove peaceful protesters ahead of a photo-op for the president near the White House.

The stakes in this election have never been higher for our country. We have to work harder than ever, harder than ever, Biden said Saturday. We need to stand up as a nation, stand with the black community, of all communities of color. Come together as one America to deliver justice for all Americans.

Earlier in the day, the Texas Republican Party tweeted that President Trump has delivered massive tax cuts, protected our energy independence, and fought for our #2A rights a reference to the Second Amendment. Biden, they said, may think he has TX in his pocket but this is #TrumpCountry.

Speaking to reporters earlier in the day, veteran Democratic political consultant Paul Begala said Biden is perfectly suited to go up against Trump.

When we replace a president, we want the remedy, not the replica, said Begala. And Joe is the remedy for Trump. I consider him to be the most potent anti-toxin Ive ever seen.

Democrats in Texas opted for a virtual convention to prevent the spread of the new coronavirus. The state GOP is still planning an in-person convention July 16 to 18 in Houston.

Go here to see the original:
Biden To Texas Dems: 'I Think We Have A Real Chance To Turn The State Blue' - Texas Public Radio

This year has been a challenging one, to say the least.

The killing of George Floyd in Minnesota last week is just the latest in what seems to be a series of terrible events happening in the United States and around the world. The George Floyd killing set off a frenzy of protests around the nation, including in Virginia, that transformed into riots.

This comes on top of the first days of Gov. Ralph Northams mask order and the chaotic at best rollout and enforcement of the mandate.

There is no doubt that what happened to George Floyd was horrific and wrong there is no excuse for it. The vast, overwhelming majority of law enforcement truly stand to protect and serve. The few who abuse the power of their badge should be punished to the full extent of the law. In the midst of this, we cannot forget the valuable service our police officers provide every day by putting themselves in harms way.

Peaceful protest is not only allowed, but is welcomed in the Commonwealth of Virginia and across our nation. Americans have every right and justification for being on the streets peacefully protesting the death of George Floyd. Arson is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Vandalism is not protesting. It is tragic to see these protests hijacked by outside groups and Antifa troublemakers who want to play at anarchy.

As Republicans have pointed out many times since January, the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition their government for the remedy of grievances is a fundamental Constitutional right.

It is telling that Governor Northam waited for two days of arson and rioting before declaring a state of emergency. When faced with a peaceful Second Amendment protest in January, he declared a state of emergency that started two days before the rally even began and before the first person ever arrived on Capitol Square.

Governor Northams reactions to both the riots and the coronavirus have been a lesson in how not to lead during a crisis.

As we look at the news, how heartbreaking it is to see the unrest and rioting that is going on in major cities across our land and for the third successive night in our own capital city of Richmond.

Where is the peace? Peace can only come when there is the peace of God in our hearts. The devil is playing havoc with us and we all must resist his ploys. Pray for peace, for God to shed his grace upon us and grant us peace. Help us to be unified regardless of the color of our skin. With God as our Father, brothers all are we.

Del. Tommy Wright can be reached via email at DelTWright@house.virginia.gov or (804) 698-1061.

Read more:
Where is the peace? - Kenbridge Victoria Dispatch - Kenbridge Victoria Dispatch

Utah National Guard soldiers stand on a police line near the White House. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Some former and current military leaders seem genuinely concerned about the President declaring he would use the active duty military to dominate protesters.

Democrats, of course, quickly joined that criticism; but the question Im hearing is why more Republicans havent spoken out on this. Republicans abhor big government so why stay silent on this?

Well, I dont know whats in their hearts, but I know what youll find on conservative websites.

Theres an essay at The Federalist and it doesnt get more conservative than that titled, How The Second Amendment Prevents Tyranny.

The essay says our nations founders opted to rely for our defense primarily on an armed citizenry that can be called up as a militia.

If the people themselves are the military power of the state, then that power cannot be used against the people, it continues.

Thats why the Second Amendment is a bedrock conservative principle.

And that, I believe, is why most Republicans are silent. They dont see a problem here because were the President to go too far, the solution is built in. Its the militia today we call it the National Guard which would make sure that federal military power could not be used against the American people.

Unfortunately, when you think about it, the scenarios get pretty ugly, right? It could mean anything from general mutiny to civil war.

Which might be another reason for the silence.

Listen to Seattles Morning News weekday mornings from 5 9 a.m. on KIRO Radio, 97.3 FM. Subscribe to the podcast here.

Follow this link:
Ross: Why the GOP doesnt mind using military to quell protests - MyNorthwest.com

A future spike in coronavirus infections is bound to lead to another wave of emergency orders that set restrictions on the way Americans live, work, and play. Individuals and groups opposed to state and local efforts which are designed to blunt the renewed spread of the pandemic will be ready with legal challenges. States, in defending the next round of orders, will be able to point to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Roberts appended a concurring opinion to the Supreme Court denial of an injunction in the case of South Bay United Pentecostal Church versus Gavin Newsom. It concerned a California emergency order that placed a temporary numerical restriction on public gatherings in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. State guidelines at the time had restricted large public gatherings of people in close proximity for extended periods of time, including music concerts, university lectures, movie screenings, spectator sports, theater performances, and places of worship.

In his opinion, Roberts explained that the First Amendment posed no bar to the emergency order because the state subjected similar secular and sectarian activities to identical restrictions, placing no particular burden on religious gatherings. Roberts recognized that governors are facing an unprecedented public health crisis, a situation poorly suited to second guesses by federal judges who lack the background, competence, and expertise to assess efforts to address the emergency situation.

This reasoning should prevail in most cases where individuals seek to use constitutional rights protections as a means to undermine the efficacy of emergency orders aimed at halting the spread of a disease for which, as Roberts noted, we have no known cure, vaccine, or effective treatment. His lesson for governors, for whom it is not too early to be thinking of a next potential wave of the pandemic, is to draft emergency restrictions that treat constitutional rights protections the same as others.

The current medical thinking is that the disease spreads most readily the more time people are indoors, close together, and with someone who is infected. It follows that states should seek to limit gatherings at places and situations where people are likely to be together for long periods of time, regardless of the nature of the event. The coronavirus, after all, will not discriminate between music concerts and church services.

If the government treats all places and situations in the same way, then individuals cannot claim the state discriminates against constitutional interests as a wedge to undermine emergency orders. If Massachusetts had the benefit of the opinion of Roberts in the case of South Bay United Pentecostal Church when the state defended its emergency order which treats gun shops the same as all similar nonessential businesses in federal district court, perhaps the court would not have concluded that the order had imposed an improper burden on the Second Amendment rights of citizens who were seeking to buy firearms and ammunition.

There is little doubt that treating gun shops as nonessential businesses served to promote the key public interest in the health of Massachusetts residents. When the court had finally held a hearing on the request for an injunction, thousands of Massachusetts residents were infected and the coronavirus had claimed more than 4,000 lives. To flatten the curve and slow the spread, the state had to reduce potential vectors where it could. Even conditions the court ultimately approved, such as masks and social distancing, could not eliminate gun shops as vectors in the same way as preventing contact, as with other nonessential businesses.

At the end of the day, the concurring opinion by the chief justice in the case of South Bay United Pentecostal Church suggests an important role for the federal judiciary in the midst of the pandemic that today seems to be imbued as it is with modesty and appropriate deference to state and local officials who must, under the constitutional system in this country, bear the responsibility for keeping citizens safe and healthy.

Lawrence Friedman is a professor at New England Law in Boston, where he teaches constitutional law. He is the author of Modern Constitutional Law.

The rest is here:
Justice Roberts assists states with second wave of emergency orders | TheHill - The Hill