The First Amendment and Gay Rights - Let #39;s Get Political!
Today we #39;re taking a look at how the First Amendment relates to the issue of gay marriage rights! Intro song ownership belongs to Mothy, all images courtesy ...

By: Justica

See more here:

The First Amendment and Gay Rights - Let's Get Political! - Video

2015 First Amendment Awards Presenter Tim Busch of Nexstar
Executive Vice President of Nexstar discusses what it means to present the First Amendment Service Award to President Perry Sook at RTDNF #39;s 2015 First Amendm...

By: RTDNA

Originally posted here:

2015 First Amendment Awards Presenter Tim Busch of Nexstar - Video

The First Amendment at the University of Oklahoma
After the expulsion of two fraternity members at the University of Oklahoma, Joe questions whether this is the direction we really want to go when it comes t...

By: Joe Walsh

Excerpt from:

The First Amendment at the University of Oklahoma - Video

First Amendment Tuesday 3-10-2015
Description.

By: Reagan Peterson

See original here:

First Amendment Tuesday 3-10-2015 - Video

The First Amendment...(Historically Speaking) - Episode #19
Frederick Douglass Dixon hosts this weekly program on UPTV.

By: UPTV6

Read more:

The First Amendment...(Historically Speaking) - Episode #19 - Video

BOSTON Judges across Massachusetts are sealing court documents with increasing regularity, forcing news organizations and First Amendment groups into costly and time-consuming legal battles to ensure the basic workings of the judicial system remain public.

In the run up to Aaron Hernandez's ongoing murder trial in Fall River, for example, a judge sealed search warrants and hundreds of pages of related documents following the former New England Patriots star's 2013 arrest.

In Falmouth, similar documents were barred from release related to the Feb. 5 shooting of two Coast Guard officers and a local Bourne police officer by Coast Guardsman Adrian Loya.

In both cases, the defense lawyers argued that the release of information could harm their client's constitutional right to a fair trial. Judges eventually unsealed the records after news organizations challenged the rulings, but journalists say the documents should never have been secret in the first place.

"What we're talking about is some of the most basic public information that has been always presumed to be available and transparent," said Paul Pronovost, editor-in-chief of the Cape Cod Times, which prevailed in its challenge in the Loya case.

Advocates and news editors say it's not clear the extent of the problem or its causes.

Matthew Segal, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, suggests the tendency toward secrecy stems, in part, from post-9/11 concerns about national security and how that thinking now pervades all levels of government across the country.

But he also submits that it is driven by factors unique to Massachusetts: The state has one of the weakest public records laws in the nation, and some government agencies have a tendency not to honor even those low standards.

"There isn't exactly a cheerful willingness to do what the law requires," Segal says. "You have to fight for every inch. The culture here does not favor openness."

News editors and First Amendment advocates say the problem is not exclusive to high-profile cases.

Continue reading here:

News outlets fight to keep Massachusetts court records open

Are Facebook and Twitter justified in taking down content that they deem to be abusive, hateful or likely to promote violence, even if such posts might enjoy free-speech protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? That question touched off a feisty debate today at the South by Southwest (SXSW) conference in Austin, Texas.

Theres no end of controversies oncerning what people can and cant say on the two giant social-media sites. Government in India, Turkey and Pakistan last year submitted a total of more than 8,000 requests for Facebook content restrictions in the first half of 2014, chiefly because of posts that ran afoul of local political or religious strictures. (Facebook complied with some but not all of those requests.) Twitter, meanwhile, is being urged by U.S. lawmakers to delete accounts that have been associated with terrorist activities. And both Twitter and Facebook have signaled a willingness to clamp down on personal postings, targeted at specific users, that fit into a pattern of menacing behavior.

In a panel discussion at SXSW, George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen urged Twitter and Facebook to allow just as much free speech as the U.S. government permits under the First Amendment. He argued that 21st century social media should stick to the standards expressed by Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis in the 1920s, in which stifling measures should be taken only in the event of an imminent risk of evil.

(Credit: mhkmarketing.com via Flickr/Creative Commons)

Rosen went on to voice concern that Facebook and Twitter because of their sheer size now have more power over what people can say, or what can be heard, than any king, politician or Supreme Court Justice. Facebook has about 1.4 billion active monthly users around the world. Twitter has288 million. Rosen observed that Facebook allows more restriction of hate speech than the U.S. government does. He deemed that problematic, saying it reminded him of Brandeiss concern about the biggest U.S. banks many decades ago taking actions that curtailed peoples liberties.

Monika Bickert, Facebooks head of global policy management, rejected the notion that her company is trying to act like a quasi-government, seeking to decide whether content is in the public interest or not. Instead, she said, Facebooks overriding goal is to make sure that members feel safe on the site, and feel safe sharing. That means creating a system where members can report what they regard as hate speech, with Facebook then taking down objectionable content as warranted.

Bickert noted that Facebook is willing to keep some graphic and violent content on the site, if it was posted in an effort to draw world attention to some injustice. But if people are sharing to make fun of the victim, or to encourage violence, we will remove it. Refereeing such situations is difficult, but Facebook believes that with the help of outside advisers and local experts, it can make correct judgments.

Matt Zimmerman, Twitters senior product counsel, added that his company wants to make sure people arent disuaded from coming on the platform. As a result, Twitter will take down posts or restrict offenders ability to keep using the site, in situations that involve illegal activities, harassment and abuse.

More:

Facebook, Twitter -- And A Tussle At SXSW Over First Amendment