Letter: Why not strike the First Amendment? – Iowa State Daily

The writers at the Daily have done an excellent job of examining the Constitution recently. However, there is one portion of that terrible document they forgot to condemn, and it threatens our lives even more than others they have decried.

Therefore, I modestly propose one addition to their editorials on the grounds that mine is milder and has more justification behind it. Yes, the First Amendment is outdated. This ill-conceived rule was only made so evil farmers could talk about the government, their peers and anyone else without being jailed for speaking without approval.

Back in those times, they didnt have rapid communication such as telephones and the internet. Words had to travel very slowly by mouth and perhaps carried by horses, giving plenty of time to prevent thought crime, which must be accounted for differently today. Besides, black people and women had a different legal position, so we can automatically discount any ideal from the era as outdated.

People like me who see the wisdom in discarding the First Amendment could amend the Constitution with a heavy majority in Congress. But it would be easier to tell people that its irrelevant and gradually pass laws to eliminate its range of application so we dont have to wade through the tedium of coming up with better arguments and getting more seats in Congress on our side.

Where does the First Amendment even fit in a good world? Should we have every mother and father explain their views of the world to their kids and spend the day worrying that the youth might come to a different conclusion? Should we accept the possibility that any worker you encounter on your daily business has different opinions than yourself?

If a man were to shout fire in a crowded theater, others would repeat his shout and some would shout the opposite, creating a complete mess for authorities determining if there ever had been a fire. Behold, this problem reaches to the beginning of recorded history, with individuals, nations and entire species that were described but whose existence is uncertain.

Lets make the ACLU a division of the government; any group that lobbies Congress is practically in the government already, never mind that some other lobbyist organizations are actually receiving federal funding. Perhaps they can distribute thesauruses or pamphlets on theories of government. When we give everyone a reason to question authority, what could go wrong? If someone shouted a slur at pedestrians from a car and sped away, Id like to see free-speech advocates open their mouths and try to think of a rebuttal to erase the damage.

Pro-speech rights people would rush to wave my example away as an exaggeration and argue that people would have training to prevent poor grammar and logical fallacies. But they forget, we already have plenty of politicians to handle public speaking for us, so letting civilians have their own ideas is redundant. Thats why we should strike the First Amendment.

Im not claiming we need to abandon words or even the English language. We just need to control people more. Lets clamp down the right to speak freely and peaceably assemble. We cant trust 18-year-olds, 22-year-olds or 26-year-olds with responsibility like that; who knows what they might say? More ideas and thinking arent the answer to a complex situation like our modern world. Instead, we should move the designated area to assemble with controversial ideas off campus, then into a basement, and then require a permit to enter the basement. Hopefully, people will forget about free speech and religion before a disaster happens.

Follow this link:

Letter: Why not strike the First Amendment? - Iowa State Daily

Appeals court: First Amendment gives public right to video police – Fort Worth Star Telegram


Fort Worth Star Telegram
Appeals court: First Amendment gives public right to video police
Fort Worth Star Telegram
A witness, Brandon Brooks, uploaded this video of the incident to YouTube. In a recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Justice Jacques Wiener wrote: Protecting the right to film the police promotes First Amendment principles. Brandon Brooks YouTube.

See original here:

Appeals court: First Amendment gives public right to video police - Fort Worth Star Telegram

Trump’s Unprecedented War on the First Amendment Has Gone … – Huffington Post

A few weeks ago, I wrote about Donald Trumps attacks on our nations news media and his attempts to position his Twitter account as the only official news outlet of the administrationeffectively a state-run media outlet built upon a social media platform. Unfortunately, since I wrote that piece, Trump and his entire administration have effectively tripled-down on their war against the American news media and have taken unprecedented actions to counter it.

If youve had a chance to watch any of Sean Spicers White House press briefings over the last month (I usually see them on CBSN), you have probably seen at least a couple of instances of Spicer directly arguing with and attacking individual reporters, much the way that Trump did with Katy Tur during the campaign. Spicer has already shown himself to be combative with the news media, and Trump himself continues to decry established media outlets, such as CNN and The New York Times as fake news and now, very fake news (emphasis mine).

This, of course, is just a small sampling of his tweets directed at delegitimizing the entire media apparatus of this nation. But that last one may be the most alarming: Trump has officially declared the news media the enemy of the American People. Let that one sink in just for a minute.

The American news media is effectively our liaison into the workings of our state and federal governments. Whenever reporters include quotes in newspaper or on-line reports, or sit down with officials in one-on-one interviews, they are giving the American people a brief glimpse into that representatives policy positions, personality, and method of governing. Reporters can communicate with inside sourcesoften anonymously for fear of reprisalsand find out more of what is going on behind the scenes, which is often how questionable policies and even outright corruption are revealed to the populace. The media also brings crucial information, such as product recalls, threats to public safety, and foreign policy, to the attention of the populace. Their ability to communicate effectively has only grown in the technological age, with social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook serving to provide additional ways for people to receive their news and stay informed.

It is perhaps this latter outlet which Trump is trying to monopolize and control. By labeling many media organizations as fake news through his Twitter account, Trump seeks not only to control his own narrative, but also the medias ability to effectively communicate with the American people. Every time Trump mentions a specific organization or reporter in a speech or in a tweet, he is singling that person or entity out for public ridicule, knowing that if they have a public Twitter account (the vast majority do), his supporters and followers will assail them with harassment. This is a way to not only undermine their credibility with the nation, but also an attempt to silence them completely. Individual journalists especially may feel pressured to disconnect from social media due to constant harassment and threats made against them. Donald Trump is both enabling and encouraging such behavior.

So maybe it should come as no surprise that, just a few days ago, the Trump Administration literally blocked a number of news media outlets from participating in a press briefing. Reporters from CNN, The New York Times, Politico, and The Los Angeles Times were all barred from entry. In fact, according to the report, Sean Spicer was literally hand-picking the news outlets he wanted in attendancea form of journalistic discrimination. This is potentially the beginning of a total media blackout of journalistic outlets the administration seeks to impugn. If Trump and his team can ultimately position the American news media as something to be shunned and discredited, his supportersand potentially a large chunk of the American populacewill be less likely to trust their reporting as the full gamut of their offenses comes to light. This in itself will make it much harder to eliminate the threats his administrations policies present to America.

The administration has also taken the media to task as of late for its very use of anonymous sources. On CBS Face the Nation recently, Reince Priebus declared:

This is disingenuous at best, given the administrations use of its own anonymous sources in an attempt to confuse the public. Furthermore, there is little question that, for certain types of stories, anonymity is the only way to get the story out there. Sources may be, depending on the story, risking their careers and potentially even their lives by simply speaking to a reporter. Outing the identities of these sources simply puts a target on their backswhich, given how vindictive this entire presidency has become, may be exactly what Trump and Priebus are hoping for, to squelch as much public criticism as possible.

And then earlier tonight, this story popped up on my Twitter feed. Sebastian Gorka, an Islamophobe who was also hired by Steve Bannon to serve as a terrorism advisor to Trump, personally phoned one of his critics with threats of a lawsuit for tweeting his criticism of Gorka. Michael S. Smith II, a regular contributor to discussions on terrorism and how groups like ISIS are using social media to leverage support, has tweeted criticisms of both Trumps and Gorkas handling of radical Islam. Gorka apparently expressed hurt feelings at being criticized by someone hes never met and threatened the lawsuit at the beginning of the conversation:

Which begs the question: Is the Trump Administration now seeking to pursue lawsuits against individual Twitter users who denounce and criticize their policies on the platform? If Gorka does indeed press for charges against Smith, it would certainly set that precedent. It would also send a clear and direct message to every citizen in the United States: Donald Trump is not to be questioned. In fact, Stephen Miller, Trumps senior advisor, recently said in so many words:

This should make every American tremble in fear. Welcome to the new reality under Donald Trump.

Excerpt from:

Trump's Unprecedented War on the First Amendment Has Gone ... - Huffington Post

Trump: Fake love for First Amendment – Orlando Sentinel

President Trump understands press freedom about as well as he grasps humility.

In other words, not at all.

But that doesnt stop him from sounding off. His rip-roaring speech Friday to the Conservative Political Action Conference contained an unnerving threat and ironic demands.

Trump renewed his complaints about the media or as he calls it the fake media.

I say it doesnt represent the people, it doesnt and never will represent the people, and were going to do something about it because we have to go out and have to speak our minds and we have to be honest, Trump said.

That going to do something sounded ominous, yet if he just keeps talking, he is going to continue to do wonderful things for TVratings and newspaper subscriptions. Thank you, Mr. President.

Trump gave a journalism lecture: I'm against the people that make up stories and make up sources.They shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody's name. Let their name be put out there.

That will never work, but the president happily spins the fantasy.

Unnamed sources drive a lot of coverage, inside and outside Washington. Trump made the complaintshortly afterhis own White House aides gave a briefing on the condition of anonymity.

Ah, hypocrisy. It never registers with the president, who just keeps complaining.

If unnamed sources arent used, Trump predicted, you will see stories dry up like you've never seen before.

He followed that by announcing: I love the First Amendment. Nobody loves it better than me. Nobody. I mean, who uses itmore than I do?

But theres a difference between reportingand shooting your mouth off.

If you want to see stories dry up, you cant really love the First Amendment. Dogged reporting can get at major issues facing the country.

President Trump has a tendency to make everything personal. He comes at the issues not as a politician but as a TV star who was treated to largely favorable press when he was a performeron The Apprentice.

He made that approach pay offfor him during the unpredictable 2016 campaign, but he cant seem to shift gears as president.

Thin-skinned and self-absorbed, he is not prepared for the rough-and-tumble of Washington.

And were all paying for it because hes easily distracted and offended. He says his achievements arent saluted, but he and his White House keep tripping themselves up.

Maybe he was serving distractions Friday from CNN and New York Times reporting about contacts between Trump associates and Russian intelligence officials. He finds ways to divert attention frombad press.

He can bean aggrieved star, and his White House can take revenge on reporters he doesnt like. Reporters from CNN, The New York Times, Politico, the BBC, the Huffington Post and The Los Angeles Times were kept out of a White House briefing on Friday.

Yet the administration is probably helping those news organizations gainrespect. The digging about Russia wont end; Trump gives the press more reason to keep looking. Thank you, Mr. President.

His media bashing on Friday was confused. But thats because when Trump talks about the First Amendment, hes just giving lip service.

hboedeker@orlandosentinel.com

Link:

Trump: Fake love for First Amendment - Orlando Sentinel

These Emerging Artists Are More Than Ready To Defend The First Amendment – Huffington Post

I love the First Amendment, President Donald Trump proclaimed on Friday at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference.Nobody loves it better than me, he added.

The effusive remark comes from the same person who called venerable media outlets like The New York Times and NBC News long considered pillars of the same free press protected by the First Amendment the enemy of the American people. Other phrases he and his staff have used to describe journalists prone to criticizing his administration:out of control, opposition party, dishonest and fake news.

Weeks before Trumps CPAC speech, curators at Ground Floor Gallery in New York City a space dedicated to emerging artists decided it was time for genuine First Amendment defenders to speak out. They began soliciting artwork for a show they calledMarked Urgent, inviting artists to submit workassociated with any and all types of correspondence and communication.

Ground Floor Gallery

Now, more than ever, we need to empower journalists to hold our government accountable and to provide us with the facts we need to remain informed and involved citizens, the gallery wrote online. As passionate arts professionals vested in critical thought and freedom of expression, we feel compelled to respond.

Marked Urgent opened on Friday, Feb. 24, the same day Trump chastised news outlets for using anonymous sources, despite having used them himself to make claims that have been proven false. The pieces on view at Ground Floor are on sale for$75, $25 of which will be donated to the Committee to Protect Journalists, an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide and defends the right of journalists to report the news without fear of reprisal.

Ground Floor Gallery

Every Friday, HuffPost's Culture Shift newsletter helps you figure out which books you should read, art you should check out, movies you should watch and music should listen to. Learn more

We were thrilled that our artist network was just as enthusiastic about this concept as we were, Ground Floor co-founders Krista Saunders Scenna and Jill Benson told The Huffington Post.

We received over 70 submissions in just under three weeks and selected 39 artists for the show, they added. With submissions ranging from embroidered newsprint to collaged envelopes and sculpted stationery, the work is as inventive as it is topical. All in all, its been an incredibly empowering show to organize and gratifying to know we can help an organization doing such important work every day.

Marked Urgent will run through Sunday, Feb. 26. To see a full list of the participating artists, head to Ground Floors website here.

Ground Floor Gallery

Read the rest here:

These Emerging Artists Are More Than Ready To Defend The First Amendment - Huffington Post

Margaret Sullivan receives First Amendment Award – The Boston Globe

From left: Tom Fiedler, Donna Green, Margaret Sullivan, Judith Meyer, and Michael Donoghue at the New England First Amendment Coalitions annual awards luncheon on Friday.

The New England First Amendment Coalition presented its top honor to Margaret Sullivan, the media columnist for The Washington Post.

Sullivan accepted the Stephen Hamblett First Amendment Award on Friday before a large crowd of journalists, lawyers, educators, students, and media executives at NEFACs annual awards luncheon at the Marriott Long Wharf.

Advertisement

The award is named after the late publisher of the Providence Journal who passed away in 2005, and past recipients have included US Senator Patrick Leahy; former federal judge Nancy Gertner; former Globe editor Marty Baron; James Risen and Anthony Lewis of The New York Times; and GlobalPost founder Philip Balboni.

The New England First Amendment Coalition also presented Judith Meyer, executive editor of the Sun Journal of Lewiston, Maine, with the Michael Donoghue Freedom of Information Award, and Donna Green of New Hampshire received the Antonia Orfield Citizenship Award.

Among those in attendance at the luncheon were Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition; Dan Kennedy of Northeastern University; Michael Rezendes, Larry Edelman, Emily Procknal, Jasmine Wu, Nick Osborne, and Linda Pizzuti Henry of the Globe; Mike Beaudet of WCVB-TV; Tom Fiedler, dean of the College of Communication at Boston University; and WBZ political analyst Jon Keller, who served as emcee.

Originally posted here:

Margaret Sullivan receives First Amendment Award - The Boston Globe

Amazon Says First Amendment Protects Alexa Data – Entrepreneur

Prosecutors in an Arkansas murder trial claim that anAmazon Echocould hold data crucial to the case, but Amazon says that data is protected by the First Amendment and is refusing to give it up.

The case involves a Bentonville, Ark., man accused of first-degree murder. It received national attention in December when authorities issued a warrant for data stored on the defendant's Echo, powered by Amazon's Alexa voice assistant. In a lengthycourt filinglast week, Amazon said that Echo voice commands as well as Alexa data stored on the company's servers cannot be subject to a search warrant, Forbesreports.

In the filing, Amazon explains that it records Echo users' voice commands and a transcript of Alexa's responses. "Both types of information are protected speech under the First Amendment," Amazon's lawyers write.

Because of that protection, the government must show a compelling need for the data. It failed to do so in this case, Amazon writes, arguing that the judge should quash the warrant. "Such government demands inevitably chill users from exercising their First Amendment rights to seek and receive information and expressive content in the privacy of their own home, conduct which lies at the core of the Constitution," the company says.

An Amazon spokespersontold PCMag in Decemberthat it will not release customer information without a "valid and binding legal demand properly served on us."

As Amazon wrangles with the government over Alexa in court, the voice service's features continue to grow, withWiredreporting this week that more than 10,000 Alexa skills are now available, just a year and a half after Amazon opened the platform to third-party developers.Alexa skillsallow users to tap a variety of external services using voice commands, from controllingsmart light bulbsto accessing smartphone notifications.

Tom is PCMag's San Francisco-based news reporter.

The rest is here:

Amazon Says First Amendment Protects Alexa Data - Entrepreneur

First Amendment Victory In Portland: Judge Tosses First Subpoena Of Reporter By Trump Administration – Patch.com


Patch.com
First Amendment Victory In Portland: Judge Tosses First Subpoena Of Reporter By Trump Administration
Patch.com
In a significant victory for the First Amendment, a federal judge in Portland told prosecutors that they could not force a reporter to testify in an ongoing criminal trial. The subpoena had been the first issued to a reporter by the Trump Justice ...

and more »

More:

First Amendment Victory In Portland: Judge Tosses First Subpoena Of Reporter By Trump Administration - Patch.com

White House goes to war with the media – Politico

Trump and his aides have dramatically escalated their feud with news outlets, blocking reporters from a briefing and promising to do something about unfriendly outlets.

By Matthew Nussbaum and Nolan D. McCaskill

02/24/17 10:45 AM EST

Updated 02/24/17 04:18 PM EST

President Donald Trumps long-simmering and self-proclaimed war with the mainstream news media exploded on Friday, as Trump doubled down on his declaration that the media is an enemy of the American people and press secretary Sean Spicer blocked certain media outlets from a White House briefing.

The latest barrage comes after senior administration officials amped up their attacks on the media in recent days, leaving press advocates and even some members of the presidents own party uncomfortable about the fight.

Story Continued Below

I want you all to know that we are fighting the fake news. Its fake, phony, fake, Trump said in his remarks at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. A few days ago, I called the fake news the enemy of the people, and they are. They are the enemy of the people. Because they have no sources. They just make them up when there are none.

With no clear differentiation separating the mainstream media from so-called fake news media, the president lashed out. He condemned the use of anonymous sources, which he claimed without evidence are fake accounts drummed up by an industry with its own agenda that everyday Americans must fight against. And he ominously vowed to do something about it. Just hours before, his administration delivered a briefing to push back on a CNN story but on the condition that the sources remain anonymous.

The White Houses disdain for the media reached new heights Friday afternoon when Spicer barred certain outlets, including POLITICO, from attending an off-camera gaggle in his office in lieu of the daily news briefing. Reporters from The New York Times, CNN, BBC and the Los Angeles Times also were barred, even as small, overtly political conservative outlets like Breitbart were permitted to attend. Time magazine and The Associated Press boycotted the briefing to show solidarity with their fellow news organizations, and the White House Correspondents Association condemned the White House move.

The episodes Friday mark the latest chapter in the Trump administrations attacks on the mainstream media long a talking point of conservatives that has gone to drastic new levels since Trumps ascension. White House chief strategist Steve Bannon regularly refers to the media as the opposition party and told the crowd at CPAC on Thursday that the corporatist, globalist media opposes Trumps agenda out of self-interest.

Clearly, this is an escalation. President Trumps charged rhetoric, inflamed rhetoric, is intended to undermine the work of the media in the U.S., said Carlos Lauria, program director for the Americas at the Committee to Protect Journalists, an international nonprofit that advocates press freedom. But it also emboldens autocratic leaders around the world.

He cited leaders in Egypt, Venezuela, Russia and Turkey who routinely accumulated new powers by marginalizing the independent media. The aim of such denigration, he said, is to inoculate the administration from legitimate criticisms by delegitimizing the media.

Such a framework is familiar in authoritarian countries where the media is undermined, marginalized and attacked, he said. Its very, very troubling. It sets a terrible example for the rest of the world.

Trump himself has said he considers the media to be a more prominent foe for him than the Democratic Party, and he often roused his crowds to rain boos on journalists assembled at his campaign rallies. He routinely used his Twitter account and the lectern to attack particular reporters by name. Even the more mild-mannered Mike Pence jumped in on the attacks, lambasting the media in his stump speech for allegedly being in cahoots with the Clinton campaign.

Trump on Friday cited polls conducted by CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC News over the past two years that signaled that he wouldnt prevail in the presidential election as evidence of the media conspiring to create a whole false deal to suppress GOP voter turnout.

Reporters, he said, are very smart, very cunning and very dishonest people who cry First Amendment when their stories are criticized, or, in the presidents word, exposed.

I love the First Amendment. Nobody loves it better than me. Nobody, Trump said. I mean, who uses it more than I do? But the First Amendment gives all of us it gives it to me, it gives it you, it gives it to all Americans the right to speak our minds freely. It gives you the right and me the right to criticize fake news and criticize it strongly.

As you saw throughout the entire campaign, and even now, the fake news doesnt tell the truth. Doesn't tell the truth, he continued. I say it doesnt represent the people. It never will represent the people. And were gonna do something about it, because we have to go out and we have to speak our minds, and we have to be honest.

The escalating attacks have worried even some in the presidents own party and Cabinet, drawing rebukes some harder than others. Defense Secretary James Mattis recently said he had no problem with the media, and Pence told reporters in Europe that the White House remains dedicated to a free and independent press. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Trumps enemy of the people line was reminiscent of the language dictators use to discredit a free press.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), one of Trumps most vocal critics within the Republican Party, spoke out against Trumps latest broadsides against the media.

The First Amendment is the beating heart of America because free and vigorous debate is what our country is all about. Its messy, but its beautiful, and it depends in large part on a free press that reports facts and defends truth with intellectual honesty and high standards. It doesnt matter if youre in the Oval Office or on the school board, every public servant should celebrate the First Amendment and teach it to our kids, Sasse said in a statement to POLITICO on Friday.

Five weeks into his presidency, Trump has been plagued by damaging leaks detailing West Wing infighting, tough calls with foreign leaders and overall dysfunction coming from the nascent administration.

Over that time, Trumps used the term fake news to describe mainstream media outlets that he does not like has increased significantly.

The term first gained wide use after the election, when it was connected to hoax articles published on websites not affiliated with actual news organizations. Many of those articles, including pieces claiming falsely that Pope Francis endorsed Trump and that Hillary Clinton was involved in a child slavery ring run out of a Washington pizza parlor, gained significant traction on social media. Some, like the pizza story and a fabricated story alleging pro-Clinton voter fraud in Ohio, were even touted by prominent Trump supporters and surrogates. Many of the stories were written in favor of Trump or critical of Clinton, or both.

The trend was so startling as to warrant a rebuke from President Barack Obama in his farewell address.

Increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether its true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there, he said.

But, very quickly, some prominent conservatives sought to weaponize the term fake news and used it to describe mainstream media outlets both muddling the conversation about the hoax stories and sowing confusion among news consumers.

Before long, Trump was berating the mainstream news media as fake news on his Twitter feed and in speeches. He first used it on Twitter on Jan. 13 and has tweeted the term 21 times. Conservative outlets have followed suit, with The Federalist publishing a piece on 16 Fake News Stories Reporters Have Run Since Trump Won. But unlike the hoax stories that sparked the conversations around fake news, these included mistakes by mainstream outlets, which in almost every case were corrected or clarified.

CNNs reporting Thursday night on revelations that the FBI had rebuffed a White House request to push back publicly on reports that the Trump campaign and associates had contacts with Russian intelligence officials during the presidential election seems to have sparked the latest White House attacks.

In his remarks, Trump also alluded to a Washington Post report published earlier this month. Citing nine current and former officials, the Post reported that then-national security adviser Michael Flynn had discussed lifting sanctions on Russia with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. during the presidential transition, a revelation that eventually led to his resignation. The report was accurate and ultimately led to Flynns firing. But even though Trump fired Flynn for misleading Pence about the conversations which was only revealed by the Posts reporting he still decried the story.

There are no nine people. I dont believe there was one or two people, Trump said. He provided no evidence to refute the Posts account but suggested he has insight because he knows the sources.

Nine people, he continued. And I said, Give me a break, because I know the people. I know who they talk to. There were no nine people. But they say nine people. And somebody reads it and they think, Oh, nine people, they have nine sources. They make up sources. They're very dishonest people.

Trump even used coverage of his attacks on the media to further attack the media.

They dropped off the word fake. And all of a sudden, the story became: The media is the enemy, he recalled of the coverage. They take the word fake out. And now Im saying, Oh, no, this is no good. But thats the way they are. So Im not against the media. Im not against the press. I dont mind bad stories if I deserve them. And I love good stories. But we wont I don't get too many of them. But I am only against the fake news media or press. Fake. Fake. They have to leave that word.

Trump has never offered a definition of what he means by fake news beyond stories he dislikes.

Lauria, of CPJ, pointed to Trumps attacks on the use of anonymous sources as absolutely inappropriate and shows a misunderstanding of roles of the press.

Some of the most important investigations in U.S. history, including Watergate, have involved anonymous sources, he noted.

Richard Nixon, who also labeled the press as the enemy, was forced to resign in the wake of reporting on the Watergate scandal by The Washington Post.

See original here:

White House goes to war with the media - Politico

Donald Trump: The First Amendment Gives Me The Right To Criticize ‘Fake News’ – Huffington Post

President Donald Trumpcriticized the media again on Friday while speaking at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland.

Trump claimed it was wrongly reported that hecalled the media the enemy of the people last week, saying hed actually called fake news the enemy. But he has branded such reputable media outlets as the The New York Times, CNN, NBC and others fake news.

The president argued that the First Amendment gives him the right to criticize fake news and criticize it strongly.

[The media] say that we cant criticize their dishonest coverage because of the First Amendment, Trump said.

I love the First Amendment. Nobody loves it better than me, he added.

Trump also said he thinks news outlets should not use anonymous sources, despite using them himself to make claims that have been proven false.

The presidents comments were likely a thinly veiled jab atCNN. The news outlet recently wrote that the FBI had rejected a White House request to dispute reports that Trumps campaign team had contacted Russian officials prior to the election.

Trumps war with the media is going to get worse, Trump adviser Steve Bannon said Thursday at CPAC.

Every day is going to be a fight, Bannon said.

Read more:

Donald Trump: The First Amendment Gives Me The Right To Criticize 'Fake News' - Huffington Post

Trump Praises First Amendment, Calls for Media Suppression and Fewer Protests – New York Magazine

A man who loves free speech more than you do. Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

On Friday, president Trump said that the media shouldnt be allowed to cite anonymous sources because Americas most respected newspapers routinely make up such sources, and publish stories of their own invention. He reiterated his contention that fake news outlets like the New York Times, NBC News, ABC News, CBS, and CNN are the enemy of the people, and suggested that Americans should not protest their government in between elections.

The president also said, I love the First Amendment nobody loves it more than me.

Trump and his administration have been waging a war on objective reality and those tasked with describing it from the moment he was sworn in. In his first appearance as White House press secretary, Sean Spicer demanded that reporters believe the presidents estimate of the size of his inaugural crowd over their own lying eyes. As Trumps tumultuous (and not terribly productive) first month in office progressed, he grew ever more preoccupied with discrediting the Fourth Estate.

On Thursday, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Steve Bannon and Reince Preibus instructed the audience not to believe any negative news they read about the administration, over and over again. By the end of their conversation, the word media had been spoken 19 times, and the phrase opposition party, Bannons favorite synonym for the mainstream press, six times.

It wasnt terribly surprising, then, that the president opened his remarks to CPAC with a long diatribe against the media. But Trumps speech did represent a significant escalation in his crusade against independent journalism.

Previously, the president had criticized the press for printing illegal leaks from anonymous government officials and suggested that those officials have often shared false information. But hed never before claimed that major newspapers were fabricating sources out of whole cloth and presenting works of fictions as reportage.

The leaks are real. Youre the one that wrote about them and reported them, I mean, the leaks are real, Trump told reporters at a press conference last Thursday. You know what they said, you saw it and the leaks are absolutely real.

As of Friday morning, the president still maintained that the anonymous officials quoted in the media were genuine members of the government.

But hours later Trump suggested that reporters cant find actual government officials to leak to them, and thus are forced to invent them.

A few days ago I called the fake news the enemy of the people. And they are. They are the enemy of the people, Trump said. Because they have no sources, they just make em up when there are none Im against the people that make up stories and make up sources.

The people that make up stories ostensibly includes all of the major outlets listed in this recent tweet.

Late Thursday night, the Trump administration admitted that it had encouraged the FBI to anonymously leak exculpating information about the presidents relationship with Russia. On Friday morning, Trump declared, They shouldnt be allowed to use sources unless they use somebodys name They should put the name of the person. You will see stories dry up like youve never seen before.

Then, after briefly praising the First Amendment, the president said that media doesnt represent the people, and were going to do something about it.

Trumps only substantive argument for why his audience shouldnt trust the media was that most of these outlets pre-election polling suggested that he would not win. He then credited the Los Angeles Times poll for its singular accuracy. That poll predicted that Trump would win the popular vote, making it one of the least accurate national polls of the 2016 cycle.

But in the presidents telling, fake news outlets and skewed pollsters arent the only ones who have been abusing their First Amendment rights the other enemies of the American people are the American people who didnt vote for Donald Trump.

Referring to the town hall protests in support of Obamacare, Trump said, The people that youre watching, theyre not you. Theyre largely many of them are the side that lost, you know they lost the election. Its like, how many elections do we have to have?

The election is over. The worlds biggest fan of the First Amendment won. So, if you voted against him, its time to shut up.

This Obscure News Story, Which Should Be Huge, Shows How Trump Gets Away With Corruption

Connie Britton Leaves Nashville Fans With the Cold Comfort of a Heartfelt Coda After That Momentous Episode

Trumps Counterterrorism Adviser Sebastian Gorka Has Links to Anti-Semitic Groups

A small dip from 2015, but the third-straight yearly decline under Vision Zero.

Former Kentucky governor Steve Beshear is an out-of-work centrist representing a party thats energized on the left.

A leaked document shows House Republicans mulling controversial ideas like ending Medicaid as we know it and a new tax on employer-provided insurance.

It says citizenship in the Muslim-majority countries included in the ban is an unlikely indicator of a terrorism threat.

Dont feel bad for Paul Ryan, hell end up getting a big tax cut for the rich in the end.

Its been a hot month, with nearly 4,500 record highs set, compared to 29 record lows.

The White House denied any links to President Trumps rhetoric.

Earlier in the day, Trump explained that the media isnt the enemy of the people but the fake news media is.

Kevin Hassett once co-authored a book imploring investors to enter the stock market just before the dot-com bubble burst.

Is the mainstream right ready to replace its traditional values with pure nationalism?

It looked like Attorney General Jeff Sessionss warm-up act in loosening protections for all minorities.

The president told CPAC the media shouldnt be allowed to cite anonymous sources, and suggested people shouldnt protest after an election.

We will not answer to donors, lobbyists, or special interests now heres another story about me answering to special interests.

This may be the lowlight of a week that also saw him make an unhinged phone call to a critic that got recorded and published.

This isnt the first time the president has appeared to advocate for nuclear proliferation.

The White House asked the FBI to leak exculpating details about Trumps ties with Russia. It leaked the details of that conversation instead.

The Republican Partys best chance to repeal Obamacare is already gone.

In this weeks diary on life in Trumps America: Signs of hope or, at least, some tempering of the crazy; and Moonlights beautiful appropriation.

They were searching for an undocumented immigrant, who wasnt on the flight.

The poison is highly toxic, and its unclear how his attackers avoided becoming seriously ill.

See more here:

Trump Praises First Amendment, Calls for Media Suppression and Fewer Protests - New York Magazine

They make up sources – VICE News

President Trump gave a vigorous defense of the First Amendment in his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference Friday morning and invoked his right to free speech to bash the fake news media.

Nobody loves the First Amendment more than me, Trump told the crowd at the annual convention, held outside Washington, D.C. But [the media] never will represent the people, and were going to do something about it, he added ambiguously.

Trump criticized journalists for using anonymous sources in news stories that caused turmoil in the early days of his administration. Several recent stories quoting anonymous officials forced the resignation of Trumps national security adviser, Michael Flynn, when they revealed that Flynn had discussed economic sanctions with the Russian ambassador before taking office. Trump has repeatedly accused members of the intelligence community of leaking information to the press, as he did again Friday morning on Twitter.

Even if there are real leakers, Trump maintained that journalists make up sources. They have no sources, he said. If the sources are real, theymustbe named, he demanded.

The morning CPAC crowd whooped at the presidents attacks on the Fourth Estate, and Trump continued. The president criticized polls from CBS, ABC, NBC, and the Clinton News Network (or CNN), which brought more whoops of delight. When Hillary Clinton came up a second time, some of the crowd indulged in a Lock her up chant.

Red Make America Great Again hats dotted the sea of blue and black sport coats filling the ballroom wall-to-wall. In years past, Trump enjoyed a smallbutfervent fan base at CPAC but the young, grassroots conservative crowd tended to cheer loudest for Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian favorite, or for Sen. Ted Cruz, a champion of conservatives. Skepticism of Trump ran so hot last year during the presidential campaign that he skipped the 2016CPAC, prompting Cruz and other GOP primary opponents to lambast him for the snub.

But Trump returned to CPAC Friday a happy, boastful warrior. He pledged that he would oversee one of the greatest military buildups in American history. He declared that the Republican Party will now be the party of the American worker, in seeming contrast to past Republican orthodoxy that highlighted business executives and entrepreneurs.

America is coming back and its roaring and you can hear it, Trump said. Its going to be bigger and better and stronger than ever before.

Read the original here:

They make up sources - VICE News

Amazon Argues Alexa Speech Protected By First Amendment In Murder Trial Fight – Forbes


Forbes
Amazon Argues Alexa Speech Protected By First Amendment In Murder Trial Fight
Forbes
Amazon is sticking to its guns in the fight to protect customer data. The tech titan has filed a motion to quash the search warrant for recordings from an Amazon Echo in the trial of James Andrew Bates, accused of murdering friend Victor Collins in ...
Amazon Argues Free Speech in Alexa Murder CaseFortune
Amazon says Alexa's speech is protected by the First AmendmentThe Verge
Amazon argues that Alexa is protected by the First Amendment in a murder trialQuartz
BuzzFeed News -Investopedia -TechCrunch -Forbes
all 81 news articles »

More:

Amazon Argues Alexa Speech Protected By First Amendment In Murder Trial Fight - Forbes

Protecting free speech: House bill would protect students’ First Amendment rights on campus – Richmond Register

The following might be offensive to some.

But that's okay, according to Rep. Wesley Morgan, R-Richmond. It's free speech and protected by the First Amendment of our nation's constitution.

A right, he said, that is being infringed upon on many of Kentucky's college campuses.

Morgan is trying to change that with Kentucky House Bill 127, or the Campus Free Expression (CAFE) Act, which will prohibit publicly-funded universities and colleges from restricting a student's right to free expression.

"I filed the bill because I believe in it, whole-heartedly," Morgan said. "You need to have the freedom of speech on college campuses. Students shouldn't be restricted to a circle 50 feet from the sidewalk."

Morgan said many state universities have policies that restrict student's First Amendment rights by forcing them into so-called "free speech zones."

The representative said these zones are often small areas hidden away from public view.

The CAFE Act will prohibit schools from imposing those types of zones, and defines any "outdoor areas of an institution's campus" as "traditional public forums."

"Students should have the right to express themselves in an open space and have the opportunity to have people listen to what they have to say," Morgan said. "It's a matter of fairness. Students have a right and it should be protected. There are public institutions of higher education that are not allowing students the right to have an open dialogue. You don't want that to continue in the state."

Kentucky House Bill 127 states clearly colleges "shall not restrict the right to free expression." In line with the Constitution, colleges can only place "reasonable" restrictions on the "time, place, and manner" of student expression. Even still, these restrictions must be "narrowly tailored... based on published, content-neutral, and viewpoint-neutral criteria... [and must] provide for ample alternative means of expression."

Inspired by Morgan's efforts to protect students' rights, Eastern Kentucky University's student government association (SGA) passed a bill endorsing HB 127 and encouraging other student governments across the state to do the same.

Sebastian Torres, EKU SGA executive vice president, said the bill passed unanimously and the organization has been working closely with Morgan and others to educate universities about the bill.

"It is a real issue on Kentucky campuses that needs to be addressed," Torres said of the fight to keep free speech. "It's not just Kentucky that has these policies that restrict students' First Amendment rights. At a university in Indiana, a group of students were arrested for passing out copies of the Constitution. This is real and it's happening."

In fact, on a recent trip to Murray State University, Torres said he and other SGA members had difficulty locating the campus' free-speech zone. After a search of the grounds, the students were directed to a small cement circle tucked away out of sight. Torres added students have to apply for a chance to speak in the zone and applications can be denied.

The EKU student said limiting an open exchange of ideas to a certain area on a college campus was "ridiculous" and goes against not only a right protected by the Constitution, but also the nature of higher education.

"Students come here to learn and grow and expand their ideas. We are trying to educate a workforce at this university and create productive citizens, but college is also a chance to have your ideas challenged and see if they stand up against facts," Torres said. "If it doesn't happen on a college campus, where do we expect it to happen."

Torres said you don't have to agree with everything said and you don't have to listen if you don't want to. He added free speech can be uncomfortable for some, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.

Torres said EKU's student government felt it was especially important to support Morgan's bill, due to the fact that EKU is the first "green light" school in the state.

The university earned that distinction from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which awards institutions of higher learning with a green, yellow or red categorization based on the constitutionality of speech policies.

In 2012, the university worked with FIRE attorneys to bring the campus into compliance with the Constitution and make the campus more First Amendment friendly.

Some of the important steps taken by the university included modifying vague wording in the student handbook and policies.

One example was the phrase in the student handbook that stated students should not "engage in a course of conduct intended to harass, seriously annoy and alarm another person." FIRE suggested the university amend the phrase "seriously annoy," as it goes against the First Amendment to regulate student speech in that manner.

Another part of the handbook read: "No one should either offend the wider community or infringe upon the rights and privileges of others."

"Sometimes people might find what you say offensive," Torres said. "However, I think what is becoming prevalent in today's society is the idea that if they find it offensive or uncomfortable then it should be stopped. That's infringing on free speech.

"Why should certain kind of speakers be banned from campus. That shouldn't be allowed, especially if a student group is sponsoring that speaker. Those that don't agree with the speaker don't have to listen to the lecture or they can bring in their own speaker who has a different viewpoint."

Another reason Torres said the SGA is promoting the bill is the fact that while the CAFE act protects students it also will protect universities. He said with budget crunches, it is not a good time for universities to get sued because it didn't have the forethought to not infringe on a student's right to free speech.

Torres said he hopes that other universities step-up and make their campus' more First Amendment friendly, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening.

"I wish that universities and colleges would do it on their own, but that is why it is so important for the state house to step in and go ahead and do it for them," he said. "Our SGA feels that this is an important issue for students and we feel compelled to let our legislators know that we are invested in our First Amendment right. I'm very proud of the SGA for endorsing this and we encourage every other student government to jump on the bandwagon."

Both Morgan and Torres said the new bill does not do away with university protections against hate speech, harassment or incitement of violence.

The CAFE Act provides universities with the ability to enforce certain restrictions on acts of free speech in an outdoor area of campus regarding reasonable time, place and manner. The bill makes it very clear these restrictions must have a clear, defendable basis, Torres said.

Torres said in no way does the bill encourage or enable hate speech and harassment by promoting the right of free speech for students.

"You are protected from any kind of violence or mistreatment," he said. "That doesn't mean you are protected against different ideas, views, cultures or opinions that you might not like."

Reach Ricki Barker at 624-6611 or follow her on Twitter @RickiBReports.

Read the original:

Protecting free speech: House bill would protect students' First Amendment rights on campus - Richmond Register

CPAC: Betsy DeVos Thinks First Amendment Rights of College Students Are Under Attack – Reason (blog)

Olivier DoulierySpeaking at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos promised to back school choice policies while fighting for the free speech rights of college students.

DeVos focused on education reform during her brief remarks, stressing that the Obama administration's spending on school improvements did not yield encouraging results.

"Today we know the system is failing too many kids," she said. "Our nation's test scores have flatlined."

DeVos then turned to free speech issues on college campuses.

"They say if you voted for Donald Trump, you are a threat to the community," said DeVos, referring to the climate on campus. "But the real threat is silencing the First Amendment rights of people with whom you disagree."

Unfortunately, DeVos avoided specifics. She did not discuss the Education Department's role in fostering a climate of censorship via guidance from the Office for Civil Rights, which has stepped up anti-harassment measures over the last five years. Civil libertarians hope DeVos will reform the agency.

She also dodged a question about her alleged dispute with Attorney General Jeff Sessions over the decision to rescind the Obama administration's protections for transgender students. DeVos had opposed taking this step, but caved due to pressure from President Donald Trump.

It was not a very revealing interview, all told. If DeVos has big plans to fix schools and colleges, she certainly isn't showing her hand.

Continue reading here:

CPAC: Betsy DeVos Thinks First Amendment Rights of College Students Are Under Attack - Reason (blog)

The 11th Circuit strikes down Florida’s Docs vs. Glocks law. – Slate – Slate Magazine

The Constitution does not allow the state to muzzle doctors who wish to inquire about gun safety.

Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by iStock.

In recent years, most states have been clever enough to dress up unconstitutional statutes in pretext that might just fool courts into affirming their legality. But apparently the Florida legislature did not get this memo, because in 2011, the state passed a law that did not really pretend to be anything other than what it was: a blatant act of censorship.

Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, struck down the bulk of Floridas Firearms Owners Privacy Act (FOPA) last Thursday in an emphatic and near-unanimous ruling. But the law, as well as the decision in Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Florida that has invalidated it, are worth examining at length because this fight is far from over. FOPA gagged doctors who wished to discuss gun safety with patients based on the contents and viewpoints of their speech. In defending it, pro-gun advocates have concocted a clash between the First and Second Amendments, hoping that the Second Amendment wins out. Just because they lost this battle does not mean they have given up on the broader war.

Some background: The sponsors of FOPA, frequently referred to as the docs vs. glocks bill, claimed they were responding to anecdotal evidence of Florida doctors talking to patients parents about gun safety in the home, which they felt constituted an egregious invasion of privacy. (You may remember one sponsor, Greg Evers, as the state senator who raffled off an AR-15.) In reality, the bill was peddled by the National Rifle Association, which donates significant sums to Floridas GOP state legislators and routinely requests favors in return. This particular gift was designed as a rebuke to the medical groupsincluding the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physiciansthat encourage physicians to talk to parents about childproofing firearms. These groups and their members believe firearm safety education is critical, especially in a country with so many gun accidents involving children.

The NRA does not want physicians to talk to patients about firearm safety. It considers a mere question about gun ownership, as well as advice about childproofing guns, to be a privacy violation meant to advance a political agenda, according to the courts majority opinion. FOPA prohibits doctors from asking patients or their parents about guns in the home; recording the answer to such questions; harassing a patient about firearm ownership during an examination; and discriminating against patients on the basis of gun ownership.

In a lengthy ruling, the 11th Circuit struck down all these provisionsexcept the nondiscrimination ruleas a violation of the First Amendment. The issue of free speech protections for professional expression, particularly in the course of medical treatment, is notoriously thorny. Courts typically give the government more leeway to regulate speech issued in the course of professional conduct: For instance, states can, without infringing upon the First Amendment, ban harmful treatments that involve speech, like conversion therapy. But the court found that FOPA is a different beast: It takes direct aim at doctors speech on the basis of its content, one of the most insidious kinds of censorship.

Protecting the Second Amendment right of Floridians from private encumbrances may, as Florida claimed, outweigh constitutional protections for free speechbut there was no evidence whatsoever, the court noted, that any doctors or medical professionals have taken away patients firearms or otherwise infringed on patients Second Amendment rights. As the court wryly added, This evidentiary void is not surprising because doctors and medical professionals, as private actors, do not have any authority (legal or otherwise) to restrict the ownership or possession of firearms by patients (or by anyone else for that matter).

Florida may generally believe that doctors and medical professionals should not ask about, nor express views hostile to, firearm ownership, the court explained, but it may not burden the speech of others in order to tilt public debate in a preferred direction.

Next, Florida argued that the legislature passed FOPA to protect patient privacy. (This, by the way, is the same legislature that also passed a law granting the state broad access to patient recordsat abortion clinics.) But as the court noted, there is no evidence that doctors or medical professionals have been improperly disclosing patients information about firearm ownership. Moreover, patients are fully empowered to not answer doctors questions about firearms. So any patients who have privacy concerns about information concerning their firearm ownership, the court writes, can simply refuse to answer questions on the topic.

Several other judges then took turns clobbering the law on different grounds. Judge Stanley Marcus, writing for a majority of the court, explained why FOPAs anti-harassment provision is also an unconstitutionally vague restriction on speech. Judge Charles R. Wilson, joined by Judge Beverly B. Martin, slammed that act as a subversive attempt to stop a perceived political agenda [that] chills speech based on not only content but also a particular viewpoint.

And even the extreme conservative Judge William Pryor felt moved to concur, expressing his belief that the profound importance of the Second Amendment does not give the government license to violate the right to free speech under the First Amendment. Only one judge, Gerald Bard Tjoflat, disagreed, devoting his dissenting opinion to a bizarre attack on the Supreme Courts current free speech jurisprudence.

Top Comment

Some folks want medical providers to be required to ask intrusive questions - or even perform intrusive procedures - when the patient is a pregnant woman. More...

These multiple writings all drive home the same critical point: FOPA marked an attempt to limit the protections of the First Amendment by expanding the scope of the Second Amendment. Floridas radical defense of FOPA held that the Second Amendment is so powerful that, in order to safeguard it, the state should be allowed to diminish other constitutional rights. The 11th Circuit was right to reject this argument. Florida already does a great deal to protect the rights of gun owners in the name of the Second Amendment. But the Constitution does not allow the state to muzzle doctors who wish to inquire about gun safety.

In recent years, a considerable amount of ink has been spilled criticizing the American left for allegedly censoring speech it finds offensive. But FOPA is one of the most censorial pieces of legislation to emerge from a state in this decadeand it is the work of Republican legislators, and a Republican governor, whose intentions were to shield gun owners, those delicate snowflakes, from experiencing a brief moment of mild discomfort. There are real threats to free speech in America today. But they are more likely to emerge from Republican statehouses than from liberal college campuses.

Go here to read the rest:

The 11th Circuit strikes down Florida's Docs vs. Glocks law. - Slate - Slate Magazine

IMDb likely has First Amendment right to display people’s ages – Washington Post

A recently enacted California law, AB 1687, requires websites that provide employment services to an individual for a subscription payment to stop publishing a subscribers age whenever the subscriber so demands. In practice, this law was aimed at IMDb, which lets people in the entertainment industry post various rsum information online (via its IMDb Pro service) but also publishes biographical information about people subscribers or not including their ages. The law wasnt limited to information that IMDb learned through its relationship with subscribers; it also covered information that IMDb independently acquired.

Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria temporarily blocked the enforcement of the law, ruling that IMDb was likely to succeed in its First Amendment claim:

Its difficult to imagine how AB 1687 could not violate the First Amendment. The statute prevents IMDb from publishing factual information (information about the ages of people in the entertainment industry) on its website for public consumption. This is a restriction of non-commercial speech on the basis of content. Therefore, the burden is on the government to show that the restriction is actually necessary to serve a compelling government interest. [Footnote: The government has not argued that birthdates or other age-related facts implicate some privacy interest that protects them from public disclosure, and its doubtful such an argument would prevail in any event.] The government is highly unlikely to meet this burden, and certainly nothing it has submitted in opposition to the preliminary injunction motion suggests it will be able to do so.

To be sure, the government has identified a compelling goal preventing age discrimination in Hollywood. But the government has not shown how AB 1687 is necessary to advance that goal. In fact, its not clear how preventing one mere website from publishing age information could meaningfully combat discrimination at all.

And even if restricting publication on this one website could confer some marginal antidiscrimination benefit, there are likely more direct, more effective, and less speech-restrictive ways of achieving the same end. For example, although the government asserts generically that age discrimination continues in Hollywood despite the long-time presence of antidiscrimination laws, the government fails to explain why more vigorous enforcement of those laws would not be at least as effective at combatting age discrimination as removing birthdates from a single website. Because the government has presented nothing to suggest that AB 1687 would actually combat age discrimination (much less that its necessary to combat age discrimination), there is an exceedingly strong likelihood that IMDb will prevail in this lawsuit.

[Footnote: The government casts AB 1687 as ordinary economic regulation falling outside First Amendment scrutiny. But IMDb Pros commercial relationship with its subscribers has no connection to IMDbs public site, which relies on data obtained from third parties or from the public record. The government would perhaps be on stronger ground if AB 1687 were limited to preventing IMDb from misappropriating the data furnished by subscribers to its industry-facing site.]

Sounds right to me, though Id go further and say that such a restriction on publishing truthful information would be unconstitutional even if it did combat age discrimination more effectively than other alternatives would. (Note that I signed on to an amicus brief in the case that supported this position; the brief was written by M.C. Sungaila, and was signed by, among others, noted liberal professor and University of California at Irvine dean Erwin Chemerinsky, our own David Post and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Read the original post:

IMDb likely has First Amendment right to display people's ages - Washington Post

Milo learns the First Amendment isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card for … – Washington Post

Christine Emba edits The Posts In Theory blog.

Speech is free, but not consequence-free. Milo Yiannopoulos managed to skirt this reality for years, but eventually it comes for us all.

A quick recap for those who have not been following this sordid tale: MILO, as hes best known (all-caps his own), is an Internet personality and now-former Breitbart News senior editor best known for his glibly offensive remarks about minority groups, his hatred of political correctness and his support of Donald Trump.

Many on the right hailed Milo as a much-needed iconoclast, one of the few brave enough to defend free speech, speak uncomfortable truths and push back against the simpering social justice warriors of the left. After his charmingly titled Dangerous Faggot speaking tour was met with protests at college campuses, including some most notably at the University of California at Berkeley this month that turned violent, he was invited to speak at this years Conservative Political Action Conference.

This weekend, however, video emerged of Milo joking about pedophilia and molestation. In short order he was disinvited from CPAC, his book deal was canceled, and he resigned from Breitbart.

It is interesting to consider that while the right championed his racist, misogynist invective as a much-needed tonic for our stifled public discourse, discussions of child sex abuse were not seen the same way. The defense of free expression seemed to go only so far as be free to insult those we already disagree with, but please, no further than that. For all the invocations of the First Amendment, there is apparently still a line. Milo crossed it, the end, goodbye. I, for one, do not look forward to his apology tour and inevitable transformation.

Yet the fact that a line exists at all brings to light a point often overlooked when free speech is bandied about as a hallowed but somehow threatened ideal. Yes, speech is free, but not free from dissent. You can say what you like, but no one has to listen to you. The fact that you have spoken something controversial in public does not make your provocation correct or worthy of acclaim.

The First Amendment guarantees that Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. That is all. It does not say that private companies such as Facebook must promote all kinds of content equally, or that Simon & Schuster is obliged to hand out book contracts to everyone who wants one. It should not be stretched to imply that institutions must provide a platform for every opinion that comes their way. And while the First Amendment often makes it possible for individuals to challenge the dominant discourse, it gives them no more help than that.

Some myself included have argued that the best remedy for hateful speech is more speech, not less. But it is worth pointing out that more speech can take a number of forms. It could be the addition of other, opposing speakers to a lineup featuring a contentious guest. It could be a petition asking for the guest to be disinvited. It could be protesters telling said speaker to shut up and get off of their campus, or even calling the speaker a racist or Nazi. Some of these methods are far more productive than others, and some are less likely to promote useful discourse. But free speech also means that such responses must be allowed to occur and may well bring about consequences that the original speaker might not enjoy.

Positive freedom relies on prudence. If the things you say provoke an intense and unpleasant reaction, it may be worth wondering whether your critics have a point. And if youre in favor of free speech when it comes to some topics but not others, perhaps you should investigate why your limits lie where they do.

The Milo debacle helpfully illustrates the limitations of invoking free speech to cast a benevolent glow on any and every injudicious statement, and the bind created when any opposition is cast as unjust, illiberal silencing. It may finally be time to stop flogging the First Amendment as some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card for foolish talk. Were wonderfully free to say whatever we want to. But that doesnt mean we should.

More here:

Milo learns the First Amendment isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for ... - Washington Post

Celebrating the First Amendment in Floyd, VA – WVTF

The first amendment to the U.S. constitution is just a few short lines, but it speaks volumes. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This past weekend, more than a hundred people in Floyd, Virginia came out to celebrate those words and explore their meaning. Robbie Harris prepared this report.

In a cathedral-like post and beam auditorium at the Floyd Eco Center, they sang songs, read poems and essays theyd written for the occasion and shared their thoughts about that powerful sentence. The celebration was the brainchild of Alan Graf, a civil rights attorney, activist and lover of blue grass music whod hoped to retire in Floyd and learn to play the banjo.

But in the past few months, he says, hes seen his beloved first amendment coming under attack, and he felt he had to say something. I think our best defense against any grabbing of power is our ability to speak and thats why I wanted to put together this celebration to remind people to use it

Graf explains, he devoted his life to being a watchdog for civil rights because of his own familys story. His grandparents were killed in the Holocaust in Germany during World War II.

So its in my family to fight against totalitarian regimes - and I see the writing on the wall. And so Ive been defending the constitution for 25 years - I feel religious about the Bill of Rights, first, second, third, fourth - well, every amendment, but particularly the first amendment. I see it as the peoples last stand against a totalitarian regime."

Thats in part because it limits the power of government as Floyd County Commonwealth Attorney Eric Branscom points out.

It was in 1791 that the first amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, became part of the Constitution. Its important to note that the first amendment and the freedoms therein are not positive rights, theyre negative rights, which means they exist as limitations on the government rather than rights granted by the government."

And that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, making the Bill of Rights something the legal system has grappled with ever since. And so have the poets, the philosophers and musicians among us.

Heres Kim ODonnel reading a poem she wrote for the first amendment celebration:

There is no such thing as free speech. Soldiers stand and fall, arrive home in a box beneath a flag. We have been given nothing that we did not pay for.

A rich man grabs a woman against her will and she eats her rage and every word she wants to say until she is emaciated from her hunger for truth.

She speaks out and he arrives in our capital, takes an oath beneath our flag.

There is no such thing as free speech. We have been given nothing that we did not pay for.

And just because freedom of expression is protected, that doesnt mean you have to agree with or accept whatever is expressed. Over the years, the legal community has come up with this balancing act; the remedy to any speech you dont like or dont agree with is more speech.

Original Music by Michael Kovick, Silence is Complicity.

I know that things aint just what they ought to be. You and I could turn it around. When we stand up for what we believe in, first amendment rights are found and if you dont like it and you dont stand up how is anybody gonna know where you stand? I want to know. Silence is complicity.

More here:

Celebrating the First Amendment in Floyd, VA - WVTF

NRA-Backed Law Violates the First Amendment in the Name of Protecting the Second – Reason (blog)

Mike Kemp/Blend Images/NewscomLast week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overturned a censorious Florida law that tried to stop doctors from pestering their patients about guns, sacrificing the First Amendment in the name of protecting the Second. Such laws, which the National Rifle Association supports, show how fake rightsin this case, an overbroad understanding of the right to armed self-defenseendanger real ones.

Florida's Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, enacted in 2011, was a response to complaints that pediatricians and family practitioners had become excessively nosy about guns in the homes of their patients. The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians encourage their members to ask parents about guns, treating them as hazards analogous to alcohol, swimming pools, and poisonous household chemicals. Sometimes gun owners object to such inquiries, especially if they seem to be colored by a moralistic anti-gun ideology. The 11th Circuit's decision describes half a dozen examples that influenced Florida's legislators:

Assuming these accounts are accurate, the behavior of these doctors may have been unreasonable or even (when they misrepresented Medicaid requirements) unethical. But their requests for information about guns were not unconstitutional, since the Second Amendment applies only to the government. The law passed in response to these anecdotes nevertheless purported to protect the Second Amendment rights of Floridians by regulating what doctors say to their patients. As the 11th Circuit notes, that makes no sense (citations omitted, emphasis added):

There was no evidence whatsoever before the Florida Legislature that any doctors or medical professionals have taken away patients' firearms or otherwise infringed on patients' Second Amendment rights. This evidentiary void is not surprising because doctors and medical professionals, as private actors, do not have any authority (legal or otherwise) to restrict the ownership or possession of firearms by patients (or by anyone else for that matter). The Second Amendment right to own and possess firearms does not preclude questions about, commentary on, or criticism for the exercise of that right. So, as the district court aptly noted, there is no actual conflict between the First Amendment rights of doctors and medical professionals and the Second Amendment rights of patients that justifies [the law's] speaker-focused and content-based restrictions on speech.

In addition to prohibiting doctors from discriminating against gun owners (a provision the appeals court upheld), the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act forbade them to request or record information about guns unless it is "relevant to the patient's medical care or safety, or the safety of others"a standard that rules out routine inquiries about firearms. The law also instructed doctors to "refrain from unnecessarily harassing a patient about firearm ownership during an examination." As 11th Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus notes in a concurring opinion, that "incomprehensibly vague" provision raises due process as well as free speech concerns, since doctors are "left guessing as to when their 'necessary' harassment crosses the line and becomes 'unnecessary' harassment." Violations of these rules were punishable by fines and disciplinary actions such as letters of reprimand, probation, compulsory remedial education, and license suspension.

The speech restrictions imposed by Florida's law are clearly content-based, since they target communications dealing with a specific subject. The Supreme Court generally views content-based speech restrictions as "presumptively invalid" under the First Amendment, meaning they are subject to "strict scrutiny," which requires showing they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The 11th Circuit concludes that the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act fails even the more lenient standard of "heightened scrutiny," which the Supreme Court applied in a 2011 case involving state regulation of pharmacists. That test requires the government to show the challenged law "directly advances a substantial governmental interest and that the measure is drawn to achieve that interest," meaning there is a "fit between the legislature's ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends."

Noting that state legislators "relied on six anecdotes and nothing more" when they enacted the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, the appeals court finds the official rationales for the lawwhich, in addition to the Second Amendment, invoke patient privacy, protection against discrimination, and public healthinadequate to justify its speech restrictions. "Florida may generally believe that doctors and medical professionals should not ask about, nor express views hostile to, firearm ownership," the 11th Circuit says, "but it 'may not burden the speech of others in order to tilt public debate in a preferred direction.'" As for patients who object to questions about gun ownership, the appeals court says, they are not required to answer them, and they are free to choose less inquisitive doctors.

Florida's attempt to protect gun owners from offensive questions is reminiscent of the Oklahoma law requiring businesses to let employees keep firearms in company parking lots. When ConocoPhillips challenged that law in federal court, the NRA launched a boycott of the oil and gas company. "We're going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights," said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

ConocoPhillips cannot take away people's Second Amendment rights any more than Florida doctors can. And just as doctors have a right to ask patients about guns, even if that makes some patients uncomfortable, businesses have a right to control their own property, which includes the right to ban guns there. In both cases, the NRA argues, in effect, that the Second Amendment requires violating people's rights.

See the original post:

NRA-Backed Law Violates the First Amendment in the Name of Protecting the Second - Reason (blog)