Mediaboss Marketing

The Pew Hispanic Center has just released a new report that indicates that the U.S. population would fall in the future if current levels of legal and illegal immigration were not continued.

The projection is that between now and 2065 immigration will account for 88 percent of the countrys population growth. But the study is not focused on the total population, but rather the working-age population. It depicts a drop from 173 million persons aged 25-64 to 166 million if there were no further immigration. Of course, no one is advocating zero immigration. With the continued present level of immigration, the working-age population would increase to 183 million.

The reason for the drop in the working age population without immigration is that the spike in population growth of the postwar baby boom increase is passing as that generation ages and dies. This, of course, is a natural phenomenon that has been long anticipated. The passing of the baby boom is destined to restore population dynamics to a more stable long-term balance.

So, what is the purpose of this report? Pew supports liberal immigration. The report is ammunition for the business interests that oppose the agenda of the Trump administration to tighten enforcement against illegal immigration and to reduce legal immigration and refugee flows. Economists and business interests generally support population growth fueled by immigration because of the view that the availability of more workers holds down wages and the availability of more consumers props up consumption of manufactured products.

That is a glass half full perspective. The contrary perspective is a nation with decreased crowding, less demand for new infrastructure, less intrusion on the nations environment and non-renewable resources. Currently efforts to make the country more energy independent and less reliant on fossil fuels are eroded by the growing population of energy consumers. That Sisyphean challenge will be much more realistic when the population tends to stabilize with a lower level of immigration.

The rest is here:
What if the U.S. Population Wanes? | Immigration Reform Blog - ImmigrationReform.com (blog)

Harpo Productions/Oz WorksLast week, a Georgia state judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against talk-show host Dr. Oz over claims made on his show last year that much of the olive oil sold in U.S. grocery stores is fraudulent. The suit alleged that Oz wrongly disparaged the corrupt olive oil industry.

The lawsuit was brought against Oz by an industry trade group, the New Jersey-based North American Olive Oil Association (NAOOA), under Georgia's so-called veggie libel law. It's one of about a dozen states with these awful lawswhich allow a party to sue for damages if a person allegedly disparages their agricultural productson the books.

Oz won in court thanks to Georgia's anti-SLAPP law. Such laws gives people who speak out on issues of public concern a useful tool to counter lawsuits that seek to intimidate them into silence. ("SLAPP" is an acronym that stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation.")

Several domestic olive oil brands had also been sued alongside Oz.

Fraud in the olive oil business is, in fact, a longstanding problem. A 1917 Missouri court case, Lo Buono v. V. Viviano & Bros Macaroni Mfg. Co., centered on fraudulent olive oil, as did a 1950 federal case involving another producer. In the past decade, The New Yorker has dedicated at least two lengthy pieces to the issue of fraudulent olive oil. And Congress recently held hearings on the issue.

The fictional Corleone crime family in Mario Puzo's The Godfather used its olive oil business, Genco, as a cover for its criminal activities. That depiction of mafia involvement in the olive oil trade isn't far from the truth in some cases. Facing U.S. tax fraud charges in 1951, mafia boss and drug trafficker Francisco Paolo Coppola claimed to earn much of his income as an olive oil producer.

How does such fraud play out? An olive oil might be misbranded, claiming to be of higher quality than it really isfrom an earlier pressing, for exampleor to be from one country but hail from another. Or it might be adulterated, containingfor examplea mix of olive oil and other less expensive food oils.

In fact, the NAOOA, which represents many foreign olive oil producers, whose products make up the bulk of the olive oil sold in the United States, is itself keen to identify and prevent such fraud in the industry. A 2015 report issued by the group, for example, raises "significant questions" about the quality of California olive oils tested by NAOOA.

The NAOOA clearly understands the value of free speech.

Listen, I think Oz is a quack. Forbes writer Kavin Senapathy, whose writings expose quackery around food, was probably right when she called Oz's olive oil segment as "yet another gag in his lineup of shady antics."

But it's also another reminder of attacks on Dr. Oz's First Amendment rights.

In 2014, Oz was called before Congress to explain his claims about a variety of foods and supplements he claims have particular health-promotion qualities.

"Oz has absolutely zero responsibility to hold mainstream views and every right to make money off of those views," I wrote in a 2014 piece defending Oz's free-speech rights and attacking Congress for attempting to intimidate him into silence. "His popularity has absolutely no impact on his right to say whatever the hell he wants to say. And being hauled before Congress for saying what he wants places a tremendous burden on his, your, and my First Amendment rights."

As a reminder, the First Amendment protects speech regardless of its subjective value. It protects speech by neo-Nazis and Black Muslims, pornographers and religious zealots, and climate change alarmists and deniers alike. And your right to speak freely is stronger today thanks to a renowned medical doctor who freely espouses many views that appear, by any reasonable measure, to be objectively false.

Critics of Oz are free to rail against his idiocies. I hope they'll continue to do so. But when courts and lawmakers attempt to intimidate him into silence, they are more apt to turn Dr. Oz into a First Amendment hero than expose what he truly is.

Link:
Dr. Oz Rebuffs First Amendment Challenge by Olive Oil Industry ... - Reason

By Hillel Italie, The Associated Press

NEW YORK Whenever Donald Trump fumes about "fake news" or labels the press "the enemy of the people," First Amendment scholar David L. Hudson Jr. hears echoes of other presidents but a breadth and tone that are entirely new.

"Mr. Trump may not know it, but it was Thomas Jefferson who once said, 'Nothing now can believed,'" said Hudson, a law professor at Vanderbilt University.

"But what's unusual with Trump is the pattern of disparagement and condemnation of virtually the entire press corps. We've had presidents who were embittered and hated some of the press Richard Nixon comes to mind. ... But I can't think of a situation where you have this rat-a-tat attack on the press on virtually a daily basis, for the evident purpose of discrediting it."

Journalism marks its annual Sunshine Week, which draws attention to the media's role in advocating for government transparency, at an extraordinary moment in the relationship between the presidency and the press.

First Amendment advocates call the Trump administration the most hostile to the press and free expression in memory. In words and actions, they say, Trump and his administration have threatened democratic principles and the general spirit of a free society: The demonizing of the media and emphatic repetition of falsehoods. Fanciful scenarios of voter fraud and scorn for dissent. The refusal to show Trump's tax returns and the removal of information from government websites.

And in that battle with the Trump administration, the media do not have unqualified public support.

According to a recent Pew survey, nearly 90 percent of respondents favored fair and open elections while more than 80 percent value the system of government checks and balances. But around two-thirds called it vital for the media to have the right to criticize government leaders; only half of Republicans were in support. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that Americans by a margin of 53-37 trust the media over Trump to tell the truth about important issues; among Republicans, 78 percent favored Trump.

"We're clearly in a particularly polarizing moment, although this is something we've been building to for a very long time," says Kyle Pope, editor in chief and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review, a leading news and commentary source for journalism.

"I think one of the mistakes the press made is we became perceived as part of the establishment. And I think one of the silver linings of the moment we're in is that we have a renewed sense of what our mission is and where we stand in the pecking order, and that is on the outside, where we belong."

Hudson, ombudsman of the Newseum's First Amendment Center, said it's hard to guess whether Trump is serious or "bloviating" when he disparages free expression. He noted Trump's comments in November saying that flag burners should be jailed and wonderedwhether the president knew such behavior was deemed protected by the Constitution (in a 1989 Supreme Court ruling supported by a justice Trump says he admires, the late Antonin Scalia).

Hudson also worries about a range of possible trends, notably the withholding of information and a general culture of secrecy that could "close a lot of doors." But he did have praise for Trump's pick to replace Scalia on the court, Neil Gorsuch, saying that he has "showed sensitivity" to First Amendment issues. And free speech advocates say the press, at least on legal issues, is well positioned to withstand Trump.

"We have a really robust First Amendment and have a lot of protections in place," says Kelly McBride, vice president of The Poynter Institute, a nonprofit journalism education center based in St. Petersburg. "That doesn't mean that attempts won't be made. But when you compare our country to what journalists face around the world, I still think the U.S. is one of the safest places for a journalist to criticize the government."

The First Amendment, which states in part that "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," is far broader and more uniquely American than when ratified in 1791.

At the time, free expression was based on the legal writings of Britain's Sir William Blackstone. The First Amendment protected against prior restraint, but not against lawsuits once something was spoken or published. Truth was not a defense against libel and the burden of proof was on the defendant, not the plaintiff. And the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government, but not to individual states, which could legislate as they pleased.

The most important breakthrough of recent times, and the foundation for many protections now, came with the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case of 1964.

The Times had printed an advertisement in 1960 by supporters of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that noted King had been arrested numerous times and condemned "Southern violators of the Constitution." The public safety commissioner of Montgomery, Ala., L. B. Sullivan sued for libel. He was not mentioned by name in the ad, but he claimed that allegations against the police also defamed him. After a state court awarded Sullivan $500,000, the Times appealed to the Supreme Court.

Some information in the ad was indeed wrong, such as the number of times King was arrested, but the Supreme Court decided unanimously for the Times. In words still widely quoted, Justice William Brennan wrote that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." He added that a libel plaintiff must prove "that the statement was made ... with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

"It was breathtakingly new," First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams said of Brennan's ruling. "It was an extraordinary step the court was taking."

But freedom of speech has long been championed more in theory than in reality. Abraham Lincoln's administration shut down hundreds of newspapers during the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson championed the people's "indisputable right to criticize their own public officials," but also signed legislation during World War I making it a crime to "utter, print, write, or publish" anything "disloyal" or "profane" about the federal government. During the administration of President Barack Obama, who had taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, the Wilson-era Espionage Act was used to obtain emails and phone records of reporters and threaten James Risen of The New York Times with jail.

Predicting what Trump might do is as difficult as following his views on many issues. He often changes his mind, and contradicts himself.

During the campaign last year, he spoke of changing the libel laws to make it easier to sue the media. But shortly after the election, he seemed to reverse himself. He has said he is a "tremendous believer of the freedom of the press," but has worried that "Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it."

Trump's disparagement of the media has been contradicted by high officials in his administration. Secretary of Defense James Mattis said recently that he did not have "any issues with the press." Vice President Mike Pence was an Indiana congressman when he helped sponsor legislation (which never passed) in 2005 that would protect reporters from being imprisoned by federal courts. In early March, he spoke at a prominent gathering of Washington journalists, the Gridiron Club and Foundation dinner.

"Be assured that while we will have our differences and I promise the members of the Fourth Estate that you will almost always know when we have them President Trump and I support the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment," he said, while adding that "too often stories make page one and drive news with just too little respect for the people who are affected or involved."

More:
Advocates say First Amendment can withstand Trump attacks - The Ledger

A federal judge has ruled that the Joplin (Mo.) district violated students' First Amendment rights in 2015 when it took seventh- and eighth-graders on a field trip to a Christian-themed sports complex.

The Joplin Globe reports the court ruled in favor of the American Humanist Association, which sued the district on behalf of a parent of two students. The association had argued that the field trips to Victory Ministry and Sports Complex violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Permission slips were sent home to parents to inform them that "their children may be invited to Bible studies and local churches while at Victory," the lawsuit said. The association argued that the permission slip "required parents to allow their child to participate in worship services, Bible studies or any other activities that may pertain to the Christian faith."

The school district asserted that the trip served a secular purpose rewarding students for positive standardized test scores and good behavior.

ButU.S. District Court Judge Douglas Harpoolconcluded in a 23-page summary judgment that some students could "feel coerced by the Joplin Districts field trips, into either not attending the events, or subjecting themselves to religious beliefs contrary to their familys teaching."

"The Court finds the relationship between Joplin District and Victory, and in particular the seventh and eighth grade field trips...to be an impermissible entanglement of government, government funding, and government authority with a particular religion and religious message," Harpool said in its ruling.

The relationship between a public school district and a religious entity was a clear violation of the First Amendment.

"The frequency, consistency, and extent of the relationship between the Joplin District and Victory goes well beyond occasional or incidental use and impermissibly entangles the Joplin District with religion," the judge said.

David Niose, Legal Director for the American Humanist Association, called the ruling a victory for the Constitution.

The school district has been funneling money and impressionable students to a religious ministry that is in the business of luring children to Christianity," Niose says, "and were glad that the court could see that this is clearly unconstitutional activity.

The judge has not yet imposed a final judgment and order, so it is not clearwhether any sanctions or penalties will be imposed on the district.

Excerpt from:
Joplin (Mo.) district's field trips to Christian center violated First Amendment - American School & University

5521821

2017 is certainly a year that has seen the First Amendment challenged from all sides, and it isnt even half way through March. Believe or not, the First Amendment protections that we have all come to enjoy are so far reaching that freedom of conscience debates can pop up in even the most unlikely of policy areas.

Sadly, though, even as the country is accepting the presidency of Donald Trump, the freedom of conscience for many is at risk. Merely, the term at risk is an understatement to an overt, outright attack on the literal definition of the very first components of our Constitutional rights.

The most obvious scene of where we can see many of these challenges is, of course, the American college campus. Public and private higher education institutions have succumbed to a soft despotism of political correctness and academic censorship that ruins the purpose of a college. Simply put, the college campus has become the breeding ground of the modern day narrative of triggered mentalities for Americas young people entering the work force.

Even more uncharacteristic is that the college campus has also become a breeding ground for identity political warfare dotted with safe spaces for both liberal and conservative students and professors refusing to engage in meaningful debate. As it is put, more crassly by many looking from the outside in, the art of civil discourse in the public square is all but lost.

Once you get away from the college campus, the realm of political debate on the national level has become relatively troubling, as well. When state legislatures and policy makers, all over the country, are continually threatening someones free speech, free exercise of religion, or right of association, something needs to be done.

One of the most rancid takeaways from the overall debate is, too often, that the First Amendment is discriminatory to protected classes (i.e. racial groups and the LGBTQ communities for example). By no means should a document protecting all of our rights, with equal application, be deemed defamatory or discriminatory based on the grounds of political disagreement. Though there is legal precedence to argue that anti-discrimination laws in the federal statutes and the First Amendment should not be at odds, the end result typically sees some form of reverse discrimination pushed on the group arguing on the opposition.

To clarify, the fact that reverse discrimination can occur against people wishing to exercise their freedom of conscience (faith, speech, association) is not the proper way to have equal protection under all laws.

One of the most evident sentiments that is often overlooked in the quest for rights befitting of all humans is the fact that having equal rights doesnt entitle a specific group additional rights above those.

In the end, the final remark is that someones self-endowed civil liberties should supersede those types of claims and scenarios. Civil liberties and civil rights should complement each other, not conflict.

See the original post:
The State Of The First Amendment - Daily Caller