Mediaboss Marketing

By Richard Reeb

Congress shall make no law . . . 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.

Surely, the freedom guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution are a timely topic given the lengths to which boorish behavior is being taken by some, while claiming legal protection. Could angry and unreasoning mobs really be what the Founders had in mind when they penned those immortal words?

The key word in the First Amendment is peaceably. As the Constitution establishes a government for the United States of America, it places all discussion within that framework. That is, public oral, written or electronic communications must serve the purposes and follow the procedures laid down by our supreme law and cannot justifiably be in conflict with them.

Put another way, public discussion is justified so long as it is about how, not whether, to achieve our goals as a nation. Speech or publication that aims to undermine or overthrow our form of government is rightly denominated as unconstitutional and certainly seditious.

Our ancestors revolted against a despotic government, engaging in illegal and violent means, including prolonged warfare, to end British imperial authority in the 13 American colonies. But the sequel was the establishment of republican governments in all of them and, ultimately an effective federal government.

The American Revolution was legitimate only to the extent it brought self-government to the North American continent, but not to institutionalize revolution. To forestall that possibility, frequent elections of the peoples representatives were adopted to secure the consent of the governed.

The most severe test of our constitutional framework came in 1860 when seven, ultimately 11, Southern states attempted to secede from the federal union. When rebel forces fired on Fort Sumpter in 1861, the situation changed from one of extreme agitation to full-scale war. Fortunately, that rebellion was crushed. But unless the nation learns the appropriate lessons from the Civil War, we will not have benefited.

Before the conflict began, mostly Southern politicians were not only declaring a right to block the enforcement of federal law and even the Constitution, but asserting that the Declaration of Independence was based on a self-evident lie. In their defense of chattel slavery, they struck at the central idea of the American Republic that held that all human beings are equally endowed by God with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They even said that such a proposition was unscientific, arguing that the emerging idea of the survival of the fittest applied not just to species but to the races of mankind as well.

Slaverys apologists argued that Caucasians had established their superiority and consequent right to rule over inferior races. Accordingly, the Confederate Constitution distinguished itself from the U.S. Constitution by inserting the word slave without apology and avoided the latters more ambiguous word person.

A comprehensive account of our nations greatest crisis is possible only if we recall that open rebellion was preceded by seditious and even heretical speech. If one denies, as Confederates did, the truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, it is just a matter of time and opportunity before our form of government is at risk.

It is striking that the angry left in America, while professing dedication to equality, denies that our ancestors or their descendants shared that dedication. The claim is that the very existence of slavery proved their hypocrisy, if not their evil intentions for persons of African descent.

The steady progress of justice that ended both slavery and compulsory racial segregation gives the lie to that claim. Of course, if the left is wrong in its diagnosis, America deserves not only the benefit of the doubt but our peoples full dedication. Mimicking their Confederate mentors, todays progressive left is arguing that America is based on a lie. Because its minions believe that lie, they feel free to reject any and all authority that stands in their way.

It never made sense to hold that those who speak or write about our Constitution with contempt are entitled to the full protection secured by the First Amendment. The germ of rebellion against it lies with the heresy that acts of the freely chosen representatives of the people can be defied at will.

We should certainly hear the arguments of the Republics critics if we are to know what they are about, but we are not obliged to be shouted down, driven from our public (and even private) places or put in fear of our lives. The First Amendment, properly understood, absolutely favors peaceable speech. The alternative is mob rule.

Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow Community College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of "Taking Journalism Seriously: 'Objectivity' as a Partisan Cause" (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net

See the original post here:
What our First Amendment freedoms are for - Desert Dispatch

'The Bell Curve' Author Charles Murray (Flickr)

Allison Stanger, Professor of International Politics and Economics, was to moderate.However, the event did not proceed as planned; students at the talk shouted Murray down and made it impossible for him to speak.He and Stanger moved the discussion to a different location, where the interview was live-streamed.That, unfortunately, was not the end of it.When they left, Stanger and Murray were confronted with angry protesters who tried to block their way.A melee ensued, during which Stanger was injured.

Stanger posted a commentary about the incident on Facebook.We cannot improve on her words.

I apologize for the impersonal and lengthy nature of this communication, but I wanted to provide a general response to

Posted by Allison Stanger onSaturday, March 4, 2017

Stanger and Middlebury responded appropriately, repudiating the violent and disruptive protests and reaffirming their commitment to the free exchange of ideas. Their improvisation allowed the talk to proceed, albeit in a lesser forum and format.

This incident, and earlier ones at Berkeley, University of Washington, and other institutions, reveal a disturbing trend, and a lack of understanding of what forms of protest the First Amendment does, and does not, protect.

Briefly, the Constitution protects the right to peaceful protests.Institutions and government officials are permitted to adopt neutral rules to regulate where and when such protests take place, as long as they are applied consistently and do not unnecessarily interfere with the ability of protesters to convey their message to their intended audience.

However, the First Amendment DOES NOT allow protesters to prevent someone else from speaking, and it does not sanction violence or intimidation. Middlebury, as a private institution, is not constrained by the First Amendment and has considerable leeway in setting and enforcing its own rules.Even at a public university, however, administrators would be justified in removing and disciplining students who disrupt a public event.Any institution, whether public or private, is entitled to rely on law enforcement to prevent and respond to violence or threats of violence, and protesters who engage in such behavior do so at their peril.

Perhaps more important, protesters need to understand a more basic principle: the right to speech exists for all, or for none. Anyone who wishes to exercise that right is obliged to acknowledge that others enjoy equivalent rights.

Once you violate that principle, speech rights for all are at risk.

See the rest here:
Violent Protestors Misunderstand the First Amendment - Blogging Censorship (blog)

The Daily Press was named a finalist Tuesday in the annual Scripps Howard Awards.

The entry, which detailed years of reporting, utilizing and defending access to public information, was honored in the category of Distinguished Service to First Amendment. The Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette-Mail won the category, and the Dallas Morning News was honored alongside the Daily Press as a finalist.

"The mission of a news organization is simple: We are the community's watchdog. We don't work for the government. We work for the people," said Marisa Porto, publisher and editor-in-chief of the Daily Press Media Group. "We keep an eye on what local government is doing and how it is spending taxpayer dollars. That is our responsibility, and we take it seriously at the Daily Press.

"I couldn't be more proud of this team and the work it does every day."

The Daily Press entry included stories in which the reporting hinged on documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Those stories included an attempt to gain access to a compiled database of court records, and investigation into how money was used in an undercover police operation, and an examination of a private loan guarantee made by the local airport commission.

The 375-page entry encompassed more than four years of reporting and included dozens of stories and editorials in which access to public information was essential.

"Recognizing the best journalism in the country is a fundamental mission of Scripps Howard Foundation," said Liz Carter, president and CEO of the foundation, in a news release.

"We commend the work these journalists did in 2016 and the impact their words, videos and interactive elements will continue to have across our communities."

The Scripps Howard Awards have been handed out for 64 years and honor excellence in journalism. The awards ceremony will be held April 12 in Cincinnati.

Read the original post:
Daily Press a finalist for national First Amendment honor - Daily Press

On Feb. 24, Donald Trump told the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that no one loves the First Amendment more than he does. One would suppose that he is claiming to love the First Amendment as written by our founding fathers in 1789.

On Feb. 24, Donald Trump told the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that no one loves the First Amendment more than he does. One would suppose that he is claiming to love the First Amendment as written by our founding fathers in 1789. 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. However, when citizens around the country gathered by the thousands to protest and hold the new administration accountable for their actions during his first weeks in office, they denied that we were exercising our freedom of speech and right to assemble. They accused protesters of being paid. This was an attempt to suppress the First Amendment right of free speech. When the free press holds the Trump administration accountable for their actions, Mr. Trump calls it fake news, the opposition party and the enemy of the people. He claims it is his First Amendment right to suppress news organizations if they hold his administration accountable rather than praising their actions and policies. One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, held the opposite view saying, Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. On Feb. 24, the administration made a move toward suppressing freedom of the press when they had Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, hold a private news briefing referred to as a gaggle. Right-leaning news organizations like Steve Bannons Breitbart were included, while those labeled by the administration to be fake news such as CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico among others were pointedly excluded. When the courts prohibited the administration from fulfilling the campaign promise to institute a Muslim ban by prohibiting travel from seven Muslim countries, unless the traveler was Christian, they claimed the ban had nothing to do with religion. And yet, according to a report on March 3 by National Public Radio, some travelers with Visas and even U.S. citizens continue to be detained for extensive questioning at some airports. Mohammed Alis widow and son were asked if they are Muslim, and then held for two hours. In his address to a joint session of Congress on Feb. 28, Trump said, Those given the high honor of admission to the United States should support this country and love its people and its values. The administration is expected to issue a new executive order during the first week of March. This is being done under the guise of public safety. But this ban most certainly undermines our free exercise of religion. When the founding fathers added the first amendment to the constitution they did not intend for it to be used as a tool hundreds of years later to impose on the people a personal idea of freedom of speech; a personal idea of freedom of the press; a personal idea of freedom of religion. If this administration succeeds in turning the First Amendment to their own purposes, these freedoms will be lost to we the people. Today I am exercising my First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech. I trust that all of our First Amendment rights will remain forever available to all citizens of the United States.

Susanna Smith writes a column for the Neosho Daily News.

View post:
SUSANNA SMITH: First Amendment rights under attack - Neosho Daily News

James Tracywas exposed on CNN in 2013 by Anderson Cooper, who branded him a conspiracy theorist for his investigation of anomalies surrounding the alleged Sandy Hook Newtown school shooting as portrayed in the media.

On February 21, 2017, a US federal judge ruled that former Florida Atlantic University (FAU) Professor James Tracys civil rights lawsuit can proceed to discovery.

As this author has observed the case stands to set a precedent in matters of free speech and academic freedom throughout the nation. Defendants include FAU, its Board of Trustees, President, Dean, Associate Provost, the Florida Education Association, and the faculty union United Faculty of Florida (UFF), along with the unions FAU Chapter President and Service Unit Director.

Tracy was terminated from his tenured professorship in January 2016, ostensibly for questioning university policy regarding the mandatory reporting of outside activities, and refusing to submit paperwork disclosing his personal blogging at his website, Memory Hole Blog.

Tracy argued that his blogging involved the exercise of his right to free speech as a private US citizen. The popular website was hacked or otherwise sabotaged by unnamed parties after the November 2016 election and, as of this writing, is no longer in operation.

FAU and UFF engaged in conspiracy

Tracy received a spate of unfavorable publicity by CNN and other news outlets in 2013, shortly after the alleged shooting at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, CT. The university set out to discipline Tracy as a result, attempting to dissuade him from making any further statements about the Newtown incident. FAUs faculty union, UFF, filed a grievance for Tracy on free speech grounds. In late 2015, however, union officials refused to defend the professor.

Tracys suit cites UFF as co-defendants, arguing that union officers conspired with university administrators to place an informal gag order on Tracy while allowing the universitys termination proceedings to go forward uncontested. At the same time, Tracy contends, union representatives discouraged him from filing a grievance or lawsuit, instead trying to intimidate him into resigning in lieu of termination. When Tracy refused to resign, the university fired him outright.

FAUs Conflict of Interest policy and its chilling effect on free speech

Part of the case involves a challenge to FAUs Conflict of Interest policy, which extends to all university faculty. FAU and many of Floridas other public universities now compel faculty members to present all their outside activities for administrative approval, whether compensated or not. Tracy objected to the policy, which would have required him to submit an account of his personal blogging. His suit argues that this is a form of prior restraint forbidden by the First Amendment.

Tracys concerns were shared by other members of FAUs faculty as well, including senior political science professor Timothy Lenz, who described a climate of fear and uncertainty, speaking at a faculty senate meeting on September 4, 2015. Lenz enjoined administrators to please call off your dogs, continuing at length:

The Administration has been sending faculty members who are engaged in outside activity nasty letters, letters of discipline or letters that threaten faculty members who are engaged in outside activity with discipline theres a great deal of suspicion that you can say, or write, or do something, but if you say, write, or do something that the Administration disagrees with youre going to get one of these nasty letters put in your personnel file and thats untenable.

Tracys suit names as defendants individual FAU administrators present at the September 4 faculty senate meeting, including FAU President John Kelly. Kelly and his co-defendants moved to dismiss the first complaint, which was granted in part, necessitating a Second Amended Complaint, filed on December 28, 2016. This second complaint has been upheld, with the defendants motion to dismiss denied in a February 21, 2017, decision by Judge Robin Rosenberg. The judge refers to John Kellys involvement in her analysis:

The inference from the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint is that Defendant Kelly was personally (and not vicariously) involved in a retaliatory violation of Plaintiffs First Amendment rights. As a result, Defendant Kelly is sufficiently on notice of the claim against him such that he is able to answer that claim.

Verified Second Amended Complaint

The individual counts in the Second Amended Complaint are as follows:

Count I Retaliation in Violation of Right to Free Speech, against Defendant FAU and Defendants President John Kelly, Associate Provost Diane Alperin, and College of Arts and Letters Dean Heather Coltman.

Count II Conspiracy to Interfere with Plaintiffs Civil Rights, against Defendants Alperin, Coltman, Kelly, UFF President Robert Zoeller, Jr., UFF Service Unit Director Michael Moats, UFF, Florida Education Association, and FAU.

Count III Facial Challenge to FAUs Conflict of Interest Policy, against Defendant FAU.

Count IV As-Applied Challenge to Plaintiffs Right to Free Speech, against Defendant FAU.

Count V Declaratory Judgment and Injunction, against Defendant FAU.

Count VI State Law Breach of Contract, against Defendant FAU.

Case proceeds to discovery

After Tracy initiated his lawsuit in April 2016, FAUs attorneys began filing repeated court motions, arguing that Tracys suit was frivolous, that no conspiracy existed, and that Tracys termination was due to his alleged misconduct and failure to disclose his blogging activities in a timely fashion. By this means, the defendants succeeded in precluding discovery for over six months.

These delaying tactics have been brought to an end with Rosenbergs February 21 decision, in which the court concludes that Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint satisfies federal pleading standards and does not amount to mere labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, as FAU and UFF attorneys have argued.

Tracys legal team has now forced FAU to release thousands of internal emails between administrators, trustees, and non-university parties under Floridas Sunshine Law. Many of the documents tend to confirm the suits conspiracy allegations, including notes from a meeting between FAU counsel and administrators strategizing on how to discipline Tracy, and emails between Kelly and FAUs chief trustee on Tracys pending termination.

Fake News and media blackout on the status of Tracys lawsuit

After Rosenberg dismissed part of the First Amended Complaint, the Florida Sun Sentinelwhich has published a multitude of defamatory articles targeting Tracyfalsely reported that the entire lawsuit had been thrown out. This erroneous report was then picked up by the Associated Press and broadcast nationally (e.g. here, here and here). Only after Tracys attorney contacted the management of the Sun Sentinel to complain was the story revised. The Sun Sentinel has neglected to report on the court order allowing the suit to proceed. Nor has the mainstream media taken notice, with only a few exceptions.

In contrast to the media frenzy over Tracys research on the Newtown incident, in which he was viciously attacked in op-eds, letters to the editor, and news stories in print and on television, there is a conspicuous silence now that the case will proceed to trial. A legal victory for Professor Tracy would set a major precedent for free speech and academic freedom jurisprudence, and would decisively bolster safeguards for university employeesand indeed all employeesto comment freely on matters of public importance without fear of losing their jobs.

As an alternative to the mainstream press, Memory Hole Blog was used by Tracy and other contributors to draw attention to anomalous news coverage and analyze media reporting on controversial events. Many of these observations were deemed controversial or conspiracy theories by the very news outlets that came under scrutinyincluding CNN and the New York Timesorganizations now in the hot seat for disseminating Fake News themselves. This battle is currently raging over unsubstantiated allegations in the mainstream media against President Trump, who is called a conspiracy theorist himself by the press.

Should Tracy lose his case, the outcome would be disastrous for free speech rights. A decision favoring FAUs defense could be used by almost any employer, academic or otherwise, to further unconstitutionally monitor and restrict employee expression. This would likely intensify in the current US academic environment, rife with campaigns targeting politically incorrect speech and behavior. The way it stands, [FAU] could start firing people for not disclosing their Facebook pages, Tracys attorney Louis Leo IV said following a December court appearance.

The case moves forward

On February 28th the faculty union and FAU submitted separate responses to Tracys Second Amended Complaint, maintaining there was no conspiracy to fire Tracy and reasserting that the cause was his failure to follow FAUs outside activities policy. In its response, FAU characterized Tracys repeated attempts to obtain clarification on the unconstitutional policy as belligerent and rebellious. While Plaintiff appeared to embrace his nonconformist behavior thinking it would publicize his interests in the light he deemed helpful, FAUs attorneys wrote, the Defendant Universitys policy and intent were unrelated to such interests and were intended to provide Defendant University with necessary information for various legitimate and proper reasons.

With the discovery process now proceeding, FAUs defense looks increasingly weak. A flood of internal documents obtained under Floridas open records law indicates that university officials met repeatedly to strategize on how they would discipline Tracy without appearing to violate his First Amendment right to free speech. As these meeting notes and emails reveal, there was as much obsession in quelling the controversy surrounding Tracys blog as there was in the publicity his firing generated.

Based on the Rosenberg denial to dismiss, the case will now proceed to trial. Tracy is seeking declaratory relief upholding his right to free speech, injunctive relief with reinstatement to tenured employment and full restoration of benefits and lost wages, relief from the requirement to report outside activities for Tracy and his colleagues, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees as permitted by law.

Vivian Lee is the nom de plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university.

Visit link:
Academic Freedom Lawsuit To Proceed: Judge Affirms First Amendment Rights - Center for Research on Globalization