Mediaboss Marketing

Last Wednesday, officials of the University of California Berkeley announced that they were canceling a speech to be given by conservative writer Ann Coulter scheduled for April 27. Then last Thursday, facing the prospect of a lawsuit, caught between the First Amendment and the fear of violence, university officials proposed that Coulters speech be moved to May 2 a move she and her supporters quickly rejected, pointing out that there would be no students on campus, as it coincided with a reading period before final exams.

This was a low point for the birthplace of the free-speech movement.

Ive known Ann Coulter for years, and Ive gone to great lengths truly great lengths to disagree with her. After she published a book called Godless, which accused liberalism of being a godless religion, I wrote a book called Soulless, which attacked the right-wing church of hate. I even donned her trademark sleeveless black dress, added about 10 inches of long blonde hair and posed for a cover that looked almost as sexy as hers.

We agree on almost nothing, except for the importance of free speech and public discourse. And we have always gotten along just fine.

Last summer, when a reporter went to her for comments about me, she could not have been more gracious. Thats how it should be in a democracy.

Our Founding Fathers understood something that seems to be getting lost in the ugly partisanship that has gripped our country. You dont deal with speech you dont like by shutting it down. You deal with it by speaking up yourself.Speech is powerful; it is protected not because it is harmless but because the alternative is even worse.And that alternative is what were facing now.

It is not just at Berkeley that this issue is rearing its ugly head. In response to the cancellation of a speech at Claremont-McKenna College by Heather Mac Donald, the president of Pomona College (part of the Claremont Colleges consortium) wrote an open letter defending the principle of free speech. To my shock, frankly, a group of African-American students went on the attack, claiming that white supremacists (Mac Donald is a fellow of the conservative Manhattan Institute, not the Klan) have no right to free speech. Come again? Who is supposed to decide who gets to speak? Do these students not understand that it is precisely oppressed minorities who have historically needed the protection of the First Amendment the most? Do they really think that if speech is regulated, they will be the beneficiaries? On which planet? Under which president?

For those who disagree with Coulter, shutting down her speech only elevates her position. Instead of speaking before a group of students two weeks before exams, the cancellation has brought her national attention and brought Berkeley the criticism it must surely have expected.

But blaming Berkeley is the easy way out. One way or another, the great majority of Americans who support the Constitution must stand up to the minority who think violence and censorship is the answer to speech they dont like. You cannot pick and choose which civil liberties to support, which opinions deserve protection.

As a writer myself, I get more than my share of ugly emails from people who disagree with me. No one enjoys reading those. And as a woman and a Jew, I have sharply felt the sting of hatred. But unless there is a threat of violence (the Constitution provides for shutting down speech if it poses an imminent threat of violence or an imminent threat to national security), the way to handle such ugly emails is simply hitting the Trash button, or better yet, responding with more speech.

Because if you shut down free speech this time, next time, the one who is shut down might be you.

See the original post:
Is the First Amendment dead? - Times-Enterprise

posted at 10:41 pm on April 27, 2017 by Allahpundit

Ah, big missed opportunity here by YouGov. They should have asked people to define abuse. Does the press abuse its freedom when it uses anonymous sources? When it publishes documents that werent supposed to be public? Even the obvious definitions (e.g., printing out-and-out falsehoods) could have made for interesting follow-up questions. Is it an abuse of press freedom to make an honest mistake in reporting or are only deliberate lies abusive? If the latter, should we change defamation law to make it easier for public figures like Trump to sue news outlets for good-faith mistakes?

Same question here as in the post about the Iran poll: How much of this result is driven by loyalty to Trump and how much is driven by extraneous circumstances? The White Houses war on fake news must be contributing to it but right-wing loathing of the press existed long before Trump and will exist long after his administration has passed into history.

This data comes from a different new poll, conducted online by UVAs Center for Politics, but it makes Republican disdain for the media more, shall we say, vivid:

Thats an interesting result because Trump has claimed more than once, including at CPAC this year, that his quote about the press has been distorted and misunderstood. He never said the media is the enemy of the American people, he reminds people. He said the fake news media is the enemy. It was just a few days ago that he reiterated the distinction between the media proper, which he loves loves loves almost as much as he loves things with his name emblazoned on them (which pretty well describes most of American media day to day), and the fake news subset. The Center for Politics didnt make that distinction, though, and neither did the Republicans they surveyed. To Republicans, either the entire media is fake news or even the non-fake stuff is enemy action. In fact, a separate question asked by CFP of Trump voters confirms that hes essentially immune from media criticism among his base. When you hear the media being critical of Donald Trump, the pollster asked, does their criticism make you question your support for him, or does it reinforce that hes on the right track in terms of shaking things up in Washington, D.C.? Result: 12/88.

Heres Jake Tapper nudging CNN viewers to remember that the media-critic-in-chief produces plenty of fake news himself. One last data point worth mentioning, this time from YouGov: When asked how important the media is in determining how well presidents do their jobs, Trump voters were much more likely to say not important (45 percent) than the population at large was (27 percent). Trump would probably say the same thing if asked knowing that thats what hes supposed to say, if only to deny the press any sense that they have leverage over him, but if ever there was a politician who really obviously views the media as crucial to his performance, its the tabloid mainstay turned reality-show star turned president Donald Trump, a.k.a. John Barron. This is a guy who boasts about Sean Spicers ratings and who has allegedly ruled out people for cabinet positions based on their appearance. In his heart of hearts, in an age of ubiquitous media, I bet he thinks media management is 90 percent of his job, which is of course insane. Its no more than 75 percent.

See original here:
Poll: 73% of Republicans say the media is abusing its First Amendment freedom of the press An error occurred. - Hot Air

Last Updated Apr 26, 2017 8:08 PM EDT

BERKELEY, Calif. -- Ann Coulter said in an email Wednesday that her speaking event planned for this week at the University of California, Berkeley, is "canceled" but implied she might still travel to the city or campus anyway.

Amid growing concerns of violence on campus whether Coulter turns up or not, the conservative pundit lost the backing of groups that had initially sponsored her appearance.

In an email to the Associated Press, Coulter wrote "Berkeley canceled" when asked to confirm if she would appear at the campus on Thursday.

She added, however, "I have my flights, so I thought I might stroll around the graveyard of the First Amendment."

In this April 21, 2017, photo, a leaflet is seen stapled to a message board near Sproul Hall on the University of California at Berkeley in Berkeley, Calif.

AP

Coulter was invited by campus Republicans to speak at Berkeley and her speaking fee was to be subsidized by a conservative group called the Young America's Foundation, which pulled its support Tuesday citing concerns of violence.

UC Berkeley officials say they are bracing for possible violence on campus whether Coulter comes to speak or not.

Campus spokesman Dan Mogulof said UC Berkeley officials had not heard directly from Coulter on Wednesday. But he said even if she cancels, some groups that support or oppose her could still turn out on campus.

"We have serious concerns and we're acting accordingly," Mogulof said. "We're taking the steps that our law enforcement officials believe to be necessary in order to provide safety for our students, members of the campus community and the public."

He said police were taking necessary steps to protect the campus.

Ann Coulter arrives at the 2016 TV Land Icon Awards at Barker Hangar on Sun., April 10, 2016, in Santa Monica, Calif.

AP

Police at UC Berkeley say they are preparing to deploy a "highly visible" presence of officers on campus, despite the cancellation of Ann Coulter's speech on Thursday.

Capt. Alex Yao of the University of California Police Department says authorities have received intelligence that protest groups could turn up throughout the day and into the night.

He said Wednesday that police would have a "very, very low tolerance for any violence."

The Berkeley College Republicans who had invited Ann Coulter to the University of California, Berkeley confirmed the group canceled her planned speech over safety concerns.

Troy Worden, the student group's president, says college Republicans "had to cancel the event out of concern for the safety of students."

Worden made the comments Wednesday in a news conference on UC Berkeley's campus.

Berkeley has been the scene of two violent clashes between alt-right and anti-fascist proponents in the last three months, reports CBS Sacramento. There have been numerous arrests, thousands of dollars in property damage and injuries.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Here is the original post:
Ann Coulter says speech is "canceled" but she may still visit Berkeley - CBS News

By Katie Tabeling | Apr 27, 2017

(April 28, 2017) Boardwalk performers who disagree with Ocean City governments registration system could have their day in court, as a U.S. District Court judge has denied the citys motion to dismiss their lawsuit.

The decision issued last Tuesday by Judge William M. Nickerson was that the plaintiffs argument that the regulations restrict their First Amendment rights have merit.

In 2015, several Boardwalk buskers and local activist Tony Christ filed suit seeking $1 million in punitive and compensatory damages as a result of the citys ordinance that established a first come, first serve sign-up system for roughly 30 spaces. The performers and Christ also sought injunctive relief.

Last year, Ocean City adjusted its regulations to a lottery drawing for spaces and officials worked with performers to hear their complaints this past summer. However, the lawsuit continued.

The suit was rejected twice by the court because of procedural missteps, but then attorney David Gray Wright took the case on behalf of the plaintiffs and filed a third suit last September.

While not reaching the merits of the motions to dismiss it is clear that Plaintiffs action arises under the First Amendment of the United States

Constitution, which can be enforced against municipalities through due process clause [in the 14th Amendment, Nickerson wrote in his opinion.

Last year, City Solicitor Guy Ayres filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the complaint was little more than legal conclusions that the ordinance violates the First Amendment.

Nickerson disagreed and said that the third complaint detailed exactly how performers were limited.

Significantly, in support of this portion of its motion [to dismiss], Ocean City cites no case law in any way related to free speech and expressions claims, he wrote. Upon review of the allegations in the third amended complaint and the relevant case law, the court concludes that the plaintiffs allegations are more than sufficient to state claims for relief.

Several examples Nickerson referenced included magician and ventriloquist Joseph Smith, whose act draws large crowds and would need a larger space than permitted by the ordinance.

Another example was Bob Peasley, a singer and guitar player who suffers from partial paralysis and uses a wheelchair. His physical restrictions make it difficult for him to be physically present for the weekly lottery, the complaint contends.

Considering that, Nickerson wrote that the complaint aptly demonstrates how the ordinance has limited buskers artistic endeavors.

They have further alleged that these restrictions are substantially broader than necessary to achieve Ocean Citys interest, he wrote. While Ocean City may be able to refute those allegations, at this stage in the proceedings, the court must accept them as true and draw all inferences in the plaintiffs favor.

More:
Buskers' First Amendment lawsuit allowed to proceed - Ocean City Today

Okay, before I go any further, let me state unequivocally for the record that I believe Hillary Clinton ran one of the worst campaigns in modern political history. Her management was inept, her messaging misguided, and her character terribly flawed. Lets put this into proper perspective: she lost to Donald Trump, for fucks sake! A colossal joke of a candidate who by all accounts shouldve lost to a chair. As the saying goes, the election was Clintons to lose... and she lost it. So why on Earth would I want her to run again in 2020?

The answer is rather simple: I remain committed to the belief that Clinton would be an incredible president. And I believe she not only will run again, as her recent and outspoken re-launch onto the public stage indicates, but that she will also win. No, Im not crazy. I just believe that history repeats itself. And for that we simply need to look to Richard Nixon.

It was 1960. The first televised presidential debate. Nixon refused make-up. John F. Kennedy, well, he was JFK. The battle pitted the young, charismatic Democratic upstart with the movie-star looks against the nervous, sweaty, 5 oclock-shadowed, beady-eyed, prematurely-aged Republican. The rest is history. As is Nixons startling comeback eight years later to win not one but two presidential elections. Times change. Situations change. People change. Can Hillary? My moneys on yes.

Clinton is perhaps the most qualified candidate in history. A prestigious legal career, eight years as First Lady, another eight as U.S. Senator from New York and four years as Secretary of State. A die-hard progressive who voted 93 percent of the time with Sen. Bernie Sanders when both served together. And, shes a woman... and its fucking time America is led by a woman.

The key to the 2020 election is that Trump will no longer be a political outsider who can lie through his teeth 24/7. No more outlandish positions and pie-in-the-sky promises. That con-game can only work once. Next time hell be running on his record, not Clintons or Barack Obamas, or his own bloviating, self-aggrandizing uber-hype.

Voters will judge him on whether he delivered or not. Did they get their wall, and did Mexico pay for it? Did he fix immigration and extreme vetting? Did he rid the world of ISIS as hes already declared hes doing? Did he prevent terror attacks on U.S. soil? Did he keep China, North Korea, Russia and Syria in check? Did he and Boy Wonder Jared Kushner achieve Israeli/Arab peace? Did he favorably renegotiate, or terminate, NAFTA? Did he get our NATO allies to pay their fair share? Did he bring back the factory and coal jobs? Did he give the poor and middle class their big tax cuts? Did he give them better and cheaper healthcare? Did the economy grow 3 percent+ annually? Did he reduce the debt and deficit? Did he create as many if not more jobs as Obama? Did he drain the swamp or fill his cabinet with it? Did all the tough talk and bluster translate to action and results? In short, did he make their America great again?

To be sure, Trumps biggest asset during the campaign was his masterful manipulation of his base through an endless barrage of big promises, lies and political rope-a-dope. But now these same qualities are his biggest liability. As Aaron Burr reminds Hamilton in the Broadway musical, Winning was easy, governings harder. Its a lot more fun to promise the world as a candidate than to defend against having accomplished nothing after four years as president.

Plus, a weakened Trump will more than likely be primaried by a slew of retreads like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and John Kasich, as well as new challengers such as Nikki Haley, Paul Ryan, Sen. Ben Sasse (NE) or even another outsider billionaire like Marc Cuban. All of whom would do much of Clintons bidding for her.

But if Trump succeeds in fulfilling his campaign promises and, more so, improves the lives of his voters, then he would likely win again. But his MAGA crowdthe sleeping beast who he roused off the couch and motivated, often with sexist, racist rhetoric, to vote for himwont have the same drive, passion and commitment for him if they end up disappointed and feeling conned. Some of them, like Kraig Moss, who I wrote about earlier in the week, have already jumped ship. Many millions more could follow. It could get very, very ugly for the man who, according to a new CNN/ORC Poll, already has the lowest approval rating (44 percent) in modern presidential history.

Lets keep in mind that Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million. Nothing to sneeze at, and certainly a strong foundation from which to build even further support these next three years, especially if Trump continues to struggle. And its not like Trump gave her a Reagan-like trouncing with his electoral college total either. While he loves to brag at how massive his win was, he snagged the presidency with just 306 electoral votes, among the lowest in modern history. Factor in FBI Director James Comeys unprecedented last-minute politically-based clusterfuck, and Russias hack and overall influence in the election, and its not hard to understand how the Democrats heretofore rock-solid blue wall (PA, MI, WI, MN) was lost by the thinnest of margins, giving Trump a squeaker of a victory.

If Clinton runs the first thing shell need to do is assemble a kick-ass team. No more Robby Mook, with his millennial naivete and obsession with useless data, or Huma Abedin, whos saddled with Anthony Weiners humiliating legacy.

Clinton needs to do whatevers humanly possible, including begging, to get Bills old band back together: Paul Begala, James Carville and George Stephanopoulos. And throw in Obamas brain, David Axelrod, for good measure. She also needs a few truly sharp, aggressive young strategic soldiers, such as Bakari Sellers for example, to assist with media and messaging. She also needs a War Room, like the one Bill had, to deftly and swiftly address each attack... and therell be plenty of them again.

The next thing Clinton will need to do is study Trump like shes never done before. Every tick. Every tell. Every position. His speeches, his rhythms, his overall appeal. She must painstakingly study what he did to connect so powerfully with the Trump Democrats, a constituency that should rightfully be hers.

Lastly, she must look within. She must do an honest and forensic review of her many gaffes and flaws. She needs to successfully address the perceptions and criticisms that shes entitled, disconnected, unlikable and shrill. She needs to relate. Needs to win over more women. And, for Gods sake, more men. And Southerners. And those in the Heartland. They all used to vote Democrat, and they can do so again. Like the man said... its the economy, stupid. Still is.

Read more:
Making The Case For 2020 Hillary Clinton - Huffington Post