Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute released the results of its State of the First Amendment survey, which examines Americans' views on freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition, and samples their opinions on contemporary First Amendment issues. The survey, conducted this year in partnership with Fors Marsh Group, an applied research company, has been published annually since 1997, reflecting Americans' changing attitudes toward their core freedoms.

The results of the 2017 survey show that, despite coming out of one of the most politically contentious years in U.S. history, most Americans remain generally supportive of the First Amendment. When asked if the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees, 69 percent of survey respondents disagreed.

However, there are ideological divisions in attitudes toward the First Amendment, with liberals and conservatives disagreeing on the amount of protection the First Amendment should provide in certain scenarios. Conservatives were more likely than liberals to believe that those who leak information should be prosecuted and that the government should be able to hold Muslims to a higher level of scrutiny. However, liberals were more likely than conservatives to think that colleges should be able to ban speakers with controversial views.

This year, 43 percent of Americans agreed that news media outlets try to report the news without bias a significant improvement from only 23 percent in 2016. However, a majority of Americans (53 percent) expressed a preference for news information that aligns with their own views, demonstrating that many Americans may not view "biased" news in a negative light. The 2017 survey also attempted to assessthe impact of the "fake news" phenomenon. Approximately 70 percent of Americans did not think that fake news reports should be protected by the First Amendment, and about one-third (34 percent) reported a decrease in trust in news obtained from social media.

Regarding freedom of religion, 59 percent of Americans believe that religious freedom should apply to all religious groups, even those widely considered as "extreme" or fringe. The age group least likely to agree with this is Americans between the ages of 18 and 29: Just 49 percent of them supported protection for all religious faiths, compared to over 60 percent for every other age group.

On free speech, 43 percent of Americans felt that colleges should have the right to ban controversial campus speakers.Those who strongly agreed or disagreed with this tended to be current students and/or activists (people who had participated in political actions over the past year, such as signing a petition or attending a protest) on both sides of the political spectrum.Other Americans even those in the 18 to 29-year-old millennial demographic were more lukewarm on this issue.

"We were glad to find that most Americans still support the First Amendment, although it's troubling that almost one in four think that we have too much freedom," said Lata Nott, executive director of the First Amendment Center. "It's also troubling that even people who support the First Amendment in the abstract often dislike it when it's applied in real life."

The 2017 survey was conducted and supported by Fors Marsh Group, and contributing support provided by the Gannett Foundation.

Click here to view the complete survey.

ABOUT THE NEWSEUM INSTITUTE'S FIRST AMENDMENT CENTERThe Newseum Institute's First Amendment Center is a forum for the study and exploration of issues related to free expression, religious freedom, and press freedom, and an authoritative source of information, news, and analysis of these issues. The Center provides education, information and entertainment to educators, students, policy makers, legal experts, and the general public. The Center is nonpartisan and does not lobby, litigate or provide legal advice. The Newseum Institute promotes the study, exploration and education of the challenges confronting freedom through its First Amendment Center and the Religious Freedom Center. The Newseum is a 501(c)(3) public charity funded by generous individuals, corporations and foundations, including the Freedom Forum. For more information, visit newseuminstitute.org or follow us on Twitter.

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/first-amendment-center-releases-2017-state-of-the-first-amendment-survey-results-300481542.html

SOURCE Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center

http://www.newseuminstitute.org

Here is the original post:
First Amendment Center Releases 2017 State of the First ... - PR Newswire (press release)

At a time in American politics when there is creeping advocacy for limits on offensive speech, it was reassuring to see a Supreme Court united in its reaffirming of the First Amendment.

The court ruled 8-0 that even trademarks considered to be derogatory are constitutionally protected forms of speech. The case before the court involved a musician who wanted to trademark his Asian-American rock bands name: The Slants.

The Patent and Trademark Office in 2011 declined the request, citing a federal law that prohibits the registration of any trademark that may disparage ... or bring ... into contempt[t] or disrepute any persons, living or dead.

The justices not only were unanimous in striking down the law and siding with the band, they did so on broad free-speech grounds, with Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy writing in robust support of the First Amendment and against government attempts to censor unpopular opinions.

It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend, Alito wrote.

Kennedy referenced the few categories of speech that the government can regulate or punish fraud, defamation or incitement before asserting: A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.

Kennedys points resound in this age of attempts on campuses to silence invited speakers, college students seeking safe spaces from opinions contrary to their own, and with some alarming constitutional ignorance from people who should know better.

For example, in 2015 CNN journalist Chris Cuomo, who has a law degree, tweeted out: Hate speech is excluded from protection by the First Amendment. In April, Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, presidential candidate and chair of the Democratic National Committee, tweeted: Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment (sic). In May, Ted Wheeler, the mayor of Portland, Oregon, urged the government not to issue permits to alt-right groups to demonstrate in public because hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech, no matter how bigoted or offensive, is free speech. Over the years it has upheld the rights of the Ku Klux Klan to march in public and the Westboro Baptist Church to picket the funerals of fallen soldiers with signs that display homophobic slurs. In order for speech to be lawfully banned, it must be a direct threat or inciting imminent lawless action.

The Supreme Courts decision almost certainly also applies to a more widely known case involving the NFLs Washington Redskins, whose trademarks were canceled in 2014 following complaints from Native Americans. But the justices struck a much larger blow against the pernicious idea that government can censor ideas based solely on their objectionable content.

This editorial was published by the Daytona Beach News Journal, a sister newspaper of the Daily News in Gatehouse Media.

Read the original post:
EDITORIAL: Court upholds free speech - The Northwest Florida Daily News

When former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton appeared at the 2017 Code Conference, she drew heat for declining to directly answer Walt Mossbergs first question: Discounting outside forces that were very important, what misjudgment did you make that, thinking about it, was something that you wish youd done the opposite?

Onstage, Clinton pointed to the maddening way her private email server was used against her by former FBI director James Comey, the New York Times and political foes. On the latest episode of Recode Media with Peter Kafka, New York Magazines Rebecca Traister who profiled Clinton during and after the 2016 campaign offered some theories for the evasive answer.

This is one of the first times in 25 years that Hillary Clinton has not had to be a professional politician, Traister said. There was a viral video that went around before the election of 25 years of Hillary being asked the same question, which was, Can you talk about the fact that youre hated? Why do people hate you so much?

This is not a defense, Im just putting it in context, Traister added. The degree to which Hillary Clintons willingness to say, I fucked up, Im sorry, and to self-flagellate has been an object of media fetishization for a quarter-century.

You can listen to the new podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play Music, Spotify (mobile only), TuneIn, Stitcher and SoundCloud.

Traister said Clinton wont readily say she made mistakes, because she knows how it would play into the 25-year narrative that, as CNNs David Gregory recently said, she hasnt taken real responsibility for the fact that she was not what the country wanted.

[Clinton is] acutely aware that this has been a fetish, and shes also acutely aware that shes been ill-treated by the press for decades, which is rooted in truth, Traister said. Whether you think she should be so defensive and aware of it is another question. I think this is a point where shes like, I dont have to do this anymore.

On the new podcast, Traister questioned whether it was right to treat Clinton and Donald Trump as equally worthy of media criticism, when one was far more experienced than the other. And she questioned the belief that Trump rose to be the leader of the Republican Party on his own.

Its not an accident that the Republican candidate to run after two terms of Barack Obama, against Hillary Clinton, is a man who ran a campaign rooted, in part, on open calls to racism, misogyny [and] xenophobia, Traister said. Donald Trump is not some quirk of nature, and people treat him that way, still Oh, she lost to Donald Trump. Anybody could have beaten Donald Trump! without acknowledging that America created Donald Trump.

Donald Trump was summoned to fight Hillary Clinton, and he did, effectively, because thats a big part of what America wants, she added.

If you like this show, you should also sample our other podcasts:

If you like what were doing, please write a review on Apple Podcasts and if you dont, just tweet-strafe Peter. Tune in next Thursday for another episode of Recode Media!

See the article here:
Why Hillary Clinton won't admit that she made mistakes - Recode

She may have been KO'd in her prize fight against The Donald, but Hillary Clinton is still in the ring.

Sort of.

Thanks to a professional wrestler known as "Progressive Liberal" who wears a T-shirt with photos of Hillary's face on it, the former secretary of state, senator and first lady -- or at least her image -- is drawing big-time attention in some of the nation's reddest of red states.

Meet Daniel Harnsberger, a Virginia real estate agent by day, who represents Appalachian Mountain Wrestling and goes by the stage name of Daniel Richards. The Progressive Liberal, a moniker printed on the back of his trunks, routinely taunts audiences in conservative states by denouncing country music and telling the crowd that they are uneducated and backward.

I understand now why you all identify with country music, he says to a crowd at an Appalachian event. Its slow and simple and its boring, just like each and every one of you.

The crowds appear to relish Richards bravado and effrontery because it lets them give as good as they get from him.

Im having a great time, Im enjoying it, says the wrestler-political activist-provocateur to Fox News. Theres an entertainment aspect to me about weaving political statements taking shots at conservatives into his wrestling performances.

Richards is quick to note that his schtick is no show he really believes what he says about Donald Trump, about Republicans favoring the rich, and about people in red states being backward.

I believe what I believe and no one is going to tell me any different, Richards says. The right-wing do not pay attention to details theyre not interested, or to listening to opinions different from their own.

But its not just the right, its also the left that turns a deaf ear to ideas and views that contradict theirs, he notes.

Thats the biggest problem in today in the country, he said of the polarization.

It all started a few years ago, when the coordinator of a wrestling event encouraged him to play the bad guy, and he decided to taunt the audience politically.

After Trumps candidacy in 2015, I had the opportunity to incorporate it. My message is this, Republican policies are not working for you guys, and yet they continue to vote red. Kentucky is a poor state.

Richards, who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont lawmaker, in the Democratic primaries, and for Hillary Clinton in the general election, says hes up for his crowds' push-back.

You have to be unapologetic about who you are and what you believe in --dont be wishy washy, he said.

Republicans stick firmly to their beliefs, and he wishes Democrats would do the same.

Im venting peoples frustrations, Im an outlet for them, he said. People who lean left can relate to me, Im speaking the things theyd like to say.

Elizabeth Llorente is Senior Reporter for FoxNews.com, and can be reached at Elizabeth.Llorente@Foxnews.com. Follow her on Twitter @Liz_Llorente.

Original post:
Hillary Clinton's image, liberal taunts propel professional wrestler to red state infamy - Fox News

July 1 is an important date in American history.

And no, not because, barring a miracle, that date will mark the beginning of the third year Illinois has gone without a budget.

As if that grim anniversary were not bad enough, this July 1 history taps us on the shoulder and reminds us who we used to be.

Two hundred years ago Saturday, DeWitt Clinton was inaugurated as governor of New York.

Who was DeWitt Clinton?He was a politician who wanted to dig a canal across New York State. That way, Atlantic Ocean commerce could pass through the port of New York, move 150 miles down the Hudson River, meet the proposed canal at Albany, float west 350 miles, then enter Lake Erie at Buffalo.

OPINION

A project of this magnitude seemed to demand national effort. Clinton first tried to get the budding federal government to foot the bill. Thomas Jefferson dismissed the canal aslittle short of madness.

But just as states now are picking up balls dropped by our paralyzed federal government, so Clinton brought the battle home. He ran for governor vowing to build the canal if elected.

Clinton won, and was inaugurated on July 1, 1817. Construction of the canal began . . . wait for it . . . three days later, on July 4, just outside Rome, New York. The heart breaks.

The canal 40 feet wide, 4 feet deep and 363 miles long was dug by hand, with shovels and picks, with the occasional black powder explosion. It required 83 locks to surmount 675 feet of elevation, and aqueducts to cross streams. Before the canal, it cost $100 to move a ton of freight from New York City to Buffalo. After the canal opened in 1825, the same shipment cost $10 and got there in a third of the time. Tolls repaid the cost to dig the canal within a decade.

I dont want to suggest that our forebears didnt argue. They did. Historian Peter Bernstein describes the struggle to fund the canal in the New York legislature like this:

On more than one occasion, victory seemed within grasp only to be dashed by the resiliency of the opposition and the incredulity of the timid. In many ways, it was a lot easier for the engineers to improvise this stupendous technological achievement than it was for DeWitt Clinton and his allies to subdue their political opponents.

Yet he did it. We can develop the most advanced medical treatment, CAT scans and exotic drugs. But we cant muster the political will to pay for it. Weve moved so far beyond shovels and mules. Yet we cant pass a budget to keep those projects going. The current Illinois budget impasse will soon close 900 construction projects, worth $5 billion, throwing 25,000 workers out of work.

The Erie Canal didnt just supercharge the rise of New York City and shift power from the South to the North. It also is directly responsible for the explosive growth of a certain marshy nowhere on the banks of Lake Michigan, 500 miles west. Chicago owes its existence to the Erie Canal. Canal fever spread to Ohio, then Indiana. Illinois got the bug and platted the wilderness around Chicago, then sold the land to pay for a canal connecting the Chicago River to the Illinois River and eventually the Mississippi and points south.

History is still with us in more ways than you imagine. I didnt realize until I began my gentle float down canal history, but the Erie Canal is still in use. Mostly for pleasure boats, but the past decades have seen an uptick in barge traffic. Nor is it endangered the New York State constitution stipulates that the canal will be preserved under state management and control forever.

In Illinois, the word forever only evokes the feeling of how long this budget fight has been going on and how long it is likely to continue.

If you are thinking that Chicago really should honor DeWitt Clinton for showing the tenacity that directly led to the creation of our fair city, dont bother. Clinton Street is already named for him. Who did you think it honored?

Read more from the original source:
News flash: Clinton Street was NOT named for Hillary Clinton - Chicago Sun-Times