Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has committed to vote against a U.S.-Saudi deal for precision-guided munitions, a signal Democrats could oppose the deal en masse.

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said Wednesday he would vote to block the sale of $510 million in smart bombs to be used in the war in Yemen because the Trump administration has not yet articulated a strategy to end the war through political means.

Instead, this administrations approach appears to be more weapons sales, Cardin said in a measured statement Wednesday that expressed some support for Riyadh. The administrations decision to proceed with the sale of precision-guided munitions, absent leadership to push all parties toward a political process for a negotiated settlement, including Saudi Arabia, sends the absolutely wrong signal to our partners and our adversaries.

The vote could come as soon as Thursday, when the big news is expected to be former FBI Director's James Comey testifying before the Senate on his interactions with President Trump over Russian meddling in U.S. elections.

"I know Comey hearing is the thing, but don't sleep on a possible Senate vote tomor[row] on Saudi arms sale," Murphy said in a tweet on Wednesday evening. "I'm hustling for votes as we speak..."

The resolution would halt three planned deals. It targets packages of Joint Direct Attack Munitions off the Royal Saudi Air Forces western-made F-15 fighter aircraft; Paveway laser-guided bombs for Saudi Tornado and Typhoon aircraft, and the integration of the FMU-152A/B Joint Programmable Fuze into the MK-80, BLU-109, and BLU-100 munitions.

On Tuesday, Paul said he has gotten little traction with Republicans to block the arms deal and was not sure it would win the simple majority it would need to pass. The best hope was to send a message asserting Congress's war-making authority.

Whichever way it turns out, I think its an important issue because its a proxy debate for should we be at war in Yemen which we are in, in a way, already, Paul said. That should be voted on in Congress and shouldnt be glossed over. When the Obama administration finally pulled back, I think they were influenced by our debate [in the Senate].

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., dismissed the vote as crazy.

I think we need the Saudis right now, and Ive put pressure on them for years and years and years, and theyve made some improvements but they have a long way to go, McCain said. Theyre not a democracy, theyre not the United States of America.

The White House has also been on the defensive over an announced $110 billion arms sale to Riyadh that may be less than advertised. The State Department has to sign off on much of the sales, and about $24 billion were discussed with the Obama administration and were well underway.

There are several reasons for Democrats to oppose the Saudi deal, said one Democratic aide. The vote could serve to show Congresss's concern for the humanitarian crisis amid the administrations apparent ambivalence on humanitarian issues in the Middle East.

Democrats have been vocal on this issue before. Murphy, Paul, Franken and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., introduced a bill in April to suspend certain air-to-ground munition deliveries until the U.S. president certifies that the Saudis show a commitment to fighting terrorism, facilitating the flow of humanitarian and commercial goods, and to protecting civilians in Yemen. A similar resolution was introduced in the House on May 25 with six co-sponsors.

But Murphy said lawmakers then had legitimate concerns the tank sale was not directly connected to the Yemen war, while this munition sales clear connection and history of disapproval by the Obama administration should earn it more opposition.

I think this vote will be very different, Murphy said Tuesday.

As of Wednesday afternoon, some Democrats were still undecided. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said of the munitions sale: Im looking at it. I think Senator Murphy and Senator Paul are making some important points.

I think both parties have always seen arms sales as a means to extract human rights concessions from Middle Eastern governments, and the lack of human rights conditions on this arms sale is worrying to both Republicans and Democrats, Murphy said.

View original post here:
US Senate Democrats rallying votes against Saudi arms sale - DefenseNews.com

New York Times

The Democratic Party Is in Worse Shape Than You Thought New York Times What the autopsy reveals is that Democratic losses among working class voters were not limited to whites; that crucial constituencies within the party see its leaders as alien; and that unity over economic populism may not be able to turn back the ... New York Times writer: Democrats 'embracing' Comey after shunning himWashington Examiner Democratic Edge in Party Affiliation Up to Seven PointsGallup Republicans had jokes about James Comey's upcoming Senate testimony and Democrats called them outAOL The Hill all 53 news articles »

Go here to see the original:
The Democratic Party Is in Worse Shape Than You Thought - New York Times

In a letter to Trump on Tuesday, lawyers from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University called on the president to unblock people on Twitter (TWTR, Tech30). The group is representing two Twitter users who were blocked by the president after they tweeted critical statements to him.

The lawyers argue that Trump can't exclude people from engaging with him on Twitter based on their viewpoints.

"Your Twitter account is a designated public forum for essentially the same reasons that open city council meetings and school board meetings are," the lawyers wrote in the letter.

The letter is directed at the @RealDonaldTrump account, but lawyers say it applies to the @POTUS account as well.

When someone is blocked on Twitter, they are unable to follow the account, view the account's tweets when logged in to the service, or view tweets the account has liked.

Related: Trump appears to take his cues from Fox News in tweets on London attack

The letter raises interesting questions about how government social media accounts should be treated. The lawyers aren't saying all Twitter blocking violates the First Amendment, but if government officials use Twitter in an official capacity, they shouldn't be able to block people for expressing an opinion.

"While [the letter] relates to our most prominent Twitter user, the principles we seek to vindicate apply to all public officials and public entities that use social media to conduct government business and allow the public to participate," Katie Fallow, senior attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, told CNN Tech.

Nearly all high level public officials use Twitter -- many of them to engage in official business.

Courts have previously said public social media accounts used as public forums should not censor opinions. In Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, the plaintiff argued that deleting a post on the Facebook page of a County Supervisor violated the plaintiff's First Amendment rights. The court agreed, saying the county can't discriminate or block people based on their views.

On Tuesday, press secretary Sean Spicer said Trump's tweets are considered official White House statements.

If Trump doesn't unblock Twitter users, Fallow said the Knight First Amendment Institute would consider a lawsuit.

CNNMoney (San Francisco) First published June 6, 2017: 6:03 PM ET

Continued here:
Trump blocking Twitter critics raises First Amendment ...

Photograph by Getty Images

Twitter users block others on the service all the time, in some cases because they are abusive and sometimes just because they're irritating. But is it different if the user doing the blocking happens to be the president of the United States?

The Knight First Amendment Institute says it is different, or at least that it should be. The Institute, a non-profit group associated with Columbia University, has sent a letter to the White House arguing that Trump is breaching the First Amendment rights of those he blocks.

It might seem laughable at first -- and there are some First Amendment experts and supporters who appear to find it so -- but the Institute believes that it has a valid case.

According to the letter, written by Institute director Jameel Jaffer, the president's Twitter account fits the legal definition of a "designated public forum," and as such it can't be closed to public access under the First Amendment.

Get Data Sheet , Fortunes technology newsletter.

In effect, the Institute argues that the law requires Trump make his account available to everyone regardless of whether they criticize him. It has said it is considering pursuing a case against the president on behalf of two users who were blocked by him.

"Though the architects of the Constitution surely didnt contemplate presidential Twitter accounts, they understood that the President must not be allowed to banish views from public discourse simply because he finds them objectionable," Jaffer said in a statement.

"Having opened this forum to all comers, the President cant exclude people from it merely because he dislikes what theyre saying."

Not everyone is buying this argument, however. Ken White, a former assistant U.S. Attorney who writes legal commentary at Popehat and is a First Amendment expert, said that he found the idea of the Institute's case "ridiculous."

Ken Paulson, president of the First Amendment Center, told the Wall Street Journal that the Institute had a "novel and ambitious argument" that was clearly in the public interest. But he also described it as a "tough sell."

Is the presidents Twitter account "a public forum where interactive free expression is expected or more like a newsletter, where the communication is all one way?" Paulson asked. Municipalities that establish Facebook pages and invite citizen input may be creating public forums, "but Im not sure that Donald Trumps brief bursts of opinion are the same thing."

There a number of problems with determining whether Trump's Twitter account is a public forum or not, and one of them stems from the fact that the law is far from settled on the question of what exactly constitutes a truly public forum.

The other complicating factor is that Twitter is a privately-held company, and the president is just behaving in accordance with its terms of service.

The laws relating to free public access to government property were designed to protect the ability of demonstrators, protesters, etc. to speak their mind in public parks and other areas. The extension of this right to any "public forum" didn't occur until a Supreme Court decision in 1972, and from that point things just got more and more complicated.

As University of Florida law professor Lyrissa Lydsky put it in a legal paper on the First Amendment and online forums that was published in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court's public forum and government speech doctrines are "lacking in coherence -- to put it mildly."

In a nutshell, there are several definitions for public forums, based in part on what the government's intentions were in setting them up in the first place. In a fully public forum, opposing views can't be censored. But a "limited public forum," which has a specific purpose, can be restricted in a variety of ways.

To further complicate things, the government and its representatives are protected from First Amendment rules on such matters if what they are doing is defined by the court as "government speech." If so, then feedback or input or access theoretically can be restricted.

So should Donald Trump's Twitter account be considered a public forum, a limited public forum, or a form of protected government speech?

Comments from press secretary Sean Spicer on Tuesday could be pertinent to such a case, because he said that Trump's tweets are considered to be "official statements by the president." That could support the argument that Trump is engaging in government speech, and therefore opposing viewpoints can be restricted without breaching the First Amendment.

Visit link:
Trump Blocking Twitter Users Is a First Amendment Issue ...

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

That was the obsequious question asked by aNew YorkTimes reporter during one of President Barack Obamas first press conferences, in April 2009.

The media were unperturbed by the presidents rough treatment of the Fourth Estate thus far how his campaign hijacked a press plane, with journalists aboard, flying them to Chicago without the candidate; how the campaignattempted to silence a journalist, Stanley Kurtz, when he revealed the truth of Obamas relationship with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers; and how Obama aides suggested that the Fairness Doctrine be revived in an effort to shut down vigorous opposition from talk radio.

No Obama was their man, and that was all that needed to be said about press freedom and independence.TheWashington Postgushed overa visit from the President-elect in January 2009:

Barack Obama visited the Washington Post to meet the editorial board and national staff, but his tour of the 5th floor newsroom nearly stopped the presses.

Staff writers, photographers, editors and employees from other departments lined the hallway after word spread that the President-elect would be walking through the newroom.

At about 3:15 p.m., Obama entered through a back hallway and began shaking hands, as professional newsmen and women reached over to shake his hand and take pictures. Obama was trailed by advisor David Axelrod, assistant Reggie Love, Post Chairman Donald Graham, Publisher Katharine Weymouth and Editor Marcus Brauchli.

Throughout the Obama administration, the press did little to stand up for the First Amendment not when Obama froze the White House press pool out of his activities; not when the administration targeted the Associated Press and Fox News reporter James Rosen; not even when President Obama signed the Press Freedom Act but refused to take press questions. Many in the media even cheered Obamas assaults on the First Amendment inCitizens United and Obamacares contraceptive mandate.

So it is difficult, now, to take the mainstreammediaseriously when they warn of dangers to press freedom and the First Amendment from President-elect Trump. As Politico notes, theTimes andWall Street Journaljoined NBC NewsMeet the Press whose host infamously declared the election over on October 8 to express their wariness over the incoming president-elects respect for the First Amendment.

Trump has done nothing to challenge the First Amendment as Hillary Clinton did, directly. He has called for tougher libel laws, such as those that exist in the United Kingdom (alongside a more vigorous opposition press). He has alsofeuded often with journalists,who made no secret of their hostility towards him, andfrequentlydistorted reality in a desperate effort todestroy his campaign.

That is all.

The media will need to be vigilant and vigorous during a Trump administration as they ought to have been during the Obama administration.And it is certainly good news that theTimes, among many other outlets, is finally remembering, after more than eight long years,that part of the medias job is to serve as a check on power.

But guardiansof the First Amendment? Hardly.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the most influential people in news media in 2016. His new book,See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Cant Handle, is available from Regnery through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

See the article here:
Media Suddenly Find Courage to Stand up for First Amendment