Mediaboss Marketing

One of the police officers who was grievously wounded last July in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in a brutal attack by Gavin Long, a black, 29-year-old former Marine, filed an action on Friday for damages against the Black Lives Matter movement and several of its leading activists, including DeRay Mckesson and Johnetta Elzie, alleging that they negligently caused the attack.

The complaint alleges that the defendants used the internet and social media to organize, stage and orchestrate protests, that they knew or should have known that some of these protests had in the past become violent and that police officers had been injured, and that they did nothing to condemn or to discourage such violence.

Although I am deeply sympathetic to the plaintiff, an officer who was innocent of any wrongdoing, the trial judge should dismiss the complaint. The essential claim set forth by the plaintiff is that the defendants should have known that their speech condemning the attacks by police officers across the country against African-Americans might at some point lead some individual in this instance an individual with serious emotional issues to viciously attack police officers somewhere in the country.

The reason the judge should dismiss the complaint is not because it was inconceivable that of the millions of individuals exposed to the Black Lives Matter movements expression someone might have done what Long did, but because that is not the test for restricting speech in our democracy.

The First Amendment prohibits government from abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. But what does that mean?

In the Supreme Courts first decisions on the meaning of the First Amendment, during World War I, the Court held that any person whose speech had a bad tendency could be held civilly or criminally liable. Under this approach, an individual could be held liable if he could reasonably have foreseen that his expression might contribute to unlawful conduct. Under this approach, some 2,000 individuals during World War I were imprisoned for terms ranging up to twenty years in prison merely for criticizing the war or the draft, on the theory that such speech might turn people against the war and thus have the effect of discouraging enlistment or encouraging insubordination.

Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis vehemently dissented from this understanding of the First Amendment. Holmes maintained, for example, that we

should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

Several years later, Justice Brandeis added that those who won our independence . . . knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment, that fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly, and that

even advocacy of law breaking... is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on.

In 1969, in a unanimous opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court fully embraced the Holmes-Brandeis approach. The case involved the prosecution of a member of the Ku Klux Klan who declared at a Klan rally that it might be necessary for members of the Klan to take revengence if the government continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race. The Supreme Court held that the defendants speech could not constitutionally be punished and that the First Amendment forbade the government to restrict even speech that expressly advocates unlawful behavior except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

That has been the governing law ever since. But, you might ask, Why? Why shouldnt the First Amendment permit the Black Lives Matter defendants to be held liable because they allegedly should have known that their speech condemning police attacks on African Americans might conceivably have led someone at some time in the future to shoot six policeman? In short, why did the Supreme Court come around to embracing the Holmes-Brandeis approach?

There are many reasons, but here are two of the most obvious. First, experience teaches that individuals are easily deterred from exercising their freedom of speech. This is so because individual speakers usually gain very little personally from speaking out they know that whether they speak or not is not likely to have any significant impact on society. If they fear that they might go to jail or be held liable for damages for their speech, they will often forego their right to speak. This is known as the chilling effect. The net effect of this chilling effect when many individuals react the same way is to mutilate the thought process of the community. If those who endorse the Black Lives Matter movement could potentially be held liable for criticizing police misconduct because their speech might indirectly lead someone to kill a policeman, then our public discourse will be seriously crippled.

Second, experiences also teaches that if government can penalize speakers for their speech under a low standard for liability, it is likely to use that power selectively. It will pursue civil or criminal liability against those who convey views those in authority dislike, while at the same time shielding those whose views they want to encourage. In this way, government would be well placed to manipulate public discourse in a dangerous manner.

Thus, as Holmes and Brandeis consistently maintained, except in emergencies, the proper remedy for speech that might conceivably lead to bad consequences is not to punish the speaker, but to engage in counter-speech, to use other measures to avoid the danger, and to punish the person who actually commits the crime.

In this particular case, the outcome is crystal clear. Indeed, every significant factor needed to hold speakers accountable for the acts of others is missing. These defendants did not expressly advocate the shooting of police officers, there is no reason to believe that they ever specifically intended to encourage such behavior, and there is no reason to believe that their speech had anything directly to do with the heinous actions of Gavin Long.

The judge should quickly and decisively dismiss this complaint to make clear that the First Amendment wholly protects the speech of the Black Lives Matter movement . . . and the freedom of all Americans.

Excerpt from:
The Lawsuit Against Black Lives Matter And The Central ...

According to the Washington Times, LA-based BLM activists released a video saying:

Were talking about our lives here. When theNRAissues a public call to their constituents inciting violence against people who are constitutionally fighting for their lives, we dont take that lightly. We know that we are not safe, but we are not scared, either. We will continue to produce media, teach students, march and protest to not only protect the First Amendment as fiercely as theNRAprotects the Second [Amendment], but to protect our lives from gun-toting racists.

The videos narrator uses the language of us vs. them to mimic the NRAs description of the left as them and the NRAs explanation of how the left uses their media to assassinate the truth. The narrator implies that President Trump is the oppositions president, elected as part of a law and order administration that allows themmeaning policeto shoot first, to make them ask questions to later, make them scream I thought he had a gun in his hand and I feared for my life and he matched the description of a suspect.'

This videoand the subsequent pledge to continue disrupting, demonstrating, and participating in the resistancemakes Black Lives Matter only the latest in a series of leftists and left-leaning groups to criticize the NRA for pointing out the violent propensities of the left.

On July 6 Breitbart News reported that the Los Angles Times suggested the NRAs campaign for truth was antisemitic. Prior to that, the Womens March described the NRAs campaign as a direct endorsement of violence against women and California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom suggested the NRAs campaign for truth was putting politicians lives in danger, including his own.

All of this because the NRA released videos highlighting the lefts propensity for violence in media and in action.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Follow this link:
Black Lives Matter Suggests NRA Campaign for Truth Incites ...

YES

Keri Thompson

Cohasset resident; senior lecturer at Emerson College; 2016 United Independent Party candidate for state representative

handout

Keri Thompson.

As someone who was a dedicated Massachusetts Democrat for more than 10 years, I understand the frustration many voters have with the Democratic Party and Massachusetts politics overall. I became a registered independent almost a year ago because I got tired of waking up every morning not knowing what the Democratic Party stood for anymore.

For Democrats to survive and thrive -- in our state and nationally -- the party urgently needs to embrace a progressive agenda that is both necessary and popular. Voters are craving progressive and bold leadership, and we rarely see anything progressive or bold coming out of Beacon Hill.

Advertisement

Our states bright shade of blue on electoral maps is deceiving because we still dont have a progressive Legislature even with an overwhelmingly veto-proof majority in both branches. The solidly progressive Democratic Party platform gets ignored year after year. For the place that invented America, we have become very good at upholding the status quo. But the status quo is stagnant and uninspiring and fails to tackle the major issues of our time.

If Massachusetts wants to remain one of the nations strongest states, going left is the only option. Non-progressive Democrats claim moderation and pragmatism are key to legislative compromise and getting things accomplished. But most of these accomplishments arent helping anyone. Voters struggle nowadays to find any contrast between our Republican governor and our Democratic Legislature.

Get Today's Headlines in your inbox:

The day's top stories delivered every morning

Our problems demand brave and creative solutions. We need to make voting easier and more convenient. We need a serious discussion about poverty and income inequality. Housing is getting less affordable. We need a $15 minimum wage. We need to protect our public schools while decreasing emphasis on high-stakes testing. We need to make higher education affordable. We need a fairer criminal justice system and sensible drug laws. We need cutting-edge environmental protection, immigration reform, paid family leave, and real single-payer health care. And we especially need campaign finance reform and legislative term limits -- especially for the House Speaker.

My plea to Massachusetts Democrats: Fight harder for progressive ideas. Start rocking the boat. Make voters like me walk into my town hall and proudly register as a Democrat again.

NO

Mark Linde

Ward 1 chairman, Brockton Democratic City Committee; Brockton representative to Southeastern Regional Vocational School District Committee

handout

Mark Linde.

For 37 years I have been a registered Democrat. I followed my dads lead when I registered to vote. Then presidential candidate Jimmy Carter spoke to our class at Brockton High School in 1975 and inspired me to get involved and volunteer extensively on many Democratic campaigns.

Advertisement

I am one of the two Brockton representatives to the Southeastern Regional Vocational School District Committee, elected every four years in a non-partisan election. I believe there is no place in local races for partisan politics even though I am a committed Democrat.

In the same spirit, our state elected officials should try to limit partisan differences. Yes, legislators run under party labels, but their responsibility is to work together to solve problems. That means avoiding extremes and seeking common ground.

I will admit on issues like charter schools, which I oppose, our Democratic Party is on the right side. But we need to resist calls for Democratic lawmakers to abandon the political center and move leftward. Both the party and the state would be better off if they instead continued working with their Republican colleagues on policies that can command broad public support.

It has become very unfashionable to be a fiscal moderate, a centrist, or conservative Democrat. Our Democratic Party has moved left and the Republican Party has moved right. Remember when there were liberal Republicans like former governor William F. Weld and conservative Democrats like former governor Edward King? Honestly, one of the most liberal Democrats, the late US Senator Edward M. Kennedy, knew that to make things work he had to work with both sides.

I believe that President John F. Kennedy might not be welcome in the Democratic Party today because his views might not be viewed as progressive enough. President Bill Clintons positions angered some progressives.

On social issues I find myself more progressive on some and less on others. What I find ironic is that I am labeled as just plain wrong by many progressives if I take a different view from them. In the age of Donald Trump, my question is more important than ever. Why cant we all just get along and work together for the common good?

Last weeks Argument: Should out-of-state drivers licenses be an acceptable form of identification for buying alcohol in Massachusetts?

Yes: 96 percent (117 votes)

No: 4 percent (5 votes)

Read this article:
Do Democrats in the Massachusetts Legislature need to be more progressive? - The Boston Globe

A Maine state lawmaker who is being investigated by the U.S. Secret Service over a threatening online comment about President Trump has been removed from two legislative committees as punishment, the states House speaker announced Friday.

Democratic Rep. Scott Hamann has been kicked off the Health and Human Services Committee and the Marijuana Legalization Implementation Committee, House Speaker Sara Gideon said, the Bangor Daily News reported.

The punishment came three days after Mr. Hamann called President Trump a joke, a rapist, a racist and a liar in a lengthy Facebook rant that concluded with an apparent threat against the president.

Trump is a half term president, at most, especially if I ever get within 10 feet of that p, Mr. Hamann wrote.

He apologized a day later, saying he shouldnt have voiced his frustration by responding with the same vile language currently surrounding politics.

This is not language I typically use, it does not reflect my personal values, and while misguided, it was intended to make a visceral point about the devolving political discourse in America, Mr. Hamann said.

A representative of the U.S. Secret Service said it has opened an investigation into Mr. Hamanns statements.

In Fridays announcement, Ms. Gideon called Mr. Hamanns comments inexcusable and unacceptable.

I hope this consequence sends a clear signal to all members of the House of Representatives that they are expected to conduct themselves with respect at all times and in all media, she said, the Daily News reported.

See original here:
Maine Democrat kicked off committees over 'inexcusable' anti-Trump rant - Washington Times

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump turned up the heat on Friday on fellow Republicans in the U.S. Senate to pass a bill dismantling the Obamacare law, but with their retooled healthcare plan drawing fire within the party even one more defection would doom it.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has planned for a vote next week on revised legislation, unveiled on Thursday, and he has his work cut out for him in the coming days to get the 50 "yes" votes needed for passage. Republicans control the Senate by a 52-48 margin and cannot afford to lose more than two from within their ranks because of united Democratic opposition, but two Republican senators already have declared opposition.

"After all of these years of suffering thru Obamacare, Republican Senators must come through as they have promised," Trump, who made gutting Obamacare one of his central campaign promises last year, wrote on Twitter from Paris, where he attended Bastille Day celebrations.

The top U.S. doctors' group, the American Medical Association, on Friday called the new bill inadequate and said more bipartisan collaboration is needed in the months ahead to improve the delivery and financing of healthcare. Hospital and medical advocacy groups also have criticized the bill.

"The revised bill does not address the key concerns of physicians and patients regarding proposed Medicaid cuts and inadequate subsidies that will result in millions of Americans losing health insurance coverage," AMA President Dr. David Barbe said, referring to the government insurance program for the poor and disabled.

A major test for McConnell's legislation expected early next week is an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which last month forecast that the prior version of the bill would have resulted in 22 million Americans losing insurance over the next decade.

A day after that CBO analysis was issued, McConnell postponed a planned vote on the legislation because of a revolt within his own party, including moderates and hard-line conservatives.

While the bill's prospects may look precarious, the same could have been said of healthcare legislation that ultimately was passed by the House of Representatives. Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan called off a vote in March in the face of a rebellion involving the disparate factions of the party but managed to coax enough lawmakers to back it and engineered narrow approval on May 4.

Vice President Mike Pence sought to shore up support among the nation's governors at a meeting in Rhode Island, but a key Republican governor, Ohio's John Kasich, came out strongly against the revised bill, saying its Medicaid cuts were too deep and it does too little to stabilize the insurance market.

Kasich's opposition could put pressure on Rob Portman, a Republican senator from Ohio, who has not yet taken a position on the bill.

If the current Senate legislation collapses, some lawmakers have raised the possibility of seeking bipartisan legislation to fix parts of Obamacare but leaving intact the structure of the Affordable Care Act, Democratic former President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement, commonly known as Obamacare.

"There are changes that need to be made to the law," Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, told MSNBC, citing "a bipartisan appetite to tackle this issue."

Moderate Susan Collins and conservative Rand Paul already oppose the revised Senate bill. Other Republican senators have either expressed concern or remained noncommittal, including Portman, Mike Lee, Shelley Moore Capito, John McCain, Dean Heller, John Hoeven, Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse, Cory Gardner, Todd Young and Thom Tillis. Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy floated an alternative plan.

The new version was crafted to satisfy the Republican Party's various elements, including moderates worried about Americans who would be left without medical coverage and hard-line conservatives who demand less government regulation of health insurance.

A provision designed to appeal to conservatives would let insurers sell cheap, bare-bones insurance policies that would not have to cover broad benefits mandated under Obamacare.

The bill retained certain Obamacare taxes on the wealthy that the earlier version would have eliminated, a step moderates could embrace. But it kept the core of the earlier bill, including ending the expansion of Medicaid that was instrumental in enabling Obamacare to expand coverage to 20 million people, and restructuring that social safety-net program.

John Thune, a member of the Senate Republican leadership, said in order to complete work on the bill by the end of next week, Senate leaders would have to try to formally begin debate on Tuesday or Wednesday, a move that requires a majority vote.

Reporting by Susan Cornwell and David Alexander; Writing by Will Dunham; Editing by Bernadette Baum and Jonathan Oatis

Original post:
One more Republican defection would doom Senate healthcare bill - Reuters