Mediaboss Marketing

Common practice for liberals and conservatives now is to take turns calling each other enemies of the First Amendment. The results of this years State of the First Amendment survey gave us the opportunity to consider these insults and after the numbers are crunched, who is the real enemy of the First Amendment?

Well, no one. And, everyone.

Most of our fellow citizens, regardless of their political ideology, are quite fond of the First Amendment, at least in the abstract. The people who think that the First Amendment goes too far are a minority 22.5 percent of us. A majority of Americans (67.7 percent) think that the press plays an important role as a watchdog on government; a slightly narrower majority (58.8 percent) thinks that freedom of religion should extend to all religious groups, even those widely considered extreme or fringe.

Thats the good news: Even in a time of great political turmoil, were generally supportive of the First Amendments protections.

The bad news: When it comes down to specific applications of the First Amendment, were less positive, and also deeply divided along ideological lines. Both liberals and conservatives have certain pain points where they balk at the amount of protection that the First Amendment provides.

Liberals are more likely than conservatives to think:

Colleges should be able to ban speakers with controversial views.

People should not be able to express racist comments on social media.

Meanwhile, conservatives are more likely than liberals to think:

Government officials who leak information to the press should be prosecuted.

Journalists should not be able to publish information obtained illegally, even if it serves the public interest.

Government should be able to determine which media outlets can attend briefings.

Government should be able to hold Muslims to a higher standard of scrutiny.

Worth noting: Some of these differences in attitude may not be a direct result of whether youre a liberal or a conservative; instead, they might be circumstantial. Do more liberals support press freedoms because thats a core value of liberal ideology or because the press is a watchdog on the government, which liberals dont currently control?

Do more conservatives think that colleges shouldnt be able to ban speakers because of a greater commitment to free speech or because most banned speakers, at least in recent years, have tended to be conservative? It will be interesting to see in subsequent years if attitudes change as circumstances change.

One thing that unites the majority of Americans right now: Most of us, liberals and conservatives, prefer to read or listen to news that aligns with our own views.

Thats true even if you think that the news media reports with a bias, as most Americans do (56.8 percent). Apparently, were not inclined to correct that bias by taking in multiple and varied news sources. Instead, were more likely to double down on the news that fits in with our pre-existing ideological perspectives.

This finding is both obvious and disheartening: Everyone likes reading and hearing news that confirms what they already believed. Thats one of the factors that keep us so divided.

Lata Nott is executive director of the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute. Contact her via email at lnott@newseum.org, or follow her on Twitter at @LataNott.

SHARE YOUR VIEWS

The Commercial-News invites readers and organizations to submit columns for this page. Submissions should be 500-600 words and must include the authors name, address and telephone number. Local topics are preferred. Send submissions to newsroom@dancomnews.com; submit them through the Letters to the Editor function on our website, http://www.commercial-news.com; or mail them to: Commercial-News, c/o PO Box 787, Danville, IL 61832.

Read the original:
Nott: Our love-hate relationship with the First Amendment | Opinion ... - Danville Commercial News

Mary Hogan

The West Peoria Fourth on July Parade, by it nature and history, is a time to wave the flag and celebrate the nation. It is not a place to make a political statement.

Like it or not, Donald Trump is the elected president of the United States and deserves our respect. It is disgusting and deplorable that some use the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to make a distasteful display during the parade to voice displeasure with Mr. Trump.

Fourth of July parades have always been a traditional way to pass on to our youth the meaning of patriotism and respect for our nation. Our children should not have to see this type of vulgar display.

Yes, these dissenters have the right to make a statement, but it is also the responsibility of the parade organizers to set the theme of the parade by previewing the content of exhibits before the parade begins. If parade officials do not monitor the content in the future, I fear the parade will fade.

Mary Hogan

Dunlap

See the original post:
Letter: First Amendment no excuse - Peoria Journal Star

In a decision in a ripped-from-the-headlines issue, a federal appeals court has held that recording video of police officers in the act of performing their duties is protected First Amendment speech.

The issue is a hot-button one given the recent incidents of officer-involved shootings captured on cell phones and other recording devices.

"[T]he First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public," said a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

It was reversing a district court finding that recording was not a First Amendment activity because it was not "sufficiently expressive."

The panel said the case was not about whether or not the plaintiffs have expressed themselves but about whether there was a First Amendment right of access to information about how public servants operate in public. The panel said there definitely is.

The case involved the Philadelphia Police Department preventing bystanders from recording officers at an anti-fracking protest attempting to make an arrest and/or retaliating for the recording.

"We ask much of our police," said the appeals court panel. "They can be our shelter from the storm. Yet officers are public officials carrying out public functions, and the First Amendment requires them to bear bystanders recording their actions. This is vital to promote the access that fosters free discussion of governmental actions, especially when that discussion benefits not only citizens but the officers themselves. We thus reverse and remand for further proceedings."

Not surprisingly, news outlets had weighed in in support of the plaintiff's appeal to the Third Circuit.

(Photo viaTori Rector's Flickr.Image taken on July 21, 2016and used perCreative Commons 2.0 license. The photo was cropped to fit 3x4 aspect ratio.)

Continued here:
Court: Recording Police Is Protected Speech | Broadcasting & Cable - Broadcasting & Cable

Common practice for liberals and conservatives now is to take turns calling each other enemies of the First Amendment. The results of this year's "State of the First Amendment" survey gave us the opportunity to consider these insults and after the numbers are crunched, who is the real enemy of the First Amendment?

Well, no one. And, everyone.

Most of our fellow citizens, regardless of their political ideology, are quite fond of the First Amendment, at least in the abstract. The people who think that the First Amendment goes too far are a minority 22.5 percent of us. A majority of Americans (67.7 percent) thinks that the press plays an important role as a watchdog on government; a slightly narrower majority (58.8 percent) thinks that freedom of religion should extend to all religious groups, even those widely considered extreme or fringe.

That's the good news: Even in a time of great political turmoil, we're generally supportive of the First Amendment's protections.

The bad news: When it comes down to specific applications of the First Amendment, we're less positive, and also deeply divided along ideological lines. Both liberals and conservatives have certain pain points where they balk at the amount of protection that the First Amendment provides.

Liberals are more likely than conservatives to think:

Colleges should be able to ban speakers with controversial views.

People should not be able to express racist comments on social media.

Meanwhile, conservatives are more likely than liberals to think:

Government officials who leak information to the press should be prosecuted.

Journalists should not be able to publish information obtained illegally, even if it serves the public interest.

Government should be able to determine which media outlets can attend briefings.

Government should be able to hold Muslims to a higher standard of scrutiny.

Worth noting: Some of these differences in attitude may not be a direct result of whether you're a liberal or a conservative; instead, they might be circumstantial. Do more liberals support press freedoms because that's a core value of liberal ideology or because the press is a watchdog on the government, which liberals don't currently control?

Do more conservatives think that colleges shouldn't be able to ban speakers because of a greater commitment to free speech or because most banned speakers, at least in recent years, have tended to be conservative? It will be interesting to see in subsequent years if attitudes change as circumstances change.

One thing that unites the majority of Americans right now: Most of us, liberals and conservatives, prefer to read or listen to news that aligns with our own views.

That's true even if you think that the news media reports with a bias, as most Americans do (56.8 percent). Apparently, we're not inclined to correct that bias by taking in multiple and varied news sources. Instead, we're more likely to double down on the news that fits in with our pre-existing ideological perspectives.

This finding is both obvious and disheartening: Everyone likes reading and hearing news that confirms what they already believed. That's one of the factors that keep us so divided.

Lata Nott

Executive director

First Amendment Center

Newseum Institute.

Washington, D.C.

Read this article:
Our love-hate relationship with the First Amendment - Keyser Mineral Daily News Tribune

Samantha Bee and Hillary Clinton are "Nasty Women" for a favorite cause.(Photo: Getty/EPA)

Hillary Clinton is teaming up with longtime supporter Samantha Bee to support a favorite cause:Planned Parenthood.

The former Democratic presidential candidate tweeted a photo posing with a new item of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee merch, a t-shirt emblazoned with "Nasty Woman," the infamous insult-turned-catchphrase that President Trump coined about Clinton during a debate last year.

"Support Samantha Bee & Planned Parenthood & buy a Nasty Woman t-shirt!" she wrote, linking to a TBS product page for the $25 t-shirt.

According to the product page, proceeds from the shirt support thePlanned Parenthood Advocacy Project for Los Angeles County, described as "a political advocacy organization that works to advance reproductive health through political action, advocacy, and education."

"By getting this exclusive 'Nasty Woman' shirt, youre joining Samantha Bee and countless other smart, fearless women and men in supporting Planned Parenthood Advocacy Project Los Angeles County, standing up for womens (aka, human) rights and helping to pave the way for a brighter future," readsthe shirt's description. "This is such an incredible time in our country's history. Don't you want to look back on it with pride, knowing that you helped make a difference? We do! Join us and lets make it happen."

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2uenw42

Link:
Hillary Clinton models 'Nasty Woman' shirt for Planned Parenthood - USA TODAY