Mediaboss Marketing

In reorganizing the local party organization that was decertified as dysfunctional a year ago by state party chair Mary Mancini, Shelby County Democrats are thinking big.

Thats big in several senses of the word, as four key members of the soon-to-be reorganized Shelby County Democratic Party explained in a press conference this past week at the IBEW meeting hall on Madison, a frequent party meeting spot.

The four were David Cambron, a state party committeeman, former party vice chair, and president of the Germantown Democrats; David Cocke and Carlissa Shaw, co-chairs of the ad hoc group that held four county-wide reorganizational forums over the last several months; and Danielle Inez, newly elected president of the countys Young Democrats.

As the four explained to attending media, the newly reorganized SCDP will be numerically bigger, consisting of two separate bodies, an executive committee composed of two members (one male, one female) from each of the countys 13 County commission districts and a few additional ex officio members; as well as a Grass Roots Council, consisting of 130 members.

Both the Council, which will meet quarterly, and the executive committee, will be elected at a convention to be held on Saturday, July 22, from 10 to 11 a.m. at Mississippi Boulevard Baptist Church. A second convention will be held at the same site two weeks later on August 5 to elect a local party chair.

We think weve done it right, said Cocke. We intend to be an active party, not just a party that meets once a month to get in trouble.We need a big tent. He defined the Grass Roots Council as an activist, issue-oriented body, whereas the exective committee wold conduct the routine business of party affairs.

Saying that a lot of Democrats want to hit the pavement, Shaw elaborated on the Council as a body able to speak to the executive committee.

As Cambron noted, The world changed on November 8. We designed a new party to include new people, new activists, and new groups, citing the recently founded grop Indivisible as an example of the latter.

On the thorny issue of defining who Democrats are, Cocke said certain requirements would be imposed but not so many as to inhibit party growth.

Inez said that the local party would be guided in large measure by the parameters for membership established by the state Democratic Party. And one thing wont change: Both she and Shaw said that Roberts Rules of Order would remain the basis for conduct of meetings and that members of the executive committee would receive training sessions on the parliamentary formula.

(Shaw had noted, in one of the forums conducted by the reorganization group, that confusion had resulted in meetings of the former SCDP because of the differing degrees of familiarity with Roberts Rules by executive committee members.)

For those who want to know more about the new party and its new rules, Cocke credited Inez with the preparation of a cheat sheet on all the details, which can be found on the partys website shelbydem.org.

Visit link:
Local Democrats Herald Bigger, Better Party to Come - Memphis Flyer

President Trump may have pressed Russian President Vladimir Putin on interference in the U.S. presidential campaign during their Friday meeting, but to Democrats it was too little, too late.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said it was a "dereliction of duty" for the Trump administration to give "equal credence" to U.S. intelligence agencies blaming Moscow for the election year hacking and Russian denials of the same.

"President Trump had an obligation to bring up Russia's interference in our election with Putin, but he has an equal obligation to take the word of our intelligence community rather than that of the Russian president," Schumer said in a statement. "For Secretary [of State Rex] Tillerson to say that this issue will remain unresolved is disgraceful."

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, argued in a statement Friday that Trump had already undermined anything he might have said to Putin by appearing uncertain of Russian meddling the previous day.

"Whatever the president actually told Putin, it would have had much more force if just the day before President Trump had not equivocated about who was behind the unprecedented attack targeting America last fall," Warner said. "It would also have had more force if he had not again criticized the integrity of our intelligence agencies, among whom there is unwavering agreement about Russia's active interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election."

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama appointee, made a similar argument on Twitter, saying Trump's "inexplicable refusal to confirm Russian election interference insults career intel pros" and will make it more difficult to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Tillerson came out of the first face-to-face meeting between the U.S. and Russian presidents saying Trump opened by bringing up the election interference and "repeatedly" questioned Putin on the subject.

There are other pressing international issues in need of a resolution, such as Syria and North Korea, which Tillerson implied was why they eventually moved on from talking about the 2016 presidential election. A southwestern Syrian ceasefire was announced after the meeting.

But Trump and Putin met in a political context where rank-and-file Democrats believe the Republican benefited from this hacking and may have even won because of it. An NPR/PBS/Marist poll found 80 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of independents believe Trump did something unethical or illegal with Russia.

Late last year, an Economist/YouGov poll determined that more than half of Democrats believed the Russians changed votes from Hillary Clinton to Trump, a proposition for which there is no evidence. That result came before a number of other incidents heightened Russia scrutiny, such as the firing of FBI Director James Comey and the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.

It is unclear how much political hay Democrats can raise on Russia outside their base. The party lost a series of competitive special congressional elections, which led some Democratic lawmakers to call for the party to focus more on the economy and less on Russia.

Nevertheless, multiple investigations into Russia's actions and whether there was any collusion with the Trump campaign continue. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, published an op-ed arguing that putting America first meant confronting Putin, using Trump's campaign slogan against him.

There was little likelihood that Democrats would be pleased with the outcome of the Trump-Putin meeting. But they and some Republican Russia hawks were incensed by talk of a joint U.S.-Russian cybersecurity task force and called on Trump to sign tougher Russian sanctions into law.

"The establishment of a working group as reported by Foreign Minister Lavrov to study how to curb cyber interference in elections in which the Russians would play any role, would be akin to inviting the North Koreans to participate in a commission on nonproliferation it tacitly adopts the fiction that the Russians are a constructive partner on the subject instead of the worst actor on the world stage," Schiff said in a statement.

Trump is the third straight U.S. president to try to find a negotiating partner in Putin.

Here is the original post:
Democrats find Trump's Russia rebuke too little, too late - Washington Examiner

The First Amendment protects our right to use electronic devices to record on-duty police officers, according to a new ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Fields v. Philadelphia. This right extends to anyone with a recording device, journalists and members of the public alike. And this right includes capture of photos, videos, and audio recordings.

EFF filed an amicus brief seeking this ruling. We argued that people routinely use their electronic devices to record and share images and audio, and that this often includes newsworthy recordings of on-duty police officers interacting with members of the public.

The Third Circuit began its Fields opinion by framing the right to record in history and policy:

In 1991 George Holliday recorded video of the Los Angeles Police Department officers beating Rodney King and submitted it to the local news. Filming police on the job was rare then but common now. With advances in technology and the widespread ownership of smartphones, civilian recording of police officers is ubiquitous. . . . These recordings have both exposed police misconduct and exonerated officers from errant charges.

The Third Circuit recognized that all five federal appellate courts that previously addressed this issue held that the First Amendment protects the right to record the police.

The court next reasoned that the right to publish recordings depends on the predicate right to make recordings. Specifically:

The First Amendment protects actual photos, videos, and recordings, . . . and for this protection to have meaning the Amendment must also protect the act of creating that material. There is no practical difference between allowing police to prevent people from taking recordings and actually banning the possession or distribution of them.

The court also reasoned that the right to record the police is grounded in the First Amendment right of access to information about their officials public activities. The court explained:

Access to information regarding public police activity is particularly important because it leads to citizen discourse on public issues, the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.

The court identified the many ways that civilian recordings of police activity are beneficial by capturing critical information:

Importantly, the court concluded that recordings of on-duty police have contributed greatly to our national discussion of proper policing. Among other things, they have improved professional reporting, as video content generated by witnesses and bystanders has become a common component of news programming. As a result, recordings have spurred action at all levels of government to address police misconduct and to protect civil rights.

Qualified Immunity

The Third Circuit erred on the issue of qualified immunity. This is a legal doctrine that protects government employees from paying money damages for violating the Constitution, if the specific right at issue was not clearly established at the time they violated it. In Fields, the Third Circuit unanimously held that going forward, the First Amendment protects the right to record the police. But the majority held that this right was not clearly established at the time the police officers in the case violated this right.

Judge Nygaard dissented on this point. He persuasively argued that this right was in fact clearly established, given the prior rulings of other appellate courts, the City of Philadelphias own policies, and the frequency that people (including police officers themselves) use their mobile devices to make recordings. On the bright side, the Third Circuit remanded the question of municipal liability, so there is still a possibility that the injured parties, whose right to record was disrupted by police, can obtain damages from the city.

Location of Recording

The Third Circuit in Fields sometimes formulated the First Amendment right to record police as existing in public places. This is true. But the right also exists in private places. For example, a home owner might record police officers searching their home without a warrant. Also, a complainant about police misconduct, speaking to internal affairs officers inside a police station, might record those officers discouraging her from pressing charges. In such cases, there is a First Amendment right to record on-duty police officers in a private place.

Rather than ask whether the place of recording was public or private, courts should ask whether the subject of recording had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Critically, on-duty police have no such expectation while speaking with civilians, whether they are in a public or private place.

The Fields decision is not to the contrary. Rather, it simply addressed the facts in that case, which concerned civilians recording on-duty police officers who happened to be in public places. Also, the Fields opinion at another point correctly framed the issue as recording police officers performing their official duties.

Interference

The court discussed another possible limitation on the right to record the policewhether recording may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions to ensure that it doesnt interfere with policy activity. However, this issue was not before the court. It remains to be seen how future courts will address limitations on the First Amendment right to record the police.

The Third Circuits Fields decision is an important victory for the right of technology users to record on-duty police officers. But the struggle continues. Across the country, many government officials continue to block members of the public from using their electronic devices to record newsworthy events. EFF will continue to fight for this vital right.

View original post here:
Third Circuit Declares First Amendment Right to Record Police - EFF

NewsBusters (press release) (blog)

Here's a First Amendment Case You Should Care About NewsBusters (press release) (blog) First Amendment cases are very much on the national mind these days, and the news from the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is very encouraging for those who believe in strong protections for constitutional freedoms. The court delivered a First Amendment ...

See more here:
Here's a First Amendment Case You Should Care About - NewsBusters (press release) (blog)

Welcome to the weeklyCampus news of the weekroundup here atUSA TODAY College. There are around 5,000 colleges and universities in the U.S. Heres a snapshot of the most compelling stories that happened on campus around the country this week, according to student newspapers.

According to the Daily Bruin, the Los Angeles-wide minimum wage increase will have direct effects on the UCLA campus.

Along with a pay raise for campus workers, graduate student representative Patrick Adler told the Daily Bruin that students and faculty members should expect some price raises as well. The price of a cup of coffee, for example, could go up.

The Crimson White reports that the family of former University of Alabama student Megan Rondini, who committed suicide last year after being sexually assaulted in Tuscaloosa, is filing a wrongful death suit against university personnel.

Rondini was the subject of a recent Buzzfeed article about her experiences following the assault.

This undated photo provided by the University of Illinois Police Department shows Yingying Zhang, a Chinese woman from a central Illinois university town who was kidnapped. Zhang was about a month into a yearlong appointment at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign when she disappeared June 9, 2017. (Photo: Courtesy of the University of Illinois Police Department via AP)

The Daily Illini reports that the alleged kidnapper of missing scholar Yingying Zhang, Brendt Christensen, will be held without bond until his first court date July 15.

Yingying Zhang went missing June 9, and was last seen entering a black car near campus. She is presumed dead.

According to theDaily Californian, UC Berkeley is attempting to dismiss the lawsuit filed by conservative student groups following what was seen as an alleged mishandling around visiting conservative speakers on campus.

The Berkeley College Republicans and Young Americas Foundations lawsuit came after conservative writer David Horowitz was held to what they say were unfair standards when compared with non-conservative speakers.

The Daily Californian reports that the plaintiffs must respond by August 11 and UC-Berkeley will in turn have to respond by August 25.

See the original post here:
Campus news of the week: Kidnapping, the minimum wage, the First Amendment and more - USA TODAY College