Mediaboss Marketing

Trice-EdneyFor years, Black people have delivered our vote to Democrats. Many Democrats wouldnt have won without our vote. Now some Black people, and other people of color, have become discouraged because no matter the votes we deliver, we are taken for granted. Once elected, many forget our efforts on their behalf.

When I ran for the U.S. Congress in my home state of Louisiana, I lost by less than one-percent in a 2/3rds Democratic District. Much of my organized support came from Congressional Black Caucus members and a few Progressive Whites. I received lukewarm-to-no support from the state Democratic Party. On the strength of Black voters and a few White people, I won 97,000 votes at a time when many Democrats were winning their Congressional seats with 35,000 to 40,000 votes. As a first time candidate, we brought out a record number of Democratic voters in my district.

Congressman John Breaux also ran for the U.S. Senate. His campaign events werent attracting as many potential voters as mine. His crowds were often so thin that he left and came to my events. We welcomed him, and on the strength of the Black vote, he won. I lost narrowly because he was unable to deliver any votes to my campaign.

My campaign ended with a debt. Customarily, losing candidates get help from those who win to assist in debt-erasing fundraising efforts. Since I had helped him so much, I thought it was logical that Mr. Breaux would lend his name to a fundraiser for me. Instead, his response was, Well, Im a U.S. Senator now, and I dont lend my name lightly. Im sure therere other candidates who can relate. Apparently, Mr. Breauxs Whiteness overshadowed his party loyalty and loyalty to his fellow Democrats. Thats just one example of the treatment African American Democrats often receive from the Party we consistently help to gain so many victories.

Until President Barack Obama ran for office, I voted for Democrats, but Id lost my enthusiasm for my Party. My enthusiasm returned full force in 2008 and 2012. By 2016, I still enthusiastically supported Secretary Hillary Clinton. I did so because she was a Democrat, but also because she was a womanand, just as we had waited for the election of an African American, we women had waited too long to see a woman elected President. African American women worked so hard and had such high hopes, but so many of our White friendsespecially White womenbetrayed us and voted for Donald Trump! My enthusiasm was once again damaged.

Now, I see a Party leadership enslaved to misplaced loyalties. Rather than growing and rewarding that portion of the base that has given unwavering allegiance to party objectives, leaders debate the how-tos of making white males happy and bringing white women, who rejected the Party en masse, back into the fold.

A pragmatic post-mortem of Election 2016 indicates a party failure to focus on registration efforts in the Black community. There was a reluctance to spend money with organizations and efforts by the Black press to help Get-Out-the-Vote. The party lost opportunities to place our issues up front and center, to hire more of us on their staffs, and to do more to show their appreciation for our loyalty.

Despite the current discord in national politics, we need to be able to identify who we can confidently call leader. Whatever the party agenda, it must specifically address a realistic plan to improve our communities, put our people to work, fix our schools and streets, and put an end to the insane racist behavior trending throughout the nation. Democrats, your most loyal supporters are waiting for you to recognize what The Party would look like without us!

Dr. E. Faye Williams can be reached at: http://www.nationalcongressbw.org ;or at, 202/678-6788

See the article here:
DEMOCRATS, WE ARE YOUR BASE! - Afro American

News & Observer

Are immigrants taking farm jobs from US citizens? In NC, farmers say no. News & Observer The messages on immigration reform from the White House have been mixed. In April, Trump and Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue hosted a roundtable, which included N.C. Commissioner of Agriculture Steve Troxler, to address farmers' concerns. and more »

Read the rest here:
Are immigrants taking farm jobs from US citizens? In NC, farmers say no. - News & Observer

Twitter's First Amendment lawsuit against the government for limitations on National Security Letter reporting will be allowed to continue. This is good news for Twitter -- and the general public -- although it's somewhat disheartening to see things have only moved this far in the three years since the lawsuit was filed.

Reporting on NSLs is limited to "bands." A social media service receiving three NSLs has to report it as "0-499." The same goes for a service that receives 300 NSLs over the same period. Twitter is fighting to have these "bands" removed, in order to more accurately report the number of NSLs it receives.

So far, the government's arguments for leaving the bands in place have been as vague as the information tech companies are allowed to release. It asserts -- without evidence -- that reporting the actual number of NSLs (or FISA orders) will harm national security. The fact that NSLs are accompanied by indefinite gag orders grants the government an insane amount of opacity relative to the level of oversight these NSLs receive. NSLs are administrative documents the FBI (and other agencies) can issue themselves, which receive no impartial scrutiny from judges or anyone outside the issuing agency.

The government's attempt to dismiss this lawsuit has failed, so Twitter will be allowed to move forward with its First Amendment lawsuit. The opening of the opinion [PDF] makes it clear the DOJ going to need to come up with a better argument if it hopes to keep this banded opacity in place. (via Ars Technica)

The Court finds the Government has not met its high burden to overcome the strong presumption of unconstitutionality on the record before the Court. The Governments restrictions on Twitters speech are content-based prior restraints subject to the highest level of scrutiny under the First Amendment. The restrictions are not narrowly tailored to prohibit only speech that would pose a clear and present danger or imminent harm to national security. The Government argues that the limitations imposed on Twitter are necessary because disclosure of data concerning the number and type of national security legal process that it received in a time period would impair national security interests and is properly classified. However, the Government has not presented evidence, beyond a generalized explanation, to demonstrate that disclosure of the information in the Draft Transparency Report would present such a grave and serious threat of damage to national security as to meet the applicable strict scrutiny standard.

An unclassified declaration by the director of the FBI's national security branch appears to form the basis for the assertions the court finds lacking. It's basically what's covered above: the information is "properly classified" and releasing it would do damage to national security. Other arguments along the same lines are applied to granular disclosure of received FISA orders. The DOJ points out the First Amendment does not allow possessors of classified information to share it freely.

The court says this bare assertion isn't enough to overcome Twitter's valid First Amendment complaint:

[T]he Court does not agree with the Governments position that simply determining information meets the requirements for classification under Executive Order 13526 ends the Constitutional analysis. That the information is classified is not, in itself, a sufficient basis for the Governments prohibition on its disclosure

The First Amendment requires strict scrutiny of content-based restrictions and prior restraints, regardless of the Governments basis for nondisclosure.

It's not just the DOJ's public arguments that suck. The court points assertions made behind closed doors have also done nothing to justify the prior restraint.

Here, the declarations of Steinbach, both in camera and public, fail to provide sufficient details indicating that the decision to classify the information in the Draft Transparency Report was based on anything more specific than the reporting bands in section 1874 and the FBIs position that more granular information could be expected to harm national security. The declarations do not provide an indication of grave or imminent harm arising from the disclosures in the Draft Transparency Report. Rather, the concerns raised to relate to the overall concern from one or more of any electronic communication service regardless of the specific provider or circumstance. Merely declaring a view that more granular reporting would create an unacceptable risk does not make it so, especially in light of the Governments acknowledgement of the strong public interest in the information.

The government is apparently so used to receiving judicial deference it didn't bother to do much more than recite its national security mantras.

Rather, the declaration largely relies on a generic, and seemingly boilerplate, description of the mosaic theory and a broad brush concern that the information at issue will make more difficult the complications associated with intelligence gathering in the internet age.

If the DOJ has an actual, articulable reason for forbidding more precise transparency reporting, it has yet to deliver this argument to the court. However, it's had three years to do so and hasn't produced anything yet. It appears to feel the court should make with the NATSEC deference and toss the case. Now, it's actually going to need to produce some evidence that granular reporting will harm intelligence gathering or harm the nation.

The rest is here:
Judge Says Twitter Can Move Forward With First Amendment Lawsuit Over NSL Reporting Limitations - Techdirt

The grey area between questions of privacy rights and First Amendment rights were central to TheWraps panel discussion in Los Angeles Thursday night, The First Amendment In the Age of Trump and needless to say, there were plenty of issues to debate.

Brian Knappenberger, director of the documentary Nobody Speak: Trials of a Free Press, feels that Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiels secretive involvement in the Hulk Hogan/Gawker trial threatened the First Amendment rights of the free press. But the irony is that the First Amendment in part protects Thiels secrecy.

Or consider how universities have been locked in debate over whether figures like Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopoulos have the right to speak on college campuses. The First Amendment protects their right to speak, but it also protects those fighting back against that speech. Are students exercising their rights or are they suppressing debate?

Also Read: What Happens if the Media Defies White House Camera Ban?

Then theres the case of writing on the internet. Fake news, false memes and outright hate speech can be easily proliferated online, all under anonymous internet monikers. Their words have proven dangerous and made people mistrust the media, yet the First Amendment protects their anonymity.

Also Read: 'Nobody Speak' Review: Money Muzzles the Media

The talk followed a screening of Knappenbergers Netflix documentary Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press. It charts how Gawkers decision to publish Hulk Hogans sex tape led to a trial that has potentially opened the flood gates for billionaires to make news outlets they dont like disappear.

Im bothered by the secrecy of what happened here. As I understand it, what Peter Thiel did here used to be illegal, Knappenberger said during the panel discussion. Theres this notion that this can be done in secret, that a thumb can be placed on this conversation in a way that is invisible to the participants involved, invisible to the public and invisible to the jury as well. That is troubling to me.

Also Read: 'Nobody Speak' Director Compares Hulk Hogan, Gawker Trial to President Trump (Video)

But Ricardo Cestero, a partner at the law firm Greenberg Glusker, argues that the secrecy of Thiels actions is part of what the First Amendment protects.

Peter Thiel had a First Amendment right to do whatever lawfully he was allowed to do in order to shut down a publication that in his First Amendment belief wasnt worthy of continuing to exist, Cestero said. Its a jury verdict that balanced the privacy of a celebrity against the publications First Amendment right to do what it did. Peter Thiels involvement is part of what the First Amendment allows.

Cestero argues that the real issue is a flaw in our legal system rather than a failure to recognize the First Amendment. Wealthy individuals who dont like what they read or see in the media can file an arguably frivolous lawsuit, and theres no way for media companies to combat it.

Also Read: What Happens if the Media Defies White House Camera Ban?

Our legal system has gotten to the point where it is cost prohibitive for anything other than companies that are fully insured or the extraordinarily wealthy people or corporations to really litigate meaningful cases like this one, Cestero said. We as a society should look at ways to solve that problem.

Lanny J. Davis, the co-founder and partner of Davis Goldberg & Galper, reiterated how the Hulk Hogan/Gawker case mainly concerned the balance between privacy rights and First Amendment rights. He said that when we argue about First Amendment rights disappearing, we shouldnt lose sight of the fact that Terry Bollea, i.e. Hogans real name, was entitled to privacy as also protected by the Constitution.

Theres a grey area where First Amendment and privacy rights overlap, and people who are progressive need to have a balance in looking at both sides, Davis said.

Also Read: Milo Yiannopoulos Supporter Sues Berkeley for $23 Million

Davis went on to say that these rights extended to Thiels own privacy, but hes ultimately in favor of transparency in litigation. The First Amendment allows anybody to be outed and the person outed to be offended. The principle of the First Amendment is that shouldnt be subject to any penalty. But whats offensive and whats constitutional are different, he added.

David Greene is the Civil Liberties Director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and he said during the panel discussion that theres still an issue with billionaires like Thiel putting their thumbs on the scale. Greene said the verdict in the Gawker case was disproportionate to anything hes seen in a privacy case like this.

What you get when you have someone funding it is you have this concern that youll soon get this disproportion, Greene said. And our system isnt well equipped to handle that disproportion. The system that we rely on breaks just a little bit when you have this type of involvement in the cases.

Also Read: President Trump Can't Jail Journalists for Reporting Leaks - Or Can He?

So is the First Amendment under attack more now than when Trump took office? Greene feels there may not be a legal solution to the president attacking the media, but we still need to fight back against that language.

The concern I have in the rhetoric I hear now is its engendering distrust in these institutions that are so vital, Greene said. There are media institutions I like and those I dislike, but I want them all to survive, because thats the way the system works. The more people reporting the better.

Davis says all presidents have been irritated or displeased with the media. But Donald Trump is different.

The difference is Donald Trump demonizes people and creates dangerous, violent tendencies in certain extreme minded, and I think fascist oriented people, he said. We have to try and avoid attacking motives and demonizing people we disagree with. We lose the heartland of this country when we do that as opposed to civil disagreement, and keeping with our criticism of the media, which is sometimes deserved, is that we dont personalize our differences. We dont demonize our opposition. Thats what President Trump does, and thats what makes him dangerous.

Check out the whole video from Thursdays panel discussion above, Nobody Speak is available on Netflix now.

On Sunday, Donald Trump derided the use of anonymous sourcing in news stories. He also said in February that news outlets "shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody's name." It's strange he thinks that, because he's used a lot of anonymous sources himself. Here are some examples.

Two years after President Obama released his birth certificate, Trump said it was not believable to some people."You know, some people say that was not his birth certificate," he told ABC in August 2013. "I'm saying I don't know. Nobody knows and you don't know either."

Trump said one of thesources "called myoffice."

Trump took care to describe this sourceas "extremely credible."

Trump so oftensources information to "many people" (without naming any of them) that there's a well-worn #manypeoplearesaying hashtag on Twitter.The Washington Post wrote an article about it, which includes the examples on the next three slides.

At a rally in September, a man in Trump's audience said President Obama was a Muslim and not even an American, then asked Trump to get rid of Muslim training camps.

You know, a lot of people are saying that, and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there, Trump responded.

In early January, Trump said he had heard from many Republicans worried that his rival, Sen. Ted Cruz, was born in Canada.

Id hate to see something like that get in his way, but a lot of people are talking about it, and I know that even some states are looking at it very strongly, the fact that he was born in Canada and he has had a double passport, Trump told thePost.

In May 2016, Trump told the Post what some "people" believe about the death of Vince Foster. I dont bring [Fosters death] up because I dont know enough to really discuss it, Trump said. I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder. I dont do that because I dont think its fair.

Soon after Trump called for an end to anonymous sourcing, The Associated Press noted, "Members of Trump's White House team regularly demand anonymity when talking to reporters."

Surprise: Trump berates the news media for doing something hes done himself

On Sunday, Donald Trump derided the use of anonymous sourcing in news stories. He also said in February that news outlets "shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody's name." It's strange he thinks that, because he's used a lot of anonymous sources himself. Here are some examples.

Excerpt from:
Is Freedom of Expression in Danger? First Amendment Experts ... - TheWrap

Sen. Bernie Sanders. Win McNamee/Getty Images

Vermont resident Jon Svitavsky announcedon July 5 that he is challenging Sen.Bernie Sandersin his upcoming re-election in 2018. In his most recent race for re-election, Sanders wonover 71 percentof the vote and theDemocratic Partydidnt bother to run a candidate. In the 2016 presidential primaries,Sanders receivedover 86 percent of the votein Vermont. Among the small percentage of people who voted for Hillary Clinton in the state was Svitavsky, a homeless shelter director who is beginning to receive support from other disgruntledClintonsupporters across the country.

Though Sanders enjoys overwhelming support in his home state, his political opponents around the country have isolated and built up naysayers to diminish his popularity. In June 2016, NBC host Joy Reid did aprofilein the Daily Beast on Al Giordano,an anti-Sanders troll who gained a sizable following ofClintonsupporters on Twitter during the primaries. Giordano claimed he would run against Sanders in 2018 but has yet to file and currently resides in Mexico City. In February 2016, the Daily Beast ran ahit piecemeant to perpetuate the whitewashing of Sanders presidential campaign. It featured an interview with a black Vermont resident who claimed Sanders ignored the black community in the state. In October 2016, Politico ran anarticle featuring quotes from several VermontDemocratscomplaining that Sanders wasnt helping Democratsin Vermont, despite the fact thatSandersmade several appearances around the country to campaign on behalf of HillaryClinton. Now Svitavsky, aDemocratfrom Bridport, Vermont, is trying to make another case against Sanders.

Vermont Public Radioreported, Jon Svitavsky, 59, says he believes that Sanders divisive politics have fractured the Democratic Party nationally and paved the way for the rise of Republican President Donald Trump. On his Twitteraccounthe hassharedblog posts written by otherClintonsupporters attacking Sanders. According to Svitavsky, he was recruited by a group called Organizing forDemocrats-U.S.A to run against Sanders. The organization isnt filed with the FEC and has a small following on Facebook. On its Facebook page on June 15, the day after Sanders voted against the bill that included sanctions on Russia and Iran, the group posted, Today OFD represents theDemocratic Partycandidate for U.S. Senate in the State of Vermont.Thats the Sanders'(I) seat.And an actual liberal Democrat fromBurlington, Vermont is running.After Sanders voted to protect Mother Russia today, the decision was made to make this declaration. The day before, the organization published in another post that it is time forDemocratsto unite against the Bernie Bot elements.

Svitavsky told Vermonts NPR affiliate, I think Sanders has hurt our country very badly with what hes done. He added, So not only didBerniedivide theDemocratic Partyand what not, but he continues to bash them, even on the unity tour, saying thatDemocratsand Republicans are the same, and theyre not. ThoughBernie Sandersnever said that or bashed the party on theDNC Unity Tour, Svitavskys biases are shared by several avidClintonsupporters, and he isnt alone in trying to challenge Sanders.

Folasade Adeluola, a Clintonsupporter based in Indiana, also announced she is running to unseatSandersin 2018. Her campaignwebsitefeatures a selfie with her and HillaryClinton.She only has to be a legal resident of Vermont the day before the election to be eligible for the Senate seat, capitalizing on the opportunity to represent people of a state she doesnt live in.

Read more here:
Bitter Clinton Supporters Try to Unseat Bernie Sanders in Senate Race - Observer