Mediaboss Marketing

The U.S. Constitutions Bill of Rights rightly gives robust protections to Americans free expression of ideas, even when those thoughts are out of the mainstream or repulsive.

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black summed up that vital concept in 1961 when he wrote that the right to expression under the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate, or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish.

That principle received worthwhile discussion and elaboration recently when the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the importance of preserving free speech rights on college campuses.

First Amendment experts offered thoughtful observations on the enduring importance of promoting free thought and expression.

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer with a background in First Amendment cases, said the proper approach cannot be to limit expression but to discuss it not to bar offensive speech, but to answer it. Or to ignore it. Or to persuade the public to reject it. . . . What is unacceptable is to suppress the speech.

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles, said, To let hecklers and thugs generally control what is said on campus . . . is an abdication of the universities responsibility to educate to teach their students about the importance of responding to speech with arguments and not with suppression. . . .

Outside the university, when youre trying to persuade voters whom you cant threaten with expulsion or firing, you need to know how to listen and rebut even views that you find wrong even disgusting. That takes practice and what better place for that practice than a university, an institution that is supposed to be all about ideas, debate, reasoning and arguments? Precisely.

J. Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center which is studying hate groups, said his organization is sometimes contacted for advice by students who want to take a stand against a campus speaker they consider offensive.

We suggest creating an alternative event, Cohen said, to provide an open and accepting space for those who want to promote unity rather than divisiveness. We tell leaders that it is their obligation to communicate to their community that they stand for the values of inclusion, pluralism and respect.

The nations universities, Cohen said, should be places where students learn to dissent in thoughtful and constructive ways. To do so is to uphold societys highest ideals.

The principles explained by those testifiers dont mean that every idea is worthy or admirable. The point, rather, is that society is best served by open, energetic debate in which arguments are rigorously tested. Such debate exposes mistaken, outlandish or abhorrent ideas to the light and makes them vulnerable to rebuttal and, as needed, ridicule.

Theres another reason why Americans should hold tight to First Amendment principles: We live in a lamentably polarized society. Many people isolate themselves within their political tribe and are so disdainful of the other side that they see little value in engaging in serious debate.

Such thinking undermines productive discussion of key issues. It also harms the country by preventing us from seeing ourselves as one people.

Our society is well served when we encourage strong, open debate under the First Amendment. Our institutions of higher learning need to be unwavering in promoting free expression and the defense of free speech.

Go here to see the original:
Editorial: First Amendment means free people have free expression - Omaha World-Herald

Its a report that I have been reading every year since its inception in the late 1990s, and while it might not be on your radar, I highly recommend the annual State of the First Amendment.

This is the 20th survey in this series, and the report is compiled after a survey by the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute.

Many years ago, I was part of a group of journalists who visited with those who conduct the survey.

They asked us some of the questions. It was interesting how even journalists sometimes had issues with the amendment that is virtually the only license we need to do our jobs.

First, as a refresher, heres the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While it may seem simple and straightforward, the First Amendment and how it can be applied is often misconstrued and often debated.

Here are a few of the questions on the survey. Before you leap ahead, try answering them for yourself.

Question 1: The First Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution more than 225 years ago.

Based on your own feelings about the First Amendment, please answer whether you agree ordisagree with the following statements: TheFirst Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.

Question 2:It is important for our democracy that the news media act as a watchdog on government.

Question 3:Overall, the news media tries to report the news without bias.

Question 4: In general, do you prefer news information that is aligned with your own views?

So how do your views line up with those of the more than 1,000 people surveyed in May of this year? By the way, this is the first year question four has been on the survey.

If youve jotted down your answers, read away for a comparison.

Twenty-three percent of those surveyed said they agreed that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting rights. In 1999 when the question was asked, 28 percent of those surveyed thought it went too far.

The news media still must act as the watchdog on government said 68 percent of those surveyed. That number was higher in 2004, when 77 percent agreed.

Based on some of the comments I hear, this one pleasantly surprised me. Forty-three percent of those surveyed agreed that the news media tries to report the news without bias. In 2004, only 39 percent agreed with that statement.

Question No. 4 indicates that 16.5 percent of the respondents strongly agree that they prefer news from outlets that are aligned with their views; 36.7 percent somewhat agree; 24.5 percent somewhat disagree; 17.3 percent strongly disagree and 5 percent either didnt know or refused to answer the question.

The short version of the report included interesting insight on the divisions in attitudes toward the First Amendment depending on whether the respondent was liberal or conservative.

Conservatives were more likely than liberals to believe that government officials who leak information should be prosecuted and that the government should be able to hold Muslims to a higher level of scrutiny. However, liberals were more likely than conservatives to think that colleges should be able to ban speakers with controversial views and that people should not be able to express racist views on social media.

Its a timely read in advance of the Fourth of July. Go towww.newseuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/state-of-the-first-amendment to take a look for yourself.

As for me, I feel honored to be a part of a profession that exists because of the foresight of the Founding Fathers. A nation without a free press simply would not be America.

Carol Stark is the editor of the Globe. Her email address is cstark@joplinglobe.com.

View post:
Carol Stark: Survey says First Amendment still in high regard - Joplin Globe

A former GCHQ specialist says he was recruited by a Republican Party researcher to help verify emailsapparently hacked from Hillary Clintons private server by Russia.

The claims come amid allegations of collusion between Donald Trumps presidential campaign and Russian intelligence last summer.

Matt Taitsaid he was approached around the time WikiLeaks published 20,000 hacked Democratic National Committee emails and Mr Trump publicly called for Russiato obtain Ms Clinton's private server emails.

Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro called for the House Intelligence Committee to hear from Matt Tait as soon as possible on Saturday.

In a post published on theLawfare national security blog, Mr Tait describes a series of phone calls with political operative PeterSmith, and later with one of his associates John Szobocsan, from July to mid-September 2016.

Mr Smith, a seasoned opposition researcher claiming to work with the Republican Party, said he was searching for the 33,000 emails Ms Clinton deleted from her private server used for official business while secretary of state.

He asked for Mr Taits help in verifying the authenticity of emails obtained via the "dark web".Mr Smith said he wanted to make the emails public before the election in November, and expressed indifference at Russias potential role in their release, according to Mr Tait.

The American allegedly discussed his conviction that Clintons private email server had been hacked in his view almost certainly both by the Russian government and likely by multiple other hackers too and his desire to ensure that the fruits of those hacks were exposed prior to the election.

"They had a reckless lack of interest in whether the emails came from a Russian cut-out, Mr Tait says in the blogpost.

Mr Smith appears to have known enough details about the Republican campaign to suggest he was closely tied to them.

In a recruitment document from September 2016, he listed officials including Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway and then foreign policy adviser Mike Flynn as being associated with his research company. Mr Bannon has denied meeting with Mr Smith.

Mr Smith died just over a month ago at age 81, just ten days after speaking to the Wall Street Journal about his search for Clinton's emails.

He had a long history of tarnishing opponents of the Republican party and had in the past tried to find a woman to claim Hillary Clinton had an illegitimate child.

Mr Tait, who now runs a UK-based security consultancy, believes he was approached because he had publicly studied Hillary Clintons emails as well as the hack of Democratic National Congress emails.

The former information security specialist wrote: "My suspicion then and now was that Hillary Clintons email server was likely never breached by Russia, and moreover that if Russia had a copy of Clintons emails, they would not waste them in the run-up to an election she was likely to win."

He refused to sign a nondisclosure agreement suggested by Mr Smith towards the end of their contact.

Mr Tait admits that he never actually saw the emails described by Mr Smith, and said the late researcher could just have been talking a very good game.

Go here to read the rest:
Former GCHQ specialist was asked by Republican researcher to verify Hillary Clinton emails hacked by Russia - The Independent

Former national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, through his lawyers, today invoked the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to hand over documents subpoenaed by a Senate committee.

The Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Flynn's personal documents on May 10, after he declined to cooperate with its April 28 request in relation to the panel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to Trump campaign associates. Before the April request, Flynn said through a statement from his lawyer that he wouldn't submit himself to questioning from the committee "without assurances against unfair prosecution."

The Fifth Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to refuse to testify at trial. No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, according to the U.S. Constitution.

Although a congressional investigation is not a criminal matter, Flynn would still have the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment with regard to certain questions that could potentially incriminate him in a future criminal case. But he does not have the right to refuse to testify before Congress altogether.

As a general matter, the Fifth Amendment applies only to testimony and does not give criminal defendants or witnesses in congressional investigations the right to refuse to turn over subpoenaed documents. But there is an exception when the act of producing a document is itself incriminating.

The fact that the content of the documents are incriminating does not give you a Fifth Amendment right not to produce them, explained Michael Seidman, a criminal law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. But the mere act of producing them can be incriminating if the government doesnt know that they exist or that you have them.

If the government already knows that certain documents exist, it could turn into a complicated legal question about whether Flynn must release them, said Seidman.

In a letter to Sens. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, and Mark Warner, D-Virginia, and the Senates Select Committee on Intelligence dated May 22 obtained by ABC News, Flynns lawyers argued that [p]roducing documents that fall within the subpoenas broad scope would be a testimonial act, insofar as it would confirm or deny the existence of such documents.

The context in which the Committee has called for General Flynns testimonial production of documents makes clear that he has more than a reasonable apprehension that any testimony he provides could be used against him, the letter reads.

Seidman said this is a standard legal strategy and that any competent lawyer would tell Flynn that if he might have a Fifth Amendment privilege he should assert it. Also, if he produces documents and makes statements, he risks inadvertently waiving his rights against self-incrimination as the Russia investigation progresses, Seidman said.

Legal experts also pointed out that if Flynn is granted immunity from criminal prosecution, then he would no longer have Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and could be compelled to answer all questions and release all documents.

In the same way that immunizing a low- or mid-level person in a crime ring can lead to fingers pointed all the way up to the Don, said Akhil Amar, a constitutional law professor at Yale Law School, who said the Don pun was intentional.

Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee said today that they would use all available tools to get information from Flynn, including holding him in contempt of Congress, which could open him up to criminal charges.

We're going to keep all the options on the table, Warner told ABC News.

We're going to help honor the constitutional rights but we still have to be able to get to the facts. We can't just step back and say, Oh, OK we can't get it, added Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, another member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Lankford also suggested that the committee will still try to negotiate with Flynns lawyers to get access to the information he is currently refusing to share.

Warner added that there might be a legal gray area that prohibits Flynn from using the Fifth Amendment to protect his refusal to provide documents, versus his clear constitutional right against testimony that might incriminate him.

We know there's a Fifth Amendment right on testimony but I think there's an open question on documents and we're looking into that right now, he said.

ABC News' Ali Rogin and Mary Bruce contributed to this report.

View post:
What you need to know about the 5th Amendment and ... - ABC News

As Mr. Erdogdu and his colleagues have found, there is little romance in the physical act of plodding for so long in heat that has often approached 100 degrees. But for some, the march has huge metaphorical meaning, prompting comparisons with the Salt March, the walk Mohandas K. Gandhi took to the Indian coast in 1930 to protest British colonial rule, which thousands of others joined.

Turkeys marchers, led by the C.H.P.s mild-mannered leader, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, are demonstrating against a more Turkish form of injustice. After a failed military coup last summer, President Recep Tayyip Erdogans government declared a state of emergency to allow the authorities to quickly round up people accused of plotting the coup. But the state of emergency has since been expanded to stifle most forms of legitimate opposition, in what Mr. Kilicdaroglu described in a roadside interview as a civilian coup.

And it is this crackdown that Mr. Kilicdaroglu and his fellow marchers are protesting: the arrest of 50,000 people including, by several counts, more than 170 journalists and over a dozen lawmakers and the dismissal or suspension of more than 140,000 Turkish workers, including several thousand academics as well as tens of thousands of teachers, prosecutors and civil servants who were believed to be critical of Turkeys authoritarian, religiously conservative government.

As the first act of mass defiance against this purge, the march is currently the biggest event in Turkish political life, said one marcher, Sukru Kucuksahin. Once a prominent Turkish journalist, Mr. Kucuksahin has been jobless since being fired from a leading newspaper for writing columns critical of the government.

The leader of the opposition, Mr. Kucuksahin added with a hint of amazement, as if he could not quite believe what he was saying, is marching from Ankara to Istanbul.

The march is all the more surprising because Mr. Kilicdaroglu had previously been wary of unconventional forms of political opposition. Some have even argued that Mr. Erdogans continued electoral success is in part the result of Mr. Kilicdaroglus lack of dynamism and creativity.

But unusual times call for unusual measures. A recent referendum measure that gave Mr. Erdogan sweeping new powers highlighted the futility of following the conventional tactics of opposition. The vote was marred by voting irregularities, and the campaign that preceded it was not contested on a level playing field. Mr. Erdogan has also ruled by decree since the failed coup, undermining the role of Parliament and Mr. Kilicdaroglus role within it.

With the current changes it is impossible for the opposition to talk in Parliament, Mr. Kilicdaroglu said during a roadside interview. The opposition has to look for other places to do its work, and in this case, its the march.

As the C.H.P. is often criticized for failing to connect with citizens, the march is also an attempt to reach out beyond its traditional secularist base and build a broader coalition against Mr. Erdogan.

The route takes marchers through Turkeys conservative heartlands that, as one C.H.P. official, Yurter Ozcan, said, I would never in million years have even thought Id drive through.

As they walk, the marchers have eschewed all party branding in an effort to attract citizens of all political stripes. The real test of this approach will come toward the end of this week, when the marchers hope that tens of thousands of people will join them for the final stretch.

For the moment, the tactic seems to have had promising results. One of Mr. Erdogans former deputy prime ministers, Abdullatif Sener, joined the marchers for a day last week. A prominent right-wing nationalist leader, Meral Aksener, has voiced her support, as has the countrys main pro-Kurdish party. And while a majority of the marchers appear to hail from the C.H.P.s base, they also include a number of conservative Turks.

On a recent sweltering day, the man puffing along at the front of the march was Prof. Cihangir Islam, a veteran of two Islamist parties and the former husband of Turkeys first veiled lawmaker. Mr. Islam was purged from his university position this year after he signed a letter condemning a military campaign in several Kurdish cities.

I had no connection with the C.H.P. before, said Mr. Islam as he explained the varied backgrounds of the marchers. You can observe many different kinds of social classes.

Reaction from local residents, who voted heavily for Mr. Erdogans party the Justice and Development Party, or A.K.P. in the most recent elections, was more mixed. Well-wishers regularly flashed victory signs from their cars or stood on their balconies to applaud. One man, a nut farmer who said he usually voted for a rival opposition party, even bought lunch for several C.H.P. lawmakers.

But others also lined the route to hurl abuse at Mr. Kilicdaroglu and his supporters, who politely responded to the provocations with a round of applause. In a sign of disrespect, someone left a truckload of manure outside the site where the marchers pitched camp, and a bullet was left in the road.

Many flashed a four-fingered salute, known as the Rabia sign, that has become a symbol of support for Mr. Erdogan. Every few minutes cars would screech past horns blaring with a hand extending from the sunroof or window, flashing the Rabia sign.

For many residents here, Mr. Erdogan has enshrined the freedom that they care most about: the freedom to worship and express ones faith in public. They also appreciate the improvements his party has made to Turkeys infrastructure, health care system and social services, said one disapproving bystander, Ergun Keles, 22, a textile worker.

They say justice, Mr. Keles said as he waited for a bus that had been delayed by the marchers. But Ive been waiting half an hour in the sun. Is that justice?

In another nearby town, Ahmet Buyukkara, a 27-year-old waiter, dismissed the march as so much posturing. We call Kilicdaroglu the fake Gandhi, he said. The Chinese-made Gandhi.

Part of this animosity has been stoked by Mr. Erdogans party. His allies have implied that the march put Mr. Kilicdaroglu and his colleagues in an alliance with terrorists and the plotters of last summers coup. Mr. Erdogan has even hinted that Mr. Kilicdaroglu may be arrested because of his role in the march.

But for now the state is allowing the march to proceed, and even granted it the protection of a group of police officers and members of the military police. As much as Mr. Erdogan would wince at the sight of thousands of antigovernment protesters marching into Istanbul, some analysts contend that he may feel he has more to lose by rounding them up and making a hero out of Mr. Kilicdaroglu.

Even some A.K.P. supporters recognize that Kilicdaroglu has the right to march, said Howard Eissenstat, a Turkey expert at St. Lawrence University and a nonresident senior fellow at the Project on Middle East Democracy, a think tank.

A showdown in which thats prevented really plays badly for a lot of Erdogan supporters, who believe in Erdogan and believe in the A.K.P. mission but expect it to be democratic, Mr. Eissenstat added.

Mr. Kilicdaroglu is not taking anything for granted. He said he was ready to be arrested.

If we have to pay a price, he said as he prepared for the final stretch of the days marching, we will pay for it.

Excerpt from:
On the Road With Protesters Marching Across Turkey to Condemn Erdogan's Purge - New York Times