Mediaboss Marketing

Splash News/Newscom"Words must do more than offend, cause indignation, or anger the addressee to lose the protection of the First Amendment," a municipal judge reminded us this week in a case involving social media, bow hunting, and a bear called "Pretty Mama."

On trial was Susan Kehoe, an animal rights activist in New Jersey who faced a harassment charge and a possible 30 days in jail.

Under New Jersey law, someone commits criminal harasssment by engaging in a "course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person."

Last October, Kehoe called out two men as the potential culprits in the death of Pretty Mama, based on a video someone had recorded of the bear being dragged from the woods. In a public Facebook post, Kehoe wrote that she "believed" Michael Bush and Nickey Pisco were the killers and linked to their Facebook profiles.

Bush and Pisco reported Kehoe to the Vernon Township Police for harassment, but the police declined to press charges. The men then filed a citizen's complaint, saying they had received death threats as a result of Kehoe's post and Bush had suffered a loss to his business.

Bush initially alleged that Kehoe had posted his home address, but this was later revealed as false. Kehoe had simply linked to his Facebook page, where Bush himself had publicly posted his address.

Still, prosecutor Lisa Thompson argued to the court that Kehoe's speech went beyond permittable free-speech parameters. "There is a not a First Amendment right to incite your followers to cause annoyance and alarm and death threats," she told the court in July.

Bush testified in court that he received threats through direct messages, public Facebook posts, and comments on his business' Facebook page. But none of the threats came from Kehoe directly, nor had she urged people to threaten Bush and Pisco.

On Monday, Mount Olive Municipal Court Judge Brian J. Levine found Kehoe not guilty, citing a 2016 case in which a state appellate court overturned a harassment conviction.

In that case, a former Union County corrections officer was convicted on two counts of harassment "based upon his creation of two 'flyers' that contained the wedding photo of a fellow Union County corrections officer (the Sergeant), which was altered to include vulgar handwritten comments in speech bubbles." But the appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that "the commentary defendant added to the Sergeant's wedding photograph was constitutionally protected speech."

Kehoe's attorney, Daniel Perez, said the judge's ruling in her case "shows that the First Amendment matters."

Read more from the original source:
The First Amendment Protects Social-Media Speculation About Bear Killers - Reason (blog)

Hillary Clinton's new book, 'What Happened,' comes out Sept. 12, but audio excerpts were made public on Aug. 23. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)

Hillary Clinton said her skin crawled as Donald Trump loomed behind her at a presidential debate in St. Louis, and added that she wished she could have pressed pause and asked America, Well, what would you do?

The words, Clintons most detailed public comments about what happened during one of the campaigns more memorable moments, are includedin her new book, What Happened, which she called an attempt to pull back the curtain on her losing bid for the presidency.

Some of the moments during the campaign, she said, baffled her. Others seemingly repulsed her: In recounting the October incident, she referred to Trump as acreep.

The book comes out Sept. 12, but audio excerpts, read by Clinton,were played Wednesday morning on MSNBCs Morning Joe.

In the recording, Clinton noted that she wrote about moments from the campaign that she wanted to remember forever as well as others she wished she could go back and do over.

The moment from the debate appeared to fall into the latter category.

This is not okay, I thought, Clinton said, reading from her book. It was the second presidential debate and Donald Trump was looming behind me. Two days before, the world heard him brag about groping women. Now we were on a small stage and no matter where I walked, he followed me closely, staring at me, making faces.

It was incredibly uncomfortable. He was literally breathing down my neck. My skin crawled. It was one of those moments where you wish you could hit pause and ask everyone watching, Well, what would you do? Do you stay calm, keep smiling and carry on as if he werent repeatedly invading your space? Or do you turn, look him in the eye and say loudly and clearly, Back up, you creep. Get away from me. I know you love to intimidate women, but you cant intimidate me, so back up.

The debate took place two days after Trump was heard bragging about groping, kissing and trying to have sex with women on theAccess Hollywood tape comments made in 2005 on an apparent hot mic.

Afterward, some Republican critics said Trump should drop out of the race. But he ended a video response to the years-old tapes release by saying: See you at the debate on Sunday.

Trumps actions during the debate were viewed as bullying even before the moment that Clinton recounted.

As The Posts Sarah L. Kaufman wrote, Trump paced and rocked and grimaced as spoke; he broke into her time by shouting over her. When she protested that she had not done the same to him, he shot back with all the finesse youd hear in a middle school gym: Thats cause you got nothin to say.

When it was his turn to speak, Trump got angry, pointed at her, swung his arms around with alarming force.

[What two body language experts saw at the second presidential debate]

His actions were widely mocked and criticized after the debate, and even featured in a Saturday Night Liveskitthat showed him zooming toward an unsuspecting Clinton.

If a man did that to me on the street Id call 911, political commentator and former Republican strategist Nicolle Wallace said, according to NBC News.

The New York Daily News headline the day after the debate read: Grab a seat, loser.

In the post-debate spin room, Clinton surrogates accused Trump of menacingly stalking the Democratic nominee. Two body language experts analyzed the debate and concluded Trump was trying to assert his power by roaming the stage while Clinton spoke.

Trumps constant pacing and restless movements around the stage attracted attention from Hillarys words, and visually disrespected her physical presence on the stage, as in I am big, you are small, David Givens, director of the Center for Nonverbal Studies, a nonprofit research center in Spokane, Wash., told The Post then.

Clinton said in the audio clip played on MSNBC that What Happened is not a comprehensive account of the 2016 race and that it was difficult to write.

Every day that I was a candidate for president, I knew that millions of people were counting on me, and I couldnt bear the idea of letting them down but I did, she said. I couldnt get the job done, and Ill have to live with that for the rest of my life.

Simon & Schuster, the books publisher, says What Happened is Clintons most personal memoir yet.

In the past, for reasons I try to explain, Ive often felt I had to be careful in public, like I was up on a wire without a net, she writes in the introduction.Now Im letting my guard down.

Immediately after the election, Clinton kept a low profile, though she was occasionally spotted hiking in the woods by her Chappaqua, N.Y., neighbors; SNL even poked fun at the hubbub surrounding her sylvan whereabouts in a sketch called The Hunt for Hil.

In recent months, Clinton has slowly reemerged in the public eye, making speeches and giving interviewsin which she addressed the historic election.

Its unclear how much Clinton was paid for writing What Happened.Simon & Schuster representatives did not immediately respond to questions sent by email early Wednesday.

The publisher never publicly disclosed how much Clinton received for her 2014 book, Hard Choices, though in 2000, Clinton reportedly was paid about $8 million in advance to write a memoir (eventually titled Living History) about her years as first lady, according to the New York Times.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump traded jabs at their second face-off in a contentious town-hall style debate on Oct. 9, in St. Louis, with moderators Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz. (The Washington Post)

Read more:

Hillary Clinton made a rare appearance at The Color Purple and got three standing ovations

Is voting for Hillary Clinton a symptom of low testosterone? This Florida doctor says yes.

This mayor wont stop posting racist Obama memes. He wont resign, either.

Read the rest here:
Hillary Clinton calls Donald Trump a 'creep,' says her 'skin crawled' during debate - Washington Post

At his rally in Phoenix on Tuesday night, Donald Trump remarked, of his decision to take on the Presidency, Most people think Im crazy to have done this. And I think theyre right.

A strange consensus does appear to be forming around Trumps mental state. Following Trumps unhinged Phoenix speech, James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, said on CNN, I really question his fitness to be in this office, describing the address as scary and disturbing and characterizing Trump as a complete intellectual, moral, and ethical void. Last week, following Trumps doubling-down on blaming many sides for white-supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Senator Bob Corker, a Republican of Tennessee, said that the President has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability, nor some of the competence, that he needs to lead the country. Last Friday, Representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat of California, introduced a resolution urging a medical and psychiatric evaluation of the President, pointing to an alarming pattern of behavior and speech causing concern that a mental disorder may have rendered him unfit and unable to fulfill his Constitutional duties. Lofgren asked, in a press release, Does the President suffer from early stage dementia? Has the stress of office aggravated a mental illness crippling impulse control? Has emotional disorder so impaired the President that he is unable to discharge his duties? Is the President mentally and emotionally stable?

The class of professionals best equipped to answer these questions has largely abstained from speaking publicly about the Presidents mental health. The principle known as the Goldwater rule prohibits psychiatrists from giving professional opinions about public figures without personally conducting an examination, as Jane Mayer wrote in this magazine in May . After losing the 1964 Presidential election, Senator Barry Goldwater successfully sued Fact magazine for defamation after it published a special issue in which psychiatrists declared him severely paranoid and unfit for the Presidency. For a public figure to prevail in a defamation suit, he must demonstrate that the defendant acted with actual malice; a key piece of evidence in the Goldwater case was Facts disregard of a letter from the American Psychiatric Association warning that any survey of psychiatrists who hadnt clinically examined Goldwater was invalid.

The Supreme Court denied Facts cert petition, which hoped to vindicate First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press. But Justice Hugo Black, joined by William O. Douglas, dissented, writing, The public has an unqualified right to have the character and fitness of anyone who aspires to the Presidency held up for the closest scrutiny. Extravagant, reckless statements and even claims which may not be true seem to me an inevitable and perhaps essential part of the process by which the voting public informs itself of the qualities of a man who would be President.

These statements, of course, resonate today. President Trump has unsuccessfully pursued many defamation lawsuits over the years, leading him to vow during the 2016 campaign to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. (One of his most recent suits, dismissed in 2016, concerned a Univision executives social-media posting of side-by-side photos of Trump and Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who murdered nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015; Trump alleged that the posting falsely accused him of inciting similar acts.)

The left-leaning psychiatric community was shamed by the Fact episode for having confused political objection and medical judgment, and came under pressure from the American Medical Association, whose members had largely supported Goldwater over Lyndon Johnson. The A.P.A. adopted the Goldwater rule in 1973; Dr. Alan Stone, my colleague at Harvard Law School, was at the time the only member of the A.P.A.s board to oppose the rule, as a denial of free speech and of every psychiatrist's God-given right to make a fool of himself or herself. Stone, who has served on the A.P.A.s appeals board, told me that a few members over the years have been sanctioned or warned for Goldwater-rule violations, but that the A.P.A. eventually gave up enforcing it, because of the difficulty of providing due process to the accused.

The psychoanalyst Justin Frank, a clinical professor at George Washington University, simply resigned from the A.P.A. in 2003 before publishing his book Bush on the Couch. He went on to write Obama on the Couch, and is now at work on Trump on the Couch. Frank says that the Goldwater rule forces psychiatrists to neglect a duty to share their knowledge with fellow-citizens. I think its fear of being shunned by colleagues, he told me. Its not about ethics. Had he examined Trump, of course, he would be bound by confidentiality not to speak about him. But Frank believes that restraining psychiatrists from speaking about a President based on publicly available information is like telling economists not to speak about the economy, or keeping lawyers from commenting on legal cases in the public eye.

The A.P.A. reaffirmed and arguably expanded the Goldwater rule in March, stating that it applies not only to a diagnosis but also to an opinion about the affect, behavior, speech, or other presentation of an individual that draws on the skills, training, expertise, and/or knowledge inherent in the practice of psychiatry. The upshot is the attempted removal of more than thirty-seven thousand A.P.A. members from a key public conversation, during a moment when their knowledge and authority might aid the public in responsibly assessing the President. The other major mental-health professional organization, the American Psychological Association, with double the membership, also reconfirmed its version of the Goldwater rule. The much smaller American Psychoanalytic Association told its more than three thousand members last month to feel free to comment about political figuresa reprieve more symbolic than practical, since many members concurrently belong to the American Psychiatric Association.

Some assume that simply opting out of voluntary membership in a professional organization frees a person to speak. But versions of the Goldwater rule exist in state licensing-board standards for psychologists and physicians. Some states adopt wholesale the American Psychological Associations ethical principles as their standard of conduct for licensed psychologists, or have provisions warning that physicians can face disciplinary action for violating a professional medical associations code of ethics. Dr. Leonard Glass, who practices in one such state, Massachusetts, observed last month, in the Boston Globe , that even if nobody has actually lost his or her license for violating the Goldwater rule, it is not trivial to be reported to your licensing board for an ethics violation. This restraint on speech may violate the First Amendment, because, by speaking, practitioners stand to attract state censure, not just disapproval by private organizations. (Disclosure: As a lawyer, I have considered a potential lawsuit based on this First Amendment claim.) It is especially odd to see a muzzling of speech about political figures and elected officials when it is routine for mental-health experts in legal cases to offer opinions based on information from files, without an in-person examinationfor example, to help assess how dangerous a person is.

A congressional bill introduced in April proposes establishing a commission to oversee Presidential capacity, laying down a path that the Twenty-fifth Amendment allows for involuntary removal of a President. Section 4 of that Amendment provides that a congressionally appointed body can determine that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Psychiatrists participation in this constitutional process will depend on their appetite for professional opprobrium.

After Trumps fire and fury remarks about North Korea, earlier this month, Dr. Bandy Lee, a professor of psychiatry at Yale Medical School, sent her second letter about Trump to all members of Congress, warning that his severe emotional impediments pose a grave threat to international security. Four colleagues joined her this time, but, she told me, In the beginning, I was trying to write letters to Congress members and I couldnt get anyone to sign on, even though nobody disagreed. Her book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, forthcoming in October, collects essays by more than a dozen mental-health experts and makes the case that the Trump Presidency is an emergency that not only allows but may even require psychiatrists to depart from the Goldwater rule. Seeking contributors, Dr. Lee was mindful that most colleagues would be nervous walking the tightrope, so she approached prominent writers who might have enough stature to withstand criticism, including Philip Zimbardo, Judith Herman, Robert Jay Lifton, and Gail Sheehy. (Next month, Dr. Lee will have a closed meeting with several as-yet-unnamed lawmakers to advise them on how Congress might convene mental-health professionals to review the Presidents state of mind.)

Many Presidents in our history appear to have served while managing various forms of mental illness, including depression, anxiety, social phobia, and bipolar disorder. President Ronald Reagans staff, for example, worried about signs of dementia. Concerned about Richard Nixons paranoia and heavy drinking in his last days in office, his Defense Secretary is claimed to have told the Joint Chiefs to disregard any White House military orders. But Trump is the only President to be the subject of sustained public discussion about his mental competence and fitness for office.

The Constitution contemplates, by virtue of the First Amendment, that we may freely raise concerns about elected officials, and also that in the extreme circumstance envisioned in the Twenty-fifth Amendment, medical professionals would be free to help us understand whether the President can fulfill his duties. If those who know most are the least free to speak, neither Amendment can function properly. The Goldwater rule was an overreaction to psychiatrists wielding their professional badge to do politics. Today, the profession risks protecting itself from the taint of politics by withholding expertise from a vital public debatea situation that seems no less irresponsible.

Read the original:
Will Trump Be the Death of the Goldwater Rule? - The New Yorker

BELOIT - Advocates of the proposed Wisconsin Victims of Crime Amendment, known as Marsy's Law, say it would provide crime victims more rights.

Protections would include the opportunity for victims to speak more during court proceedings. Currently, victims have the right to speak at disposition, or the end of the court case. Marsy's Law for Wisconsin would allow them to speak up during release, plea, sentencing, disposition, parole, revocation, expungement or pardon proceedings, according to Brian Reisinger, a spokesman for Marsy's Law of Wisconsin.

Written by Rep. Todd Novak of Dodgeville and Sen. Van Wanggaard of Racine, Reisinger said the new protections expand upon those already in the state constitution. For example, victims could have the right to have records that might be used to locate them or other confidential information kept private.

Although the state constitution says victims have the right to be free from delay, Marsy's Law for Wisconsin would add that victims be free from "unreasonable" delays.

"When someone is accused of a crime, he or she has a right to a speedy trial. We also think that when someone becomes the victim of a crime, the victim ought to have a right to be free of unreasonable delay because the court process can be a painful and terrifying one. Victims can be concerned about their safety. Having a long drawn-out court process is something victims ought to have protections against, just as the accused have protections," Reisinger said.

Criminals can opt at any time to not talk to the authorities as part of their Fifth Amendment rights, and Marsy's Law for Wisconsin would afford victims similar rights when dealing with the defense in a pre-trial setting.

All material that is subject to a criminal investigation would still be fully available to both the prosecution and defense. The defendant would still have the constitutional right to confront the accuser in court, and could still petition the judge if they disagree with the victim on whether information should be made available during pre-trial discovery.

"Victims deserve to have rights that are equal to those who attacked them, and that's what Marsy's Law for Wisconsin does - nothing more, nothing less. A victim of sexual assault shouldn't have her diary read by her rapist if it's not related to the crime. Under our proposal, all information that is part of a criminal investigation will still be available to the accused," Reisinger said.

Wisconsin was the first state to adopt a "Crime Victims Bill of Rights" in state statute. Wisconsin also passed a constitutional amendment to the state constitution in 1993, adding victims' rights.

"This is an issue Wisconsin has been a leader on and we are talking about continuing that leadership by updating our state constitution to make rights equal for victims of crime," Reisinger said.

Marsy's Law of Wisconsin is working with Novak, Wanggaard and a statewide coalition to pass the legislation. The legislation has 40 co-sponsors who are both Republican and Democrat.

The legislature will have to pass the measure twice before a statewide referendum can be scheduled. The legislation could be on the ballot in 2019.

Marsy's Law is named after Marsalee "Marsy" Nichola, who was stalked and killed by an ex-boyfriend in 1983.

Although Marsy's Law is picking up momentum, it does have its critics such as attorneys working in criminal defense.

Jeff Livingston, an attorney who does criminal defense with Bolgrien, Koepke, Kimes and Livingston in Beloit, said he's concerned that Marsy's Law could prevent a person accused of a crime from getting information that could prove his or her innocence.

"If someone is accused of a crime, our constitution says he or she gets a fair trial and access to information to defend oneself," he said. "If both sides can't have access to the information, you aren't going to get to the truth and will have people who are innocent get convicted."

Livingston said he'd rather have nine guilty people go free than one innocent person be convicted.

Livingston said everyone has the same rights under the constitution and Wisconsin has a bill of rights for victims with 49 provisions in state statute 950.04 in addition to resources devoted to police, prosecution and a victim-witness office.

"Marsy's Law doesn't allow victims to direct the prosecution, or terminate the prosecution. Marsy's law only gives powers the statutes already grant victims," Livingston said.

Victims are already notified of all court appearances, are given the right to discuss their case with the district attorney handling it and get their say at sentencing.

Livingston said the statutes have a provision which holds any public official accountable for adhering to victims' rights, and makes them subject to a forfeiture of up to $1,000. Adding to the existing 49 rights could become more cumbersome for the prosecution.

View post:
What the proposal mandates, and what critics have to say - Beloit Daily News

Jordan's King Abdullah II walks with Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, left, during a welcome ceremony at the Husseiniya Palace in Amman on August 21, 2017. Pool photo via AP

Turkey'spresident on Monday made his first visit to Jordan in nine years as once strained relations have been overtaken by common interestssuch as resolving the Syrian conflict and safeguarding the Muslim holy sites in east Jerusalem.

Recep TayyipErdogan received a red-carpet welcome from King Abdullah and other high-ranking officials at theHusseiniya Palace in Amman before the two leaders held talks on a range of issues.

The royal court said King Abdullah and Mr Erdoganunderscored the need to continue co-ordination on areas of mutualconcernas well as boosteconomic ties and investments.

Turkeys ties with Jordan were particularly strained during the Arab Spring, when Mr Erdogan promotedhis Justice and Development Party (AKP) seen as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood by Arab nations as a model of democratic Muslim rule.

Despite maintaining diplomatic, economic and cultural ties, the countriesdo not see eye to eye on several foreign policy issues, ranging fromAnkaras support for the Brotherhood and Hamas to its ties with Qatarand backing of hardline Islamist rebelsin Syria.

Turkey was also seen as doing little to hinder the flow of foreign fighters to ISIL in Syria but that changed two years ago when it agreed to allowAmerican warplanes to launch strikes against the extremists from its Incirlik airbase in southern Turkey.

Analysts say Mr Erdogan's visit also provides an opportunity for Turkey and Jordanto strengthen co-operation on the Syrian conflict as both countries share borders with Syria and host a large number of Syrian refugees.

Turkey isone of the guarantor states, alongside Russia and Iran,in the Astana peace talks that seek to bring an end to the hostilities in Syria, whileJordan is an observer.

The talks so far have resulted in an agreement on four de-escalation zones across the country, including one in southern Syria bordering Jordan.

_____________________________________________

Read more:

Jordan makes it easier for Syrian refugees to work

US peace delegation to visit Middle East

Jordan mulls issuing bonds to cover budget shortfall

_______________________________________________

What brings Turkey and Jordan together is the common challenges, whether they are the civil war in Syria, situation in Iraq, Jerusalem and the Palestine issue, the refugee problem, said Murat Karagoz, Turkey's ambassador to Jordan. We need to consult and co-operate more and subsequently find common solutions.

Last month, when tensions escalated over new Israeli security measures at the Al Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem, of which Jordan is the custodian, Mr Erdogan condemned Israel and backed Jordan's protests.

Turkey also recognises and supportsJordans special role in protecting the holy sites in Jerusalem, Mr Karagoz said.

Mr Erdogans visit also coincides with the 70th anniversary of diplomatic ties between the two countries.

Jordan and Turkey are good friends, and have deep cultural and historical and brotherly ties, the Turkish ambassador said.

With a free-trade agreement in place since 2011, trade between the two countries rose to US$1 billion (Dh36.7bn) in 2014, before dipping slightly $835 million last year.

Fares Braizat, chief executive of the Amman-based research firm NamaStrategic Intelligence Solutions, said it was going to be "win-win for both countries" even though relations were not at their bestin recent years, particularly during the Arab Spring.

"Turkey is a strategic player in the region and Jordan plays a key role in regional stability. Therefore, it is important for both to co-operate on regional security since both share borders with Syria, said Mr Braizat.

As violence levels have dropped in Syria and Iraq, Turkey and Jordan are also positioned geographically to play in an important role in the reconstruction, but that cannot work without political reconciliation.

King Abdullah on Monday also held talks with visiting US secretary of defence James Mattisand discussed the Syrian conflict, the Iraqi war and the fight against ISIL, the Petra news agency reported.

Mr Mattis, who was on his first trip to Jordan since taking office,affirmed the US administration's willingness to increase itssupport to enable the kingdom to address challenges facing it, according to Petra.

Jordan is the first stop of a tour that will take Mr Mattis to Turkey and Ukraine this month, according to the Pentagon.

More here:
Erdogan visits Jordan as Syria's neighbours rekindle relations - The National