Mediaboss Marketing

James Carville is scared to death of the November 2020 election.

In a rant on MSNBC that went viral on Tuesday evening, the longtime Democratic strategist vented his concerns about the partys prospects for beating Donald Trump, taking particular aim at the partys leftward lurch.

Eighteen percent of the population controls 52 Senate seats, Carville said. Weve got to be a majoritarian party. The urban core is not gonna get it done. What we need is power! Do you understand? Thats what this is about.

His diatribe took place against the backdrop of an Iowa caucus that had fallen into chaos and amid a rancorous ongoing debate among Democrats over the partys direction. He took particular aim at Sen. Bernie Sanders, who he fears could lead the party to defeat in November.

Carvilles lament distills a concern among the Democratic Partys establishment: Will ideological purity and playing to the base cost the Democrats victory in November? For Carville, at least, We have one moral imperative, and thats to beat Donald Trump. That his comments went viral speaks to the sense of urgency among Democrats, even as it only fuels the debate over the direction of the party.

I spoke with Carville this week by phone. We discussed where he thinks the Democrats went wrong, what it will take to build a majoritarian party in this climate, and why he doesnt have a lot of confidence in the current field of candidates.

A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

Why are you scared to death about the 2020 election?

Look, the turnout in the Iowa caucus was below what we expected, what we wanted. Trumps approval rating is probably as high as its been. This is very bad. And now it appears the party cant even count votes. What the hell am I supposed to think?

Ill just say it this way: The fate of the world depends on the Democrats getting their shit together and winning in November. We have to beat Trump. And so far, I dont like what I see. And a lot of people I talk to feel the same way.

Whats gone wrong? Whos responsible?

I dont know. We just had an election in 2018. We did great. We talked about everything we needed to talk about, and we won. And now its like were losing our damn minds. Someones got to step their game up here.

What does that mean?

In 2018, Democrats recruited really strong candidates, really qualified candidates. And the party said, This is what were going to talk about and were going to keep talking about it. And you know what happened? We fucking won. We didnt get distracted, we didnt get deflected.

Give me an example of what you mean by distractions.

We have candidates on the debate stage talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration. Theyre talking about doing away with nuclear energy and fracking. Youve got Bernie Sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote from jail cells. It doesnt matter what you think about any of that, or if there are good arguments talking about that is not how you win a national election. Its not how you become a majoritarian party.

For fucks sake, weve got Trump at Davos talking about cutting Medicare and no one in the party has the sense to plaster a picture of him up there sucking up to the global elites, talking about cutting taxes for them while hes talking about cutting Medicare back home. Jesus, this is so obvious and so easy and I dont see any of the candidates taking advantage of it.

The Republicans have destroyed their party and turned it into a personality cult, but if anyone thinks they cant win, theyre out of their damn minds.

I wouldnt endorse everything every Democrat is doing or saying, but are they really destroying the party? What does that even mean?

Look, Bernie Sanders isnt a Democrat. Hes never been a Democrat. Hes an ideologue. And Ive been clear about this: If Bernie is the nominee, Ill vote for him. No question. Ill take an ideological fanatic over a career criminal any day. But hes not a Democrat.

You know people are going to read this and say, Carville backed Clinton in 2016. So did the Democratic establishment. They blew it in 2016. Why should I care what any of them think now?

People will say anything. And first of all, Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million. And secondly, the Russians put Jill Stein in front of Clintons campaign to depress votes. And thirdly, the New York Times a week before an election, assured its readers that the Russians were not even trying to help Trump. And then they wrote 15,000 stories about Hillarys emails.

But back to Sanders what Im saying is the Democratic Party isnt Bernie Sanders, whatever you think about Sanders.

A lot of threads there. First, a lot of people dont trust the Democratic Party, dont believe in the party, for reasons youve already mentioned, and so they just dont care about that. They want change. And I guess the other thing Id say is, 2016 scrambled our understanding of whats possible in American politics.

Are we really sure Sanders cant win?

Who the hell knows? But heres what I do know: Sanders might get 280 electoral votes and win the presidency and maybe we keep the House. But theres no chance in hell well ever win the Senate with Sanders at the top of the party defining it for the public. Eighteen percent of the country elects more than half of our senators. Thats the deal, fair or not.

So long as [Mitch] McConnell runs the Senate, its game over. Theres no chance well change the courts, and nothing will happen, and hell just be sitting up there screaming in the microphone about the revolution.

The purpose of a political party is to acquire power. All right? Without power, nothing matters.

Whats the answer?

By framing, repeating, and delivering a coherent, meaningful message that is relevant to peoples lives and having the political skill not to be sucked into every rabbit hole that somebody puts in front of you.

The Democratic Party is the party of African Americans. Its becoming a party of educated suburbanites, particularly women. Its the party of Latinos. Were a party of immigrants. Most of the people arent into all this distracting shit about open borders and letting prisoners vote. They dont care. They have lives to lead. They have kids. They have parents that are sick. Thats what we have to talk about. Thats all we should talk about.

Its not that this stuff doesnt matter. And its not that we shouldnt talk about race. We have to talk about race. Its about how you deliver and frame the message. I thought Cory Bookers baby bonds plan was great and the kind of thing the party could connect to peoples actual lives.

We have one moral imperative here, and thats beating Trump. Nothing else matters.

So your complaint is basically that the party has tacked too far to the left?

Theyve tacked off the damn radar screen. And look, I dont consider myself a moderate or a centrist. Im a liberal. But not everything has to be on the left-right continuum. I love Warrens day care plan just like I love Bookers baby bonds. Thats the kind of stuff our candidates should explain and define clearly and repeatedly for voters and not get diverted by whatever the hell is in the air that day.

Heres another stupid thing: Democrats talking about free college tuition or debt forgiveness. Im not here to debate the idea. What I can tell you is that people all over this country worked their way through school, sent their kids to school, paid off student loans. They dont want to hear this shit. And you saw Warren confronted by an angry voter over this. Its just not a winning message.

The real argument here is that some people think theres a real yearning for a left-wing revolution in this country, and if we just appeal to the people who feel that, well grow and excite them and well win. But theres a word a lot of people hate that I love: politics. It means building coalitions to win elections. It means sometimes having to sit back and listen to what people think and framing your message accordingly.

Thats all I care about. Right now the most important thing is getting this career criminal whos stealing everything that isnt nailed down out of the White House. We cant do anything for anyone if we dont start there and then acquire more power.

Can I say one more thing about the cultural disconnect?

Sure.

I want to give you an example of the problem here. A few weeks ago, Binyamin Appelbaum, an economics writer for the New York Times, posted a snarky tweet about how LSU canceled classes for the National Championship game. And then he said, do the Warren/Sanders free public college proposals include LSU, or would it only apply to actual schools?

You know how fucking patronizing that is to people in the South or in the middle of the country? First, LSU has an unusually high graduation rate, but thats not the point. Its the goddamn smugness. This is from a guy who lives in New York and serves on the Times editorial board and theres not a single person he knows that doesnt pat him on the back for that kind of tweet. Hes so fucking smart.

Appelbaum doesnt speak for the Democratic Party, but he does represent the urbanist mindset. We cant win the Senate by looking down at people. The Democratic Party has to drive a narrative that doesnt give off vapors that were smarter than everyone or culturally arrogant.

A lot of Democratic candidates dont talk like that. Warren doesnt talk like that. Sanders doesnt talk like that. Buttigieg doesnt talk like that. Cory Booker never talked like that.

Warren knows her stuff, and Im particularly hard on her, because she was the star pupil, the one who was smart, had a good story. But I think she gets distracted and loses her core anti-corruption message, which resonates. With a lot of these candidates, their consultants are telling them, If you doubt it, just go left. We got to get the nomination.

And then Biden gets in and blocks out good candidates like Cory Booker or Michael Bennet or Steve Bullock by occupying this mainstream lane. There just isnt enough oxygen and they couldnt get any traction. But these are serious people, professional people, and they couldve delivered a winning message.

Are you confident that any of the remaining candidates can beat Trump?

I dont know, I just dont know. Im hoping that someone gets knocked off their horse on the road to Damascus.

Buttigieg seems to model the sort of candidate you think can win.

Mayor Pete has to demonstrate over the course of a campaign that he can excite and motivate arguably the most important constituents in the Democratic Party: African Americans. These voters are a hell of a lot more important than a bunch of 25-year-olds shouting everyone down on Twitter.

I take all your points about power and the Senate and the need to be a majoritarian party. I just wonder where the limits are, especially in this media ecosystem where even the best Democratic messaging gets deformed and bastardized in right-wing media and thus never reaches the people Democrats need to reach, or at least doesnt reach enough of them.

I think the other side wants us to think there are no swing voters, that were doomed and it doesnt even matter if you have a message because you cant reach anyone. I think thats bullshit. I think thats a wholly incorrect view of American politics. But look, if no ones persuadable, then lets just have the revolution.

Falling into despair wont help anyone, though. I mean, you can curse the darkness or you can light a candle. Im getting a fucking welding torch. Okay?

Sign up for the Sentences newsletter. No shouting. No alerts. No BS. Get the news that matters, in one email at the end of the day.

Get our newsletter in your inbox Monday through Friday.

Link:
James Carville is scared to death about whether Sanders and others can beat Trump - Vox.com

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is taking heat from fellow Democrats for going on Sean Hannitys Fox News program Monday night. And saying she supports Donald Trump firing the impeachment witnesses, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland.

Thats not a very popular idea among Democrats right now.

In fact, Democrats and even non-partisan media analysts have been discussing the firings as if President Donald Trump is some kind of all-powerful despot now.

They prove hes the dangerous and terrible autocrat Democrats warned about.

So we get headlines like, Trump weaponizes the Presidency after impeachment victory, and Donald Trumps Impeachment Revenge Has Only Just Begun.

The weaponizes headline comes from a CNN political analyst who says:

[Trump] is completing his project of fashioning the office around his own personality. Its unrestrained, unaccountable, often profane, impervious to outside influence and factual constraints of normal governance.

That does make a compelling, dramatic narrative, and happens to serve partisan Democratic campaign messaging (or so they think). But its groundless hyperbole.

Tulsi Gabbard, who served as a combat medic in Iraq knows what real unrestrained, unaccountable dictatorships look like. Actual autocrats, ruling over truly despotic regimes, would have disappeared Vindman and Sondland and their whole families.

In those countries, rebels assassinate, they dont impeach. And rulers execute.

But America is still America. And Donald Trump is not any more powerful than Barack Obama or George W. Bush were. Trump merely fired the witnesses. The brothers Vindman havent even lost their jobs. Theyre just transferring posts from the White House to the Pentagon. Sondland will land on his feet. Theyll all be fine.

Mid-tier government officials openly revolted against the sitting executive of the most powerful nation on earth, and simply had to change jobs as a consequence.

That proves what a great country America is.

Watch Donald Trump defend Tulsi Gabbard:

She not an asset of Russia. These people are sick. Theres something wrong with them.

Trump swept to power because of the kind of politics Tulsi Gabbard opposes. The middle got tired of Democrats blowing little things out of proportion. While twisting harmless things out of context. And doing it all with an animus of malice and hatred.

Tulsi Gabbard is the Democrat her party needs most at this moment, but she wont be elevated as their standard bearer. Because shes not the hero they deserve.

The most visible leaders of the party of Jefferson, in elected office and the media, have made a death pact with the cynical politics of arrogance and hatred.

But that made Donald Trump their North star. Everything they do is in relation to hating and opposing Trump, which brings them into his orbit.

By contrast, Tulsi Gabbard defines herself by her progressive politics, not knee-jerk hatred and heart palpitations any time Trump breathes.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of CCN.com.

This article was edited by Sam Bourgi.

The rest is here:
Tulsi Gabbard Is The Hero Democrats Dont Deserve, But Need Right Now - CCN.com

After surveying the wreckage of the Iowa caucus clown car, scattered in pieces by the side of the road to defeat, a liberal friend of mine asked, This has to be on purpose, right? Nobody is this incompetent. Do they want Trump to win again?

The answer to that pained rhetorical question is yes.

For a number of liberal authors, editors, speakers, professors, celebrities, organizations, unions, political action committees, newspapers and cable networks, hating President TrumpDonald John TrumpWinners and losers from the New Hampshire primary Sanders on NH victory: Win is 'beginning of the end for Donald Trump' Biden, Warren on ropes after delegate shutout MORE has become a cash cow on steroids. They cant rake in the money fast enough before the next pile crashesin front of them.

With regard to the embarrassing meltdown in Iowa, the companies tied to the fiasco Acronym and the Shadow app seem to be doing quite well for themselves, if not for Democratic voters, since Trumps election.

Thats exactly the point: Many liberal operatives have never made this much money, and, for that reason, some need if not want Trump to be reelected. The We Hate Trump gravy train must not be allowed to derail.

Will they ever acknowledge that to thedesperate base of the Democratic Party, the supporters of Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersWinners and losers from the New Hampshire primary Sanders on NH victory: Win is 'beginning of the end for Donald Trump' Buttigieg congratulates Sanders on 'strong showing' in New Hampshire MORE (I-Vt.), dubbed the Bernie Bros, or the progressives who have pledged allegiance to The Squad? Of course not.

Those entrenched elite liberals purposely manufacturing, manipulating and exploiting the hatred and rage directed at President Trump, for personal gain or that of their organizations, will continue to utter pejoratives against Trump and publicly wish him ill will. But privately? Theyre probably thanking their lucky stars that the most unorthodox, boastful political outsider in the history of the presidency came their way.

It is a relationship forged by King Midas.

If you are one of the millions of Americans liberals have conditioned to hate President Trump regardless of his positions or any verifiable successes hes had that may positively affect your life you need to remember the golden rule of politics: Follow the money.

Instead of parroting the rumors about collusion with Russia, the need for his impeachment or how the president is a national embarrassment, take a long, hard look at those who profess to have your back.

Liberal authors are getting six- and seven-figure book advances for hating Trump. Their liberal publishers make millions off those books. The liberal political action committees have enjoyed record-setting fundraising for the past three years. Marginal celebrities tweet self-serving hateful comments. Liberal speakers command thousands of dollars in fees. And the liberal cable TV hosts and their networks are realizing millions of dollars in profits from attacking Trump.

Do you honestly believethey want the riches money, career advancement, personal recognition to stop? Do you think any of them would sacrifice that gain to rectify the pain and suffering that might be plaguing downtrodden Americans?

Beyond that, look at the politicians who swear they are advocating on your behalf chief among them House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Reps.Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Their public profiles and power bases grew exponentially with Trumps election and their constant vilification of the president.

Imagine where they would be now had Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonWinners and losers from the New Hampshire primary Sanders wins New Hampshire primary Trump swipes at resigned prosecutors, judge in Roger Stone case MORE won in 2016. They would be but a shadow of their manufactured selves.

Make no mistake: This same formula existed when former President Obama was in office and scores of conservatives and Republicans got rich by attacking and demeaning him. During the Obama years, the Republican Congress and elite GOP establishment did next to nothing for their base. We can only imagine how many of them secretly prayed for Obamas reelection in 2012.

As the Disney song tells us in Beauty and the Beast, its a tale as old as time.

And precisely because of that sort of fairy tale, Trump was elected president. Across the country, millions of Americans realized that both political parties and their respective power brokers have played them for chumps for years for their own gain. They decided to cast the elites aside and vote for Trump.

Its likely to happen again in November maybe even in greater numbers. And you can bet thatsome liberal Democrats who stand to profit from Trumps reelection will secretly root for that to happen.

Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.

The rest is here:
The betrayal of Democratic voters: Many 'liberals' need Trump to win | TheHill - The Hill

Lawyers disagreed with Clearview AI's defense that it has a First Amendment right to scrape people's images from public posts.

The First Amendment protects a lot of things, even flipping off a cop or burning the flag. But it may not give a controversial facial recognition company the right to keep scraping data from the internet for a database of more than 3 billion images.

On a CBS This Morning segment on Wednesday, Clearview AI CEO Hoan Ton-That said his company has a First Amendment right to access public data, including photos from YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Venmo. It uses those photos for a controversial database primarily accessed by law enforcement. (Disclosure: CBS News and CNET are owned by the same parent company.)

Facebook, Twitter and Google have already sent cease-and-desist letters to Clearview, saying data scraping violates their terms of service. Clearview's legal counsel has been in touch with the companies, Ton-That told CBS, defending the practice with the first item in the Bill of Rights. On Thursday, LinkedIn said it's also sending a cease-and-desist letter to the company.

"There is also a First Amendment right to public information," Ton-That said in the interview. "The way we have built our system is to only take publicly available information and index it that way."

Privacy and technology lawyers are finding plenty of holes in the company's argument. They say that First Amendment protections apply only in cases where the government interferes with someone's speech and that an activity protected by the First Amendment could run afoul of a specific law. In addition, the First Amendment argument hasn't worked in previous data collection cases, though none of those involved facial recognition.

"I don't really buy it," said Tiffany C. Li, a privacy attorney and visiting professor at Boston University School of Law teaching technology law. "It's really frightening if we get into a world where someone can say, 'The First Amendment allows me to violate everyone's privacy.'"

Clearview didn't respond to a request for comment.

The First Amendment specifically protects people from the government interfering with someone's free speech. But it says nothing about private businesses, like Twitter and Google, which can set up ground rules for their sites and services. Because it doesn't cover private business, arguments that Twitter and Facebook violate the First Amendment by "censoring" postsalso often fall flat.

"Defending and respecting the voices of the people who use our service is one of our core values at Twitter, and we remain committed to protecting their privacy," Twitter said in a statement.

Google didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

"If this were a government website that was posting information and someone was scraping it, as opposed to Facebook or Twitter data, there could be a much clearer argument," Li said. "Here, these were private parties."

Privacy attorney Tiffany C. Li

Even if the First Amendment does protect data scraping, Clearview's use of it could still violate privacy and biometrics laws across the US, said Albert Fox Cahn, a civil rights and technology attorney and executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. Clearview is already facing a class action lawsuit in Illinois, in which plaintiffs claim the company violated the state's biometrics law.

"The way First Amendment analysis works is that just because you're protected under one law doesn't mean that you're protected under all laws," Cahn said. "Biometrics surveillance is different than other forms of data scraping -- to the extent that you're taking my image and profiting off of me, that creates a different legal issue than creating a directory."

Another way to think about this: The First Amendment protects your right to burn the flag, but it doesn't protect you from being charged with arson.

Still, tech giants would face an uphill battle if their main defense is that Clearview is violating their terms of service. Tech companies have tried to fight data scraping in the past. It hasn't always worked.

In 2017, LinkedIn, a professional network owned by Microsoft, sent a cease-and-desist letter to data analytics firm HiQ, saying the company was violating its terms of service by scraping public profiles and posts on the social network. LinkedIn blocked HiQ's access to public posts and warned the company would be violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if it developed a workaround. The 1986 law contains broad definitions of what constitutes "hacking."

Like Clearview, HiQ used the First Amendment as a defense, arguing that the CFAA was a use of government authority to stifle access to information that was publicly available on LinkedIn. The social network lost the case and the data scraping was allowed to continue.

Now playing: Watch this: Clearview AI's facial recognition goes creepier than...

2:58

The use of the First Amendment in the HiQ case, however, might not be a precedent for Clearview, lawyers say. That's because the decision ultimately came down to the court's interpretation of the CFAA's provisions, finding that data scraping on its own wasn't "hacking." In some cases, data scraping has benefits, like researchers using it to investigate racial discrimination on Airbnb.

On Thursday, LinkedIn said it's also taking action against Clearview AI.

"We are sending a cease-and-desist letter to Clearview AI. The scraping of member information is not allowed under our terms of service and we take action to protect our members," the company said.

Lawyers say Google, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter might not need to rely on the CFAA. Instead, they can use privacy protection to address the situation.

"If you want to deal with this, the way is not by messing with the CFAA. It's by going through biometric privacy laws," Li said. "I'm in favor of allowing for web scraping generally, but I'm also in favor of privacy."

Clearview says it's partnered with more than 600 law enforcement agencies in the US. Sen. Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, has said Clearview presents "chilling privacy risks," while New Jersey's attorney general has barred the state's police from using the app over concerns about privacy and cybersecurity.

"Even if they're protected for the purposes of scraping, that doesn't mean they're protected for the ways they're using that data for biometric surveillance," Cahn said. "We shouldn't conflate immunity from the CFAA with immunity from every possible state and legal claim."

Originally published Feb. 6, 8 a.m. ET.Update, 3:12 p.m. ET:Adds that LinkedIn is now sending a cease-and-desist to Clearview.

Read the original:
Clearview AI says the First Amendment lets it scrape the internet. Lawyers disagree - CNET

When it comes to free expression and the First Amendment, its important for us to know when it protects what we say and write and when it doesnt.

Case in point: Proposed Arizona House bill HB2124, related to access to online content. The sponsor, state Rep. Bob Thorpe, proposes to allow users or the state attorney general to sue an internet site that edits, deletes or makes it difficult or impossible for online users to locate and access content on the site in an easy or timely manner for politically biased reasons.

The bill is in line with complaints now fashionable among political conservatives nationwide that online platforms and social media sites from Google to Facebook to Twitter and others somehow exclude or downplay their views while emphasizing liberal viewpoints.

Nothing wrong with raising such concerns. The inner policies and algorithms of these web behemoths largely generally remain hidden and the entire online world is simply too new and ever-changing to provide an accurate portrait from the outside.

So, in effect we dont know what were not seeing when we search or use such sites, and those companies are free to set their own practices and rules on what we do see or post. Whether for altruistic or political motives, proposals such as the Arizona legislation would change that except that the First Amendment rules out such government intervention in a private business.

The First Amendment guarantees against content or viewpoint discrimination and by extension, access to information apply to government, not private individuals or companies, which have their own First Amendment rights to decide what they will or wont say and post. And even legislation cannot empower individuals (or attorneys general) to override that constitutional protection by using civil penalties rather than criminal law see the old legal adage, you cannot do by the back door what you cannot do by the front door.

Moreover, do we really want to override the First Amendment with such open access laws? Turn to another adage the law of unintended consequences. Requiring internet providers to permit unrestrained access and right to post material denies such companies the ability to respond to their consumers demands on materials that can range from offensive to repulsive. Thorpes bill excludes libelous or pornographic material, but what about currently banned content on most social media sites, such as videos that show public assaults or are intended to bully or harass? Would internet companies and social media sites be mandated to carry deliberate misinformation about health issues?

There is a small window in the wall of First Amendment protection that could possibly permit regulation of private online companies, called the public function exception. In effect, it turns a private concern into a government operation when performing an essential government function. The exception rests on a 1946 Supreme Court decision, in Marsh v. Alabama, involving a so-called company town. The court reasoned that since the town functioned as a government entity, not a private enterprise, it had become one.

But the court has refined its ruling through the years, and in 1974 held that such a conversion takes place only when the private concern is providing services exclusively done by government. Clearly, providing an online platform or a social media site fails to meet that test.

Some critics of the current social media policies argue that those sites are effectively a digital public square by virtue of their ubiquitous presence in modern life. Some reports say that more than seven in every 10 Americans used social media sites in 2018 and that the number increases each year. But the very nature of the web, in which start-ups and competing sites of all kinds arise constantly, would also seem to prevent isolating even dominant companies for such a quasi-government role with the required exclusive provider condition.

As shown in other examples where First Amendment protections come into conflict with practices or actions that offend, or seem to run counter to the marketplace of ideas concept of the widest exchange of ideals or viewpoints, the court of public opinion often functions more effectively and more quickly than legal action or legislation. Public discussions and resulting social pressures to combat online bullying or videos showing assault or even murders have demonstrably changed those private provider policies on what is posted and permitted, for example.

A shortcut through First Amendment protections may seem an expedient method at the time but for very good reasons, free expression advocates should resist quicker solutions for some, in the name of protecting those long-term freedoms for us all.

Gene Policinski is president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at gpolicinski@freedomforum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.

See original here:
COMMENTARY: Focus on when the First Amendment protects ... and when it doesn't - Crow River Media