Mediaboss Marketing

Dear Editor,

Ours is not a theocracy. Ours is a representative democracy. Our nation was founded, in part, in response to the religious tyranny experienced by its new citizens in the countries from which theyd fled. Thus, commitment to the separation of church and state was vital. This meant our nation would never establish a national church nor show preference for any one religion.

Our 1st Amendment not only protects speech, it also protects four other rights, among them religious liberty. It begins, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Respect for religious liberty is even more critical today than it was in 1787, as our nation is now vastly more diverse.

Which brings me to the topic of abortion.

When and under what circumstances abortion should be legal is a highly nuanced and contentious issue. For the religion of my mother, an embryo was to be protected absolutely from the moment of conception. It was believed, too, that the prohibition against direct abortion at any time during pregnancy and for any reason should not just be a personal religious/moral decision, but legally prohibited for allregardless of the embryos or fetuss viability, regardless of the threat to the mothers life, and regardless of an individuals religious convictions.

The dilemma for me as a citizen is whether my own personal religious beliefs, and/or those of my mother, should be imposed on everyone else regardless of their own theology. Personally, I think not, absolutely.

Denise Fazio, Ed.D.,Boulder County

Like Loading...

Originally posted here:
First Amendment rights The Mountain-Ear - The Mountain -Ear

Benjamin Grieco and Mikayla Green, student co-directors for the 2020 Lewis B. ODonnell Media Summit, are part of a student team organizing an all-star group to discuss On the Front Lines with the First Amendment on Wednesday, Oct. 28.

OSWEGO The 2020 edition of SUNY Oswegos Lewis B. ODonnell Media Summit will convene an all-star group to discuss On the Front Lines with the First Amendment on Wednesday, Oct. 28.

The centerpiece panel presentation will take place virtually at 3:30 p.m. via Zoom, and will feature Connie Schultz, a Pulitzer-Prize winning, nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate; Oswego alumna Michelle Garcia, editorial manager of NBC News NBC BLK, which which tells stories by, for and about the Black community; Bret Jaspers, politics reporter for KERA Public Media in Dallas-Fort Worth; Steve Brown, investigative reporter at WGRZ in Buffalo; and Ava Lubell, a Legal Fellow at the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic. Communication studies faculty member Michael Riecke will serve as moderator.

Student co-directors Mikayla Green and Benjamin Grieco noted that when they and the rest of the team were looking at themes for the 16th annual summit, they watched the world in which journalists operate change so much in a few months, as the press adapted to covering and telling the stories of COVID-19, the Black Lives Matter movement, the upcoming election and so many compelling, fast-moving stories.

We were told to aim high, said Grieco, a senior journalism major and editor in chief of The Oswegonian. Our guests dont have to travel, which makes it easier. We could ask, Do you have four hours to talk to these students who are really interested in what you have to say?

Especially with the summit coming just days before such a pivotal election, the virtual arrangement helped secure a high caliber of participants, they noted.

Distinguished panelA popular panelist at a previous summit, Schultz also is a Professional in Residence at Kent State University School of Journalism. She won the Pulitzer Prize in 2005 for Commentary for columns that judges praised for providing a voice for the underdog and the underprivileged. She also won the Robert F. Kennedy Award for Social Justice Reporting and the Batten Medal, which honors a body of journalistic work that reflects compassion, courage, humanity and a deep concern for the underdog. Schultz is the author of three books published by Random House, plus her first novel, The Daughters of Erietown, a New York Times bestseller.

Over the last decade, Garcia has covered major social movements across the United States including the fight for marriage equality, #MeToo and the Black Lives Matter movement, to name a few. The 2006 SUNY Oswego journalism graduate and former Oswegonian editor in chief was named to Folios list of 20 in their 20s, won a GLAAD Media Award with her staff about the advancement of the HIV treatment drug Truvada, taught at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism and has coached several successful writers along the way. Previously, Garcia was an editor at Vice, Out, Vox, Mic and The Advocate.

Jaspers stories have aired on the BBC, NPRs All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Weekend Edition, and Here & Now, and APMs Marketplace. He previously reported on politics and the Colorado River basin for KJZZ in Phoenix, and before that was managing editor at WSKG in upstate New York. Awards include three 2020 Regional Murrow Awards for reporting at KJZZ, one for Hard News, and two as part of KJZZs series Tracing the Migrant Journey. That series also won a 2020 Kaleidoscope Award for excellence in covering an issue of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender.

Brown has spent a lifetime in journalism after graduating from Canisius College in 1983. He has been honored with multiple award including six regional Murrow Awards, four of which he collected while working for 2 On-Your-Side. In 2019, he won a national Murrow Award for his short documentary about a man who sought to have the Catholic Church admit a priest was his biological father. Before coming in Buffalo, Brown spent 15 years as a correspondent for Fox News.

Lubell provides pro bono legal advice to NYC metro area journalists on a range of First Amendment issues arising from newsgathering and publication. Previously, Lubell served as the General Counsel of Quartz Media, which focuses on global business news and has reporters based in cities around the world. She previously also worked at Slate as general manager and general counsel; as special assistant for briefing under New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and as the political director for the Women and Politics Institute at American University. She is an affiliate member of the NYC Bar Association Communications and Media Law Committee.

Keeping connectionsThe panelists traditionally visit classrooms on the day of the event, and that is something organizers plan to continue via Zoom rooms.

I remember being a freshman and knowing that someone will show up to your class and tell some really cool stories, said Green, a senior broadcasting major and vice president of production for WTOP-TV 10. Im glad we can still do that.

The popular Career Connectors component is still in the plan, this time in a virtual environment where current students can talk to recent graduates in the industry and network on a one-on-one basis.

This years Career Connectors include Natalie Brophy 17, a reporter for Gannett/USA Today Network; Imani Cruz 17, talent and development, MTV Networks; Justin Dobrow 17, program operations manager, Peacock for NBCUniversal Media; Stephanie Herbert 18, media director for MOST (Museum of Science and Technology) in Syracuse; Allif Karim 18, sports director for WDVM-TV in Maryland; and Omy Melo 14, junior editor at Nickelodeon.

As different as everything is this year, we do want to keep it familiar, Green said. But one way we can change it is to make it even more open virtually.

We dont really want to change that tradition or standard, Grieco added. Were trying to maintain that legacy. It may be virtual, but everything else is, so why cant we keep doing the same things?

Organizers expect student media WTOP and WNYO to broadcast the Zoom feed of the panel discussion as well.

Louis A. Borrelli Jr., a pioneer in cable television, online media and broadcast production services and a 1977 Oswego graduate, made a founding gift for the media summit in 2005. Two years later, 1976 graduate Al Roker, the national weather anchor and co-host of the third hour of NBCs Today show, provided additional funding to rename the summit in memory of longtime professor Dr. Lewis B. ODonnell, a seminal figure in the college experiences of Borrelli, Roker and many others.

The annual School of Communication, Media and the Arts highlight is organized by a student team with journalism faculty member Brian Moritz serving as advisor.

For more information, visit MediaSummit.org.

Like Loading...

Related

See the article here:
SUNY Oswego Media Summit To Explore 'On The Front Lines With The First Amendment' - Oswego Daily News

Graphic by Owensboro Times

Every statewide elected official takes an oath to uphold the constitutions of the United States andthe Commonwealth of Kentucky. As your elected State Treasurer, I have the addedresponsibility of watching all state expenditures, billions of dollars every year, and making surethat your taxpayer dollars are not being used in a way that violates the Constitution.

In recent weeks, there have been stories circulating nationwide about the efforts of the Archbishop of San Francisco to overturn the punitive limits imposed on churches by the mayorof San Francisco. The last few days have seen a resurgence in the targeting of Orthodox Jewishcommunities in New York, as well as other houses of worship, by imposing hard caps of 10 and 25 people per service, regardless of the size of the church or synagogue. As efforts to protectcivil liberties in those areas moves forward, we must remember that the targeting of religiousexercise by state and local officials is not limited to the coastal blue states.

Kentucky, whose politics will never be confused with New York or California, has itself seenmultiple federal courts strike down executive orders issued by Gov. Andy Beshear, on the grounds that the orders limiting religious services, travel, or protest, violated the fundamental,constitutional rights of Kentuckians. In any other time in our history, a series of defeats of thismagnitude would have been met with much greater attention and demand for accountability.

Due to my role as a watchdog of public spending, I directed my office to review the way taxpayer dollars were being spent to enforce the administrations questionable executive ordersrelating to First Amendment activities. Protecting our Commonwealth and its great citizens need not be done at the expense of the First Amendment. It is possible to protect the Commonwealth while respecting, and adhering to, a principle upon which this country was founded. My office requested information from a number of health departments around the Commonwealth, and received responses from several departments, as well as the Kentucky State Police.

Our investigation uncovered numerous instances of law enforcement being used to monitor orshut down faith-based services; derogatory or confrontational comments made about religious exercise by those in leadership; and selective, targeted enforcement of mass gathering prohibitions, in violation of the First Amendment. The actions taken at a local level seem to be directly correlated to the decisions made, and the tone set, by the Governors administration in Frankfort, which itself has too often used daily briefings and press releases as opportunities to disparage or threaten any person or institution that questions the legality and appropriateness ofthe administrations orders.

On Oct. 22, I will be presenting my offices findings to the Interim Joint Committee onJudiciary in Frankfort. This will be an opportunity for legislators to consider what we haveuncovered in relation to executive actions during last few months, and for the public to learnmore about how taxpayer dollars have been spent to enforce arbitrary government orders.

Kentuckians have established a constitution and laws that demand respect for the FirstAmendment rights of all citizens, regardless of their religious or political beliefs. During the1930s, as our nation was trapped within the economic catastrophe of the Great Depression, andfacing the rise of dangerous forces around the world, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughesreminded the country that [t]he Constitution was adopted in a period of great emergency. Heastutely noted that [e]mergency does not create power and that [e]mergency does not increasegranted power. The extraordinary challenges presented in 2020 do not provide justification forexpanding the Governors powers, or for ignoring the fundamental tenets that separate ourdemocracy from failed and oppressive autocratic states arounds the world.

The First Amendment must be vigorously defended by all elected officials, particularly in times of emergency, when it is the easiest for the government to justify unconstitutional restrictions. Iencourage every Kentuckian to continue to demand that our government adhere to the constitution and laws of the Commonwealth, and I look forward to continuing to serve the Commonwealth as your State Treasurer.

Written by Kentucky State Treasurer Allison Ball

Link:
Letter to the Editor: Government suppression of First Amendment during pandemic - The Owensboro Times

A presidential election like no other in history, a global pandemic causing an unprecedented economic and emotional toll on our communities, and a remote learning environment where virtual communication reigns, whether in the school setting or through social media. What are the rules to navigate discussion and debate on these issues and others in the public school setting, and how can administrators work within them to model respectful discourse not just for students but for our school communities at large? This episode covers the Seemore+

A presidential election like no other in history, a global pandemic causing an unprecedented economic and emotional toll on our communities, and a remote learning environment where virtual communication reigns, whether in the school setting or through social media. What are the rules to navigate discussion and debate on these issues and others in the public school setting, and how can administrators work within them to model respectful discourse not just for students but for our school communities at large? This episode covers the rights of employees and students to exercise their first amendment rights and respect the rights of others, whether teaching on controversial topics, sponsoring student clubs or publications, or navigating political messages shared by school community members through personal social media. Seeless-

See the original post here:
They Said What? First Amendment Issues in 2020 | Franczek PC - JD Supra

Todays episode of SYSTEM UPDATE on this topic with guest Ira Glasser, the Executive Director of the ACLU from 1978-2001 and subject of the new documentary Mighty Ira can be viewed onThe Intercepts You Tube channelor on the player below.

That a belief in free speech is rapidly eroding in the U.S.is hardly debatable. Every relevant metric demonstrates that to be the case.

Opposition to the primacy of free speech has been commonplace on Americas most elite college campuses for years, but is now predictably seeping into virtually every sector of American political life beyond academia into the corporate workplace, journalism, the legal community, culture, the arts, and entertainment. Both a cause of this contamination and a result is the growing popular belief that free speech can no longer be protected as a primary right but must be balanced meaning constricted in the name of other political and social values that are purportedly in conflict with free expression.

Pew found in 2015 that American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups. A 2017 University of Chicago survey similarly demonstrated thatnearly half of the millennials say that colleges should limit freedom of speech in extreme cases. A 2019 poll found that large percentages of Americans, in some cases majorities, believe the First Amendment goes too far in protecting free speech and its understanding should be updated to reflect contemporary cultural views.

Just this week, the New York Times Magazine published a cover story by the thoughtful liberal journalist Emily Bazelon which explicitly questioned one might sayrejected the ongoing viability of the First Amendment and free speech values on the ground that the U.S., in Bazelons view, is in the midst of an information crisis caused by the spread of viral disinformation, defined as falsehoods aimed at achieving a political goal. As a result, Bazelon approvingly argues:increasingly, scholars of constitutional law, as well as social scientists, are beginning to question the way we have come to think about the First Amendments guarantee of free speech.

But perhaps the most potent and disturbing trend illustrating how rapidly this erosion is taking place is that it has even infected sectors of the organization that has, for decades, been the most stalwart, principled, and unflinching defender of free speech: the American Civil Liberties Union. Internal debates over whether the group should retreat from its long-standing free speech position have been festering for years.

There are vibrant, sometimes hostile disagreements among ACLU lawyers and activists about whether free speech should now be restricted in order to promote other political values increasingly taking center stageinliberal-left politics. One of the most intense crisesin theorganizations history came in 2017when ACLU lawyers defended awhite supremacistgroup that was denied a permit bythe city of Charlottesville, Virginia to protest in a prominent and symbolically important public square. The ACLU prevailed, and when one of the extremists in that group plowed his car into a group of counter-protesters, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer, numerous ACLU activists and even some lawyers angrily insisted that the group should not represent the free speech rights of racist or neo-fascist groups.

The ACLUs leadership then issued a series of confusing statements and memos that suggested at least somewhat of a retreat from their long-standing organizational posture, though Executive Director Anthony Romero insists that they were simply re-affirming what had always been the groups policy regarding armed protesters. Meanwhile, as the ACLU (like the New York Times) has been deluged with a huge surge of Trump-era donations given by #Resistance liberals, it has also been criticized for abandoning its core identity of being a non-partisan civil liberties group that defends free speech and due process rights of everyone, and instead transforming into a standard liberal activist group (though the ACLU continues to defend groups such as the NRA against New York States efforts to disband it, continues tourge a pardon for Edward Snowden, and still often representsthe rights of Christian students and other views associated with the right).

I have written many times about my views on all of these debates and will not repeat them here. My most comprehensive explanation for why I believe that no erosions of free speech can be tolerated and why efforts to erode or balance rights of free expression are far more dangerous than whatever viewsare targetedfor suppression was this 2013 essay in the Guardian, where I denounced efforts by a French minister to force Twitter to censor what she regards as hate speech. I have reported often on why hate speech laws are so misguided (including because they often end up suppressing the views of the marginalized), and specifically defended the ACLU from its critics after Charlottesville. And last week I argued that censorship by Facebook and Twitter of a New York Post story was dangerous in the extreme.

But todays SYSTEM UPDATE episode is devoted not to my views on these questions but those of Ira Glasser, who served as the Executive Director of the ACLU from 1978-2001, when he retired shortly before the 9/11 attack. Glasser is the star of an exceptionalnew documentary, which I cannot recommend highly enough, entitled Mighty Ira, which traces not only Glassers life and work at the ACLU but also the history of the last half of the 20th Century that shaped both his political outlook and the ACLUs growth from a small and financially precarious group into a legal and political powerhouse under his leadership.

Glasser is an old-school civil libertarian in the best and most classic sense of that term. One of his first challenges upon assuming his leadership position was dealing with the fallout of the crisis the ACLU faced in that era: public and internal fury that its largely Jewish lawyers had represented a neo-Nazi groups right in 1977 to march through the town of Skokie, Illinois, which had not only a large Jewish population but onewith thousands of survivors of the Nazi death camps. Glasser steadfastly defended the nobility of that position even as donors and even some staff members left in droves, threatening the ongoing viability of the group, and he continues with great eloquence, and with great relevance to our current debates, to defend that decision today (on its site, the ACLU alsocontinues to defend that Skokie caseas one of its proudest and most important moments).

Glasser has not been shy about very vocally and vehemently criticizing what heregards as a retreat by the modern-day ACLU from the organizations long-standing mission. He is particularly scathing about how the politicized money that has poured in has caused the group to pursue standard-issue liberal policy goals at the expense of the Constitutional rights it once uniquely and fearlessly defended.But he also recognizes that many of the ACLU lawyers, and its leadership, still have a commitment to those core values, and oftenare forced to battle their own staffin order to fulfill the groups mission: a perverseconflict that is plaguing numerous political, journalistic and academic institutions.

The history covered by Mighty Ira is fascinating in its own right. But even more interesting is the way that Glassers life and work including very improbable friendships he formed with Ben Stern, one of the Skokie community leaders opposing the ACLU, as well as William F. Buckley, with whom he often sparred on Firing Line and in countless other venues shed so much light on the debates we are currently conducting today, particularly over free speech.

Skokie, Ill. resident and Holocaust survivor Ben Stern shows his concentration camp tattoo to Ira Glasser, in the film Mighty Ira.

Photo: Mighty IRA Documentary

Glasser is an important figure in the political and legal battles of the 20th Century. He remains an incredibly eloquent advocate and compelling thinker on all of these issues. Too many people are unaware of this history. As reflected by both Mighty Iraandmy interview of him which can be seen onThe Intercepts You Tube channelor the player belowthis history is indispensable for understanding and navigating many of the most difficult and consequential political debates of today.

Here is the original post:
Is the Traditional ACLU View of Free Speech Still Viable? Ira Glasser Speaks Out. Glenn Greenwald - The Intercept