Mediaboss Marketing

boAt announced their ambitions to begin manufacturing of their audio products in India this Republic Day. To celebrate the milestone, the brand has launched its latest ad campaign RockIn India, that appeals to the progressive mindset of Indias youth by transforming their own social platforms into a launch-pad to honour the unique creative talents coming from India.

Conceptualized and executed in partnership with its creative partner Digitas India, the idea was to create a progressive narrative around boAts Make in India initiative and using their global platform to show the unique creativity that hides in our country.

Speaking on the launch, Aman Gupta, Co-Founder and CMO, boAt said: We are an extremely proud homegrown brand and we're all geared up to take the leap towards making audio products within India. Digitas has been our partner since some time now, we really look forward to continuing doing some great campaigns with them.

Sushant Sharma, Brand Manager, boAt added, We want to become India's most conversational brand and lead the industry by becoming the ultimate cultural icon of a new India, which takes immense pride in its identity, we are sure that Digitass vision and marketing strategy for the brand, will definitely help us achieve the desired results.

Emphasising on the thought process and the idea behind the initiative, Sonia Khurana, COO - DigitasIndiaadded: We are extremely proud to be a part of boAts exciting journey. Having become the 5th largest wearable brand globally in just five years, boAt is a brand that can celebrate homegrown talent like no other. And thats what we have done with the latest RockIn India campaign. The campaign is proof that home-grown means no-limits and is also a testimony to the great partnership shared between boAt and Digitas.

Adding the creative standpoint behind the campaign, Mark Mcdonald, Executive Vice President & Head of Creative, Digitas India added:Being creative is embedded in boAts DNA and The RockIn India campaign is a great way to celebrate home-grown creativity, talent and skill. Qualities that are in many ways, a reflection of what the brand is all about. This will be an ongoing effort from the brand as it seeks to spotlight and promote meaningful, progressive conversations that resonate with our TG. We couldnt be happier to partner with boAt in its journey to become a truly iconic Indian brand.

Digitas is boAts strategic and creative partner, and operates like an extended team supporting the brand to reach greater heights.

Read more news about (internet advertising India, internet advertising, advertising India, digital advertising India, media advertising India)

See original here:
boAt partners with Digitas to highlight its 'Make in India' narrative - Exchange4Media

In the past week, there has been considerable controversy in the University of Wisconsin Law School community surrounding whether an organization opposed to trans-gender rights should be permitted to participate in the Wisconsin Public Interest Interview Program organized by the law school. While the organization adheres to the law schools non-discrimination policy in its hiring, Womens Liberation Front (WLF) embraces positions rejected by many law students, most notably its opposition to anti-discrimination protections based on gender identity.

On January 30, the law school issued a statement reiterating its opposition to discrimination based on gender identity. However, the law school argues that such disagreement does not justify excluding WLF as an employer, which would constitute viewpoint discrimination contrary to the First Amendment. Various student groups, including QLaw and the Student Bar Association, have responded in writing by characterizing WLF as a hate group and protesting the law schools refusal to remove the organization as a prospective employer.

While it may be an unpopular minority opinion within the law school, I agree with Dean Daniel Tokaji and the law school administration's position and handling of the matter. The law school only needs to ensure that no discrimination exists in employer hiring practices. It would be inappropriate for the law school to censor the political activities of prospective employers.

The University of WisconsinMadison is a public institution, and since Gitlow v. New York (1925), the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has extended to the states under the 14th Amendment. Excluding an employer from the recruiting event in question, based solely on political viewpoint, would be constitutionally impermissible under the First Amendment.

The answer to speech that some may find intolerable, I argue, is more speech, not less. Accordingly, the law school and various student groups have voiced their opposition and disagreement with the positions taken by WLF. I genuinely applaud these efforts.

Hateful ideas and bigoted speech (including, in this instance, calls for government-imposed discrimination that current constitutional law forbids) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas and speech, unless they constitute "fighting words," threats of illegal conduct, incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent lawless action, or some other narrow exception not protected by the First Amendment.

Discomfort or distaste is the price that we pay for the constitutional protections of the First Amendment. This should be especially true in law schools given that our study of the law is a time to explore the many aspects of becoming an adult and professional, including developing an independent voice and the willingness to confront authority and different perspectives with respectful debate. Central to the First Amendment is the recognition that dissent by its nature can be messy and uncomfortable. More tolerance, not less, is needed under these circumstances.

Alfred E. Tsai is a JD candidate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. Do you agree that disagreement and dissent are tenets of open discussion and free expression? Send all comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.

The Daily Cardinal has been covering the University and Madison community since 1892. Please consider giving today.

View original post here:
Letter to the Editor: Law School Right to Affirm Commitment to Free Expression - Daily Cardinal

Confusion continues amongst federal district courts in the wake ofBarr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc.(AAPC), 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020), the Supreme Court decision that held the TCPAs government-debt exceptioninstituted via a 2015 amendment to the statuteviolated the First Amendment. Courts recently have dealt with the issue of whether plaintiffs can bring TCPA claims for conduct occurring between 2015 and July 2020, the date the unconstitutional amendment was passed and the date the Supreme Court declared the amendment unconstitutional and ordered it severed from the TCPA. The Eastern District of Louisiana said the answer to this question is no.Creasy v. Charter Communications, Inc., 2020 WL 5761117 (E.D. La. Sept. 28, 2020). The district courts for the Southern District of California and the Northern District of Ohio disagree, as we discuss below. Our prior posts on this issue, which we have been following closely, can be foundhere.

InMcCurley et al. v. Royal Sea Cruises, Inc., 2021 WL 288164 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021), andLess v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 2021 WL 266548 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 26, 2021), defendants argued that TCPA claims arising during the above-mentioned time period were barred because the TCPA wasentirelyunconstitutional during that period. Both theMcCurleyand theLesscourts disagreed, though the two courts differed in their rationales.

The two courts noted that a majority inAAPChad concluded that the government-debt exception provision was severable from the rest of the statute. TheLesscourt framed the issue as whether severability of the unconstitutional provision should be retroactive to conduct occurring between 2015 and 2020.Less, 2021 WL 266548, at *1. It noted that an unconstitutional statutory amendment is a nullity and void when enacted, and for that reason has no effect on the original statute.Less, 2021 WL 266548, at *1 (quotingAAPC, 140 S. Ct. at 2353 (internal quotation marks omitted)). TheLesscourt concluded that since the 2015 amendment was void at its inception, it had no effect on the pre-2015 text of the statute, and thus because there are not constitutional defects to the pre-2015 text, the statutes enforceability is unaffected by the amendment.Less, 2021 WL 266548, at *1. Accordingly, the court concluded that there was no constitutional defect in Plaintiffs claim even though the claim arose during the 2015-2020 time period.Id.

TheMcCurleycourt reached the same conclusion, but offered slightly different reasoning. It explained that [s]ix members of the [Supreme Court] . . . conclude[d] that Congress ha[d] impermissibly favored debt-collection speech over political and other speech in violation of the First Amendment and [s]even Members of the Court conclude[d] that the entire 1991 robocall restriction should not be invalidated, but rather that the 2015 government-debt exception must be invalidated and severed from the remainder of the statute.McCurley, 2021 WL 288164, at *2 (quotingAAPC, 140 S. Ct. at 2343). TheMcCurleycourt noted that Justice Kavanaughwho had voted that the amendment violated the First Amendment and should be severed from the rest of the TCPAexplicitly stated that the Courts decision does not negate the liability of parties who made robocalls covered by the robocall restriction.Id.(quotingAAPC, 140 S. Ct. at 2355 n.12). TheMcCurleycourt reasoned that because plaintiffs case did not involve the collection of government debt, Justice Kavanaughs words were directly applicable such that the TCPA applied to the alleged conduct even though it occurred between 2015 and 2020.Id.at *2, *4.

TheMcCurleycourt rejected defendants contention that Justice Kavanaughs opinion should be ignored as dicta. The court noted the rule that where there is a plurality opinion of the Supreme Court, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds, and that when an opinion issues for the [Supreme] Court, it is not only the result but also those portions of the opinion necessary to that result by which [courts] are bound.Id.(quotingMarks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) andSeminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 67 (1996)). TheMcCurleycourt stated that one single rationale explain[ed] the result joined by seven of the Justices, namely that [a]ll seven agree that the 2015 amendment should be severed and the liability of the parties making robocalls who were not collecting a government debt is not negated.Id.TheMcCurleycourt thus seemingly reasoned that because those justices joined Kavanaugh regarding severability, they joined him in his brief allusions to retroactivity.

Accordingly, theMcCurleycourt reasoned that Justice Kavanaughs statement applied.Id.at *3. In concluding, the court stated that even if Justice Kavanaughs statement was dicta, the statement signals the intent of the Supreme Court and what it would hold in future cases and, as such, may not be cavalierly dismissed by a district court.Id.

Thus, whether framed through the lens of retroactivity or by using the rule regarding lower courts interpretational duties in parsing Supreme Court plurality opinions, some district courts appear to be hesitant to hold that the TCPA was void from 2015 until the Supreme Courts ruling inAAPC.

2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 36

Visit link:
S.D. Calif & N.D. Ohio Disagree with Creasy Ruling - The National Law Review

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --As an organization dedicated to defending civil rights, the Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) commends The University of Wisconsin Law School (UW Law) in its decision to uphold the First Amendment by refusing to discriminate against organizations with diverse viewpoints.

WoLF chose to participate in the school's Public Interest Interview Program because of UW Law's long tradition of public service and the "Law-in-Action" approach to legal education, which teaches future attorneys how to navigate the real-world complexities of the law. This tradition aligns with WoLF's mission to advance and restore the rights of women and girls, combat the global epidemic of male violence, and resist the harms of an expanding sex industry.

In response to a statement by the student organization QLaw, the UW Law statement of support reflects our shared value of defending civil liberties, even when disagreements arise. While publicly funded institutions are legally required to uphold the First Amendment, UW Law's statement demonstrates courage in the face of a toxic intolerance pervasive within University and college campuses.

WoLF's defense of hard-fought single-sex spaces, sports, and services serves the public interest of the women and girls of Wisconsin. As 2020 national polling showed, the majority of Americans in states as different as Idaho and California agree that single-sex spaces for women and girls should be protected. Just last month, a Wisconsin court ordered the Department of Corrections to transfer a man convicted of repeatedly raping his ten-year-old daughter to the women's prison, since he now identifies as a woman. The vulnerable women in state custody, who are disproportionately women of color, will soon be housed in close confinement with a dangerous sex offender.

While organizations like QLaw may find this acceptable, WoLF stands with UW Law in the recognition that public interest organizations have the freedom to speak out against such policies and must not be discriminated against for doing so.

UW Law's commitment to protecting civil liberties affirms why WoLF chose to partner through its Public Interest Interview Program. We look forward to interviewing a diverse range of qualified candidates as well as working with UW Law to build up the next generation of lawyers with a steadfast dedication to freedom for allincluding women.

Natasha ChartWoLF Executive Director

Learn more about WoLF's work:https://www.womensliberationfront.org/our-work

For media inquiries please contact:[emailprotected]

SOURCE Women's Liberation Front

https://www.womensliberationfront.org

Visit link:
Women's Liberation Front Commends The University of Wisconsin Law School for Upholding First Amendment Protections - PRNewswire

While theres little question that entering or remaining in a country without official authorization is unlawful, considerable controversy exists among governments and the general public about what should be the consequences for illegal immigration.

Possible government policies for dealing with those who illegally enter the country or unlawfully overstay a temporary visa cover a broad range of options.

At one extreme is amnesty or legalization, which often leads to citizenship for those meeting certain criteria, including residing in the country for a number of years, paying back taxes and not having committed a serious crime or felony.

At the other extreme is repatriation or deportation, which typically involves returning those who are unlawfully resident, particularly those who have also been convicted of crimes, back to their countries of origin.

In between those two extremes are a myriad of policy options to address illegal immigration that are often acrimoniously debated among a variety of competing interests, factions and groups.

Regarding the immigration process, a widespread consensus exists among governments and the general public that people wishing to immigrate should do so legally and safely, not unlawfully and dangerously. However, the large numbers of men, women and children wishing to immigrate far exceed the visas that receiving countries are normally prepared to grant. Consequently, with little or no opportunities for legal migration, many women and men turn to illegal immigration or overstay short-term visas.

A global survey undertaken several years ago reported that more than 750 million adult men and women wish to emigrate to another country. In striking contrast, the annual number of immigrants worldwide in recent years has been no more than about 5 million.

In the case of the United States, which is the largest destination country, the number of immigrants in the recent past has been around 1 million per year. However, the number of those wishing to emigrate to the United States is estimated at more than 150 million.

As a result of those huge demographic differences in the supply and demand of migrants, a worldwide clash involving many millions of people is taking place between those wishing to get into another country and those wishing to keep them out of their country.

There are a variety of arguments and concerns put forward for policies to deal with unauthorized migrants. While the areas of concerns are similar their interpretations and reasoning differ greatly.

Advocates for amnesty and regularization, for example, rely on compassion, costs, fairness, family integrity, economics, exploitation, logistics and security to make their case. They maintain that after residing and working in a country for many years, unauthorized migrants should be permitted to remain in the country, apply for legal residency and be eligible for citizenship.

Moreover, they firmly believe that unauthorized migrants should not be returned to extremely difficult and often dangerous living conditions in their origin countries. That position is felt to be especially relevant for those who were unlawfully brought into the country as children, often referred to as Dreamers.

Some U.S. jurisdictions, including cities, counties and states, do not agree with current immigration laws and do not fully cooperate with federal authorities regarding the arrest, detention and repatriation of unauthorized migrants. Some of those jurisdictions have become places of sanctuary for unauthorized migrants.

Those places have taken steps to integrate and assist unauthorized migrants and their families. Those steps include granting drivers licenses, issuing identification cards, providing support and passing laws and provisions to prohibit asking about or disclosing an individuals immigration status.

In addition, some Democratic presidential candidates and others want to decriminalize illegal U.S. border crossings. They argue that the current statute, Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. federal code, is of grave importance because it could be used in punitive fashion in the future against families and children under a policy similar to zero tolerance.

In contrast, those opposed to granting amnesty or legalization stress the importance of the rule of law, border security, crime, fairness, rewards, incentives, wage effects, public trust, societal costs and communal cohesion. Those who have broken the immigration laws, they maintain, should not be rewarded with citizenship or regularization.

They maintain that amnesty and legalization not only establishes an incentive for future illegal immigration, but it also undermines the publics trust, creates social cleavages, redirects resources away from citizens and erodes support for legal immigration. Also, commitments to secure the borders in the future with meaningful enforcement, they maintain, invariably fail to materialize or are largely ineffective.

In addition, the promise of amnesty assists smugglers and human traffickers in their illegal immigration and exploitation activities. Government policies to stand down on deporting unauthorized migrants also helps smugglers in their efforts to recruit men, women as well as unaccompanied minors.

Despite the policies and programs of governments and the wishes of the general public in the destination countries, illegal immigration is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. The more developed regions, many with declining populations and aging rapidly, continue to attract foreign workers at virtually every employment level. The less developed regions, in contrast, have relatively young growing populations, with many in the working ages facing difficulties finding gainful employment and harsh living conditions.

As a result of those striking demographic and economic differences, increasing numbers of men and women in developing countries, especially those in the least developed, are deciding to migrate illegally to the comparatively wealthier nations.

What should be the consequences for those who migrate illegally or overstay a temporary visa continues to be a contentious, divisive political issue challenging governments and the public.

The outcome of the current White House and Congressional negotiations concerning immigration reform and the status of unauthorized migrants is uncertain. However, based on the experience of the recent past under both Republican and Democratic administrations, it appears likely that the outcome, with the possible exception of the Dreamers, will largely be a continuation of the status quo, including the hurried issuance of presidential executive actions.

Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, "Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters."

Read more from the original source:
What should be the consequences for illegal immigration? | TheHill - The Hill