Mediaboss Marketing

When the Polk County Commission met for itspublic agenda review workshop on Feb. 25, there weren't enough seats in the small, crowded conference room to accommodate the public.

In a set-up that continues to troubleopen government advocates, some attendees were forced to standthroughout a portion of the meeting while others gathered in an adjacent lobby where they couldn't see or hear presentations and discussions about wastewater management,expensive road projects, legal settlements, abacklog of pendingbuilding permitsand more.

A day earlier at a commission retreat, Polk County Commissioner Neil Combee pushed to move these twice monthly meetings to the commission boardroomwhere they would be more accessible to the public.

Not only would this venue accommodate more people it seats 175 but these meetings where government business is conductedcould be video recorded, streamed on the county's Facebook page and posted on the county website for the public to watch like every other public county meeting, Combee noted.

Previously: Polk County Commission holds public meetings behind a locked door

EMS crisis: Polk County to offer signing bonuses to new paramedics. Better pay could be next.

Disappearing spaces: Polk's land conservation program expired in 2015. One group wants it back on the ballot

But Combeefailed to get support from the majority of his peers to move the meeting.

"I could care less," Commissioner Bill Braswell said.

Commissioner Rick Wilson said those meetings where commissioners have discussedongoing trash collection problems, COVID treatment options, recycling, fire rescue challenges, how tax dollars are used,and state and federal legislative priorities aren't designedfor the public.

"The agenda briefings were designed for us," Wilson said. "It's for us to get knowledge of what's going on so...when we get intothe board meeting we can be up on the issue. Then it's public. I say we keep those (agenda review meetings) where they're at."

The county has budgeted$692,925 in this fiscal year to provide its24-hour cable channel called PGTV.

That video technology is set up in the commission boardroom which recently underwent a $338,334renovation not the cramped confines of the fourth floor conference room where agenda review sessions are held.

About that renovation: Polk County Commission boardroom gets a $338,384 makeover. Here's why.

Garbage woes: Polk suspends recycling pick-up for 78,000 homes to remedy trash collection problems

Combee said at the Feb. 24 retreat that the county is doing the public "a disservice" by not holding thesemeetings in the boardroom where they can be videoed.

"I think we need to move the agenda review and worksessions back to the boardroom," he said. "We have a great asset there, we have plenty of room there. People could see the same things we see in those work sessions. They will see these presentations."

Another concern to Combee:Agenda review workshops often feature presentations about items to be voted on by commissioners that are never offeredduring regular board meetings, which are streamed on the county's Facebook page.

The March 1 commission meeting was viewed 544 times on Facebook as of Thursday morning.

"We discuss items (in the agenda work session) and then we move them to the consent agenda," Combee said. "We move them to the consent agenda and when we get to the boardroom, nobody ever hears anything about them. We discuss them just as if we need to know what they'reall about it, but it's as if the public doesn't need to know all of this."

Commissioner George Lindsey said he agreed with Combee, adding that the agenda review workshop should not be the place for presentations.

CommissionChairwoman Martha Santiago suggested that presentations in the future occur during Tuesday's regular board meetings.

Friday's agenda review workshop featured several presentations to commissionersthat weren't given at Tuesday's regular board meeting.

They occurred in a room without enough seating for everyone in attendance.

That's "problematic" toVirginia Hamrick, a lawyer with Florida First Amendment Foundation, a non-profit that advocates for open government.

She saidFlorida's Sunshine Law requires government meetings to be open to the public, and therefore "meetings should not take place where the public is effectively excluded," she said.

She cited Section286.011(6)of Florida Statutes.

"It specifically prohibits boards from holding meetings at a facility which operates in such a manner to unreasonably restrict public access to the facility," she said.

"The Attorney Generals Office has advised boards to take reasonable steps to accommodate all who wish to attend if a large turnout is expected," she said. "If such space is not available, boards should use technology to allow those who are not able to enter the room to view and hear discussions and proceedings

Hamrick said the public interest should be front and center of a government meeting.

"The whole purpose of the Sunshine Law is to let the public know what their government is doing and open up every step of the decision-making process," she said.

Polk's agenda review meetings are conducted in a "bizarre" fashion,according to Barbara Petersen, the executive director of the Florida Center of Government Accountability.

In a Ledger article published in December, she took exception to the county locking the door to the conference room where the meetings are held.

"If yougo a meeting where adoor is not just closed but locked, how many people walk away thinking it's closed off?" she told The Ledger. "It's poor public policy, thats for sure, and the practice is legally questionable. If it doesn'tviolate the Sunshine law it certainly violatesthe spirit of the intent of the law."

Petersen also voiced concerns about inadequate seating in the conference room, saying, "The courts have said that local agencies have to hold meetings in facilities largeenough to accommodate the anticipated turnout."

Since that article ran, the door to the meeting room has been propped open by a plant.

But public access to what happens in this meeting is still less than what's provided for regular commission meetings and the county's planning commission meetings. Since agenda workshops aren't video recorded or posted online, residents trying to find out what happened have to request a CD of the audio from the county.

Up until Friday's agenda meeting, the county charged the public $5 per CD. On Friday, Commissioner Lindsey asked that the county stop charging this fee.

"If the consensus is to stay here (in the conference room) ...I'm suggesting we simply waive that $5. If someone wants a diskof the proceedings, let them have it."

Dustin Wyatt covers Polk County government and county-wide issues.He can be reached at dwyatt@gannett.com or on Twitter @LLDustin_Wyatt.

Originally posted here:
Polk commissioner tried to make meetings more accessible to the public. His peers said no - The Ledger

March 2marked the start of the first trial of a defendant charged with federal crimes associated with the Jan. 6attack on the U.S. Capital.Guy Reffitt is standing trial for various offenses,including bringing a firearm into the assault.Also present during the Jan. 6 attack were a number of people dressed in paramilitary gear who appeared more organized than the rest of the mob. As has been alleged in subsequent Jan. 6 federal prosecution court pleadings, they were members of a self-proclaimed militia-type group called the Oath Keepers who physically breached the security of the Capitol and assaulted the building in a stack formation. Based on this apparent attempt to take over the Capitol by means of force to prevent the lawful transfer of power, just over one year later, on Jan. 12, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging 11 Oath Keepers members, including founder and leader Stewart Rhodes, with seditious conspiracy and other related offenses.

This was not the first time, however, that a member of the Oath Keepers was involved in a self-declared takeover of a government building. On April 20, 2010, Darren Huffa self-proclaimed member of the Oath Keepers and the Georgia Militiatraveled with weapons from Georgia to join in a group, many of whom were also carrying firearms, in Madisonville, Tennessee, for the purpose of taking over the Monroe County Courthouse to arrest various county government officials for being Declared Domestic Enemies having committed treason.

While serving as a prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice, I prosecuted Huff. And while watching the current seditious conspiracy case against the Oath Keepers, I believe that a number of lessons from Huffs case can be useful to law enforcement and prosecutors. Before applying those lessons, its worth noting the facts of Huffs case. Why was Huff ready to arrest these county officials? His justification for the courthouse standoff centered on his belief, as reflected in the Affidavit of Criminal Complaint he carried with him on April 20, that Tennessee officials had committed treason by being engaged in constructive levy of war against the United States and Citizens of the United States through forcible resistance to the U.S. Constitution with the intent and having achieved some success installing a rival government.

After arriving in Madisonville on April 20 to participate in the arrests of selected government officials, Huff gathered with about 50 people and engaged in an armed standoff with law enforcement officers outside the Monroe County Courthouse. These law enforcement officers had been assembled in advance to prevent an effort to take over the courthouse. Unlike the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the armed protesters did not attempt an assault on the county courthouse, largely due to the presence of nearly 100 local, state and federal law enforcement officers.

Huffs justification for his desired arrests lay in a Criminal Complaint and Citizens Arrest Warrant that had been drawn up in March 2010 by a locally known political agitator and former (and court-martialed) U.S. Navy commander, Walter Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick had previously soughtunsuccessfully, to his great frustrationon three occasions to present an indictment before a local grand jury charging then-President Obama with fraud and treason.

On April 1, 2010, more than two weeks before the incident, Fitzpatrick (with the assistance of Huff) had attempted to arrest the local grand jury foreman and the county sheriff at the Monroe County Courthouse under his Citizens Arrest Warrant. In a bit of irony, Fitzpatrick was himself arrested that day for disorderly conduct and attempting to disrupt a government meeting.

Fitzpatrick was scheduled to make a court appearance in Madisonville with regard to his criminal charges on April 20, 2020. With that court date in mind, Huff engaged in a number of communications with various others prior to April 20 seeking to organize a group to appear at the Monroe County Courthouse that day to arrest the offending county officials.

Following the April 20 standoff, a federal grand jury indicted Huff for transporting firearms in interstate commerce (from Georgia to Tennessee) with the intent to use the weapons in furtherance of a civil disorder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 231(a)(2).This is one of the same charges that has been brought against Guy Reffitt, an alleged member of the "three Percenters" anti-government group.

A civil disorder is defined under the law as any public disturbance involving acts of violence by an assembly of more than three people that causes either the immediate dangeror actual resultof damage or injury to property or a person. Given that there was no actual clash with law enforcement or any type of riot, the federal crime of inciting a riot didnt apply to the Madisonville event. The charge of transporting a firearm in furtherance of a civil disorder was based on the combination of Huffs travel to Madisonville with firearms to participate in the arrest of government officials and his participation in an armed standoff at the courthouse with multiple people.

Testimony at Huffs trial indicated that, prior to April 20, Huff had told several people in his hometown that Fitzpatrick had been wrongly arrested, and that he was planning on arming himself with weapons (including an AK-47) and joining up with others to take over the city that day. Huff had also asserted that he fully intended to proceed to Madisonville on April 20 to arrest the offending county officials, and that he would be bringing weapons because aint no government official gonna go peacefully.

Huff was convicted in 2011 following a trial in federal court in Knoxville, Tennessee. On his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Huff tried unsuccessfully to challenge both the evidence introduced at trial and the constitutionality of the federal statute that he violated.

As the prosecutor in the Huff case, I watched the assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6and the involvement of the Oath Keepersand felt like I had seen similar events on a smaller scale. In both the attack on the Capitol and Huffs standoff, members of the Oath Keepers promoted self-serving, distorted patriotic rhetoric to justify criminal acts against government officials.

First, it is critical for law enforcement and government officials to take the threats of persons and groups espousing militant or violent anti-government views quite seriouslyand take precautionary action as necessary to prevent inciting words from becoming violent actions. Since 2010, and certainly since 2016 and later in 2020, extremist political and paramilitary anti-government rhetoric has grown to the point that what had been considered fringe rantings has alarmingly merged in more acceptable extreme partisan viewpoints. While there should not be any government infringement on protected First Amendment political or personal speech, communications and speech that encourages, promotes or conveys threats of violence should always be carefully considered and evaluatedand taken seriouslywithout regard to whatever political bent to outlook.

In the days preceding the April 20, 2010, Madisonville confrontation, various local, state and federal law enforcement agents, together with the prosecutors in the U.S. Attorneys Office, actively shared on a real-time basis all threat intelligence information on what appeared to be an active potential threat to public safety. A temporary task force was created to centralize and manage all relevant information being gathered from various sources, including social media chatter and witness interviews. This was done in the interest of public safety, without suppressing or downplaying information that might conflict with the views held by higher-up state or federal powers-that-be who might be inclined to agree with protesters political views. It appears that this was not the case in the days and weeks preceding Jan. 6.

Second, while fully respecting the First Amendment right to assemble peaceably, there should be sufficient law enforcement or public safety preparation. Any type of (peaceable) assembly might quickly devolve or degrade into violencewhether by design of the participants or perhaps in response to adverse provocation. Prior to the April 20 incident in Madisonville, even given a short window of time, the local police department, the state prosecutor for that area, the FBI, and federal prosecutors extensively considered the potential risks to public safety in an active risk assessment. That planning ensured sufficient resources for the worst-case scenario.

Finally, all those who undertake actionsor attempt to do sothat cross the line from theoretical advocacy to facilitating or supporting criminal conduct should be held accountable under the appropriate laws. Accountability may take the form of prosecuting one individual, such as Huff, if that represents the only feasible case with the strongest evidence. Or having the resolveand devoting the necessary resourcesto undertake a much broader effort to prosecute numerous participants and co-conspirators where the evidence demonstrates actions taken in concert, and with a common purpose, that brings harm to public institutions and government. As is reflected in the large number of ongoing Jan. 6 prosecutions, the actions taken that day posed a grave threat to the lawful operation of the U.S. government. Yet some politicians have notably sought to minimize or purposefully disregard the nature of this kind of domestic threat and have even advanced claims that the assault was undertaken by anti-Trump operatives, which may only serve to embolden those like Huff who continue believing that actions like the Jan. 6 assault are acceptable and justified in the name of liberty. Wherever the evidence leads, and however high it goes in the former administration (or associates thereof), it is vital to the nations democratic system and social values that all who are responsible, and not just the ideological foot soldiers, be held accountable.

As the Huff prosecution demonstrated, there are many people of otherwise normal backgrounds who, under the right (or wrong) circumstances, are encouraged and inspired by like-minded leaders or followers in the echo chamber of social media. These people can convince themselves that they are among the ones in the right and are justified in taking all reasonable force in the defense of what they see as liberty. Huff responded to what he saw as a patriotic call to action by a leadership figure and was not dissuaded even when FBI agents and people in his own town intervened (as seen in trial testimony). When looking back at the Huff prosecution, and the politically charged environment that led to the Jan. 6 assault, keep in mind what Samuel Johnson wrote more than 200 years ago about those who wield false patriotism as a weapon: Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Continue reading here:
Was an Attempt to Take Over a Tennessee Courthouse in 2010 a Preview of Jan. 6? - Lawfare

[co-author: Maia Cohen-Lask*]

On Jan. 4, 2022, a trial that has gripped white-collar crime lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic that of Elizabeth Holmes concluded. Following a 15-week trial, jurors in the state of California returned guilty verdicts on four of the 11 counts on the indictment, convicting Holmes of defrauding investors in her company, Theranos Inc.

For British observers, the U.S. trial largely proceeded in a familiar way to an English trial of similar facts. However, one area of striking difference between the two jurisdictions lay not in the law and procedure but in the manner of the media reporting. The American coverage of the trial was elaborate and exhaustive, comprised of detailed newspaper reports on both the pretrial and trial proceedings, as well as podcasts and other analytical long-form journalism. This is a curiosity for English lawyers, who are used to conducting criminal proceedings safe in the knowledge that media coverage will usually be restrained. Indeed, much of the reporting from the American media during the course of Holmes trial would undoubtedly be in contempt of court were it to be replicated during an English trial. This reflects the different legal landscape relating to trial reporting in the U.S. as compared to the U.K. These differences will assume ever greater practical significance as prosecuting white-collar crime increasingly becomes an international endeavor.

The two jurisdictions have fundamentally different starting points when it comes to the reporting of criminal trials. In England, the position is governed by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This creates the strict liability rule, whereby it is in contempt of court to publish anything that creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced, regardless of intent. The default position is therefore one of restriction. The exception to this restriction is an allowance for a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith.

By contrast, the starting point in the United States is a permissive one, due to various constitutional protections in place. These protections uphold the principles of the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press under the First Amendment, which, while not completely without limitations, generally give reporters in America more leeway in what they report and how they cover ongoing criminal trials. There is no comparable strict liability rule on the media in the U.S., as the American system values the scrutiny of the press in criminal proceedings and views the medias criticisms as a tool to hold the justice system accountable. Thus, while counsel may move for an injunction to restrict the publication and dissemination of information in an effort to limit the medias coverage of a criminal trial, because prior restraints generally are viewed as infringing on First Amendment rights, the bar is high for the success of such motions.[1]

The different reporting environments created by the two regimes result in huge differences in the everyday reporting of trials. In England, court reports will be mostly limited to a summary of the evidence given that day, often by way of verbatim quotes, from journalists keen not to accidentally fall on the wrong side of the strict liability rule by inserting comment. By contrast, in the United States, as seen with the Holmes trial, court reporting while the trial is ongoing might include opinion pieces as to the strength of the evidence or interviews with legal experts about the prospects of success of lines of defense. Faced with this heightened level of public engagement and debate, the U.S. court will utilize alternative measures to protect the right to a fair trial indeed it is not uncommon in high-profile cases for judges to instruct juries not to consume media related to the trial.

One area of particularly marked distinction between the jurisdictions is in the reporting of pretrial rulings. In the U.K., there is an automatic ban on reporting rulings made at pretrial hearings until after the conclusion of the trial.[2] This ban can only be disapplied by the judge dealing with the matter, and only if it is in the interests of justice to do so. By contrast, in the U.S., the press generally has a right under the First Amendment to report on pretrial hearings. Judges can close pretrial proceedings to the public upon request by the prosecution and defense, but would need to make special findings on the record that the closure was necessary to preserve higher or overriding values, and the order would need to be narrowly tailored to serve those higher or overriding values.[3] In this respect, the two systems are mirror opposites: in the U.K. there is a presumption of no pretrial reporting unless the judge disapplies it, whereas in the U.S. the presumption is in favor of pretrial reporting unless the judge restricts it. This dichotomy has the effect that the U.K. public usually remains unaware of whether there have been pretrial hearings (or indeed what the outcomes of those hearings were), while in the U.S. any attempt to restrict reporting can itself become the subject of intense reporting during the trial.

This was borne out in Holmes trial, where a number of applications by her lawyers to have evidence excluded from the trial were reported on at length. For example, in May of last year, Holmes lawyers moved to exclude evidence of customer complaints about the accuracy of blood testing results. The motion was denied by U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila, and the contents of both the motion and his ruling were widely reported on contemporaneously. In an English trial, the public would not know, at least not until the trials conclusion, that a defense team had argued to exclude evidence in this way. From the English perspective, there is a real risk that any juror aware of this fact might view the evidence when it came to be given in a different or more significant light. Meanwhile, in the American system, jurors who have been significantly influenced by pretrial media coverage should be weeded out under voir dire examination, so this type of information being in the public domain may have a more subtle impact on a jurors state of mind than the straightforward biases caught under voir dire.

The limitations that a judge can order under English law can in some circumstances go beyond comment and pretrial rulings, to limit day-to-day reporting of the evidence being given at court. (As noted above, this is usually an exception to the strict liability rule.) Under s4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981, [T]he court may, where it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings, or in any other proceedings pending or imminent, order that the publication of any report of the proceedings, or any part of the proceedings, be postponed for such period as the court thinks necessary for that purpose. Such postponement is most commonly ordered where there are sequential trials of different defendants relating to the same matter. In practice, when there are sequential trials, little if anything will be reported of the earlier trials until all trials have concluded. This is not the case in the U.S. Rather, the American system relies on protections such as voir dire examination of jurors in the later trial to ascertain knowledge or bias based on reporting of the first trial, or through a change in venue to combat the risk of unfairness.

This is notable in the Theranos case, where the trial of Holmes co-defendant, Ramesh Balwani, is due to start in mid-March. His trial will take place against a backdrop of Holmes headline-grabbing evidence that she suffered a pattern of physical and psychological abuse at his hands at the time they were jointly running the company. These allegations are unlikely to form part of the prosecutions case against Balwani, and plainly Holmes will not be present at his trial for cross-examination, but given the comprehensive reporting of her testimony, Balwani may well feel that this is something he will need to address in his trial. This is not a situation a defendant in an English trial would likely ever have to face.

These differences are not merely of academic interest. In a world where white-collar crime is increasingly global, and cases where there are parallel U.S. and U.K. proceedings are on the rise, these different reporting standards have the potential to cause unfairness. This risk is particularly acute where a defendant faces trial in the U.K. and there is already extensive media coverage of a prior or concurrent trial into the same or similar facts in the U.S. That reporting may not be permitted under English law, but it is perfectly lawful under the different rules in the U.S.

A first example of how this might arise relates to the jury selection process. In the U.S., there are protections in place intended to afford a fair trial by jury despite the permissive reporting rules (for example, voir dire, mentioned above). However, in the U.K., the process of jury selection is instead usually undertaken by way of a written questionnaire designed to weed out those who have been particularly exposed to media coverage (for example, in the high-profile 2014 trial into News International journalists accused of phone hacking, individuals who followed particular campaigning celebrities on social media were excluded from serving on the jury). Direct questioning by counsel (rather than the judge) is only permitted if there is already a prima facie case to support the basis for challenging a juror. The U.K. approach is therefore a less targeted and less detailed process than the American jury selection system, which typically utilizes direct oral questioning of individual potential jurors by the judge and/or counsel in addition to pre-voir dire written questionnaires. Thus, in high-profile cases where there have been American trials with detailed global media coverage, the tools available to a British Crown Court judge to address the effects of that coverage on the subsequent U.K. trial are more limited. This presents a real risk of jurors serving in an English trial having been exposed to a degree of reporting for example, journalistic commentary on the strength of the defense being run by alleged accomplices of the defendant that the English system is simply not designed to guard against.

A defendant faced with the imbalance of U.S. reporting and a U.K. trial will therefore find themselves between a rock and a hard place. A British judge would no doubt approve a detailed jury questionnaire seeking to exclude those who had closely followed the news. And the jury would be directed to ignore any media coverage they may have seen. But without voir dire to examine how media coverage has actually affected jurors views, in reality defendants in U.K. trials will find themselves less protected than those in the U.S.

A second example relates to the tools available to a defendant to defend themselves against detailed, adverse media coverage. The different reporting rules between the U.S. and the U.K. mean that defense lawyers have a wholly different relationship with the media in the two countries. Because of the realities of trial by media in the U.S., defense attorneys in high-profile criminal cases in America may seek to use the press to their advantage by crafting a public relations strategy. This allows the defense the opportunity to publicly respond, in particular where there are misleading or inaccurate stories circulating (unless the defense is forced into silence due to gag orders). Indeed, it has become increasingly common for defense attorneys in the U.S. to engage directly with the press to publicly deny or combat statements made by the prosecution. This can include full press interviews (such as that given by Balwanis attorney, Jeff Coopersmith, to Nightline in 2019). By contrast, it is rare for English defense lawyers to make any comment before, and certainly not during, a trial. Any comments given are limited to the fact that the client protests their innocence, without details. Therefore, in a transatlantic case, a U.K. defendant may face the intensity of the press coverage of an initial U.S. trial, and perhaps co-defendants in the U.S. seeking to minimize reputational damage, with likely no similar recourse with respect to engaging with the media through their lawyers. This only exacerbates the risks of jury selection noted above.

In an increasingly international prosecution landscape, it cannot be long before a defendant in an English court finds themselves grappling with the adverse impact of American reporting arising in relation to a prior U.S. criminal trial. Given the risks outlined, lawyers in both the U.K. and U.S. should be aware of these differences in order to effectively educate and manage the expectations of their clients who may be required to stand trial on either or both sides of the Atlantic. Whats more, if this starts to become a regular issue, revisiting the way that juries are selected, and the degree of detail with which they can be examined, may be a necessary consequence.

***

*This article was co-authored by Corker Binning's senior associate

[1] See Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (finding the heavy burden imposed as a condition to securing a prior restraint was not met and reversing the lower courts decision to uphold a gag order on the media).

[2] S41 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.

[3] See Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986).

[View source.]

View post:
Trial by Media: The Risks to Defendants of Differing US and UK Approaches - JD Supra

True or false?

This question is usually followed up with a response of one or the other. However, in Columbia, this age-old question takes on a whole different meaning.

Every year, Columbia welcomes hundreds of film fanatics into town for the True/False Film Fest each spring. While last years festival was featured outdoors, this year is bringing moviegoers back into the nine theaters in Columbia March 3-6.

With 53 films to choose from, all with different run times, plotlines and in different locations, it can become a bit overwhelming to lay out your schedule. However, this process can become less stressful. Here are the top five films to see throughout the weekend:

We Met in Virtual Reality

Showtimes: Friday, March 4 at 10 p.m. Missouri Theatre, Saturday, March 5 at 12:30 p.m. Showtime Theater @ The Blue Note, Sunday, March 5 at 8:30 p.m. Big Ragtag

As virtual reality became a staple in the gaming and tech industries, it was only a matter of time before a dedicated community formed. This documentary provides an immersive view into the world of VRChat, an online virtual platform geared toward facilitating conversations with people around the globe. Set during the pandemic, this film could provide a meaningful depiction of online connection back when in-person connection wasnt possible.

2nd Chance

Showtimes: Thursday, March 3 at 10 p.m. Missouri Theatre, Friday, March 4 at 7:45 p.m. Rhynsburger Theatre, Saturday, March 5 at 10:30 p.m. The Picturehouse

Have you ever wondered how the concealed bulletproof vest was created? Richard Davis, the founder of the aptly titled Second Chance body armor company, stars in this zany look into the creation of this product featuring him shooting himself more than 100 times to prove the validity of the vest.

No, Im not kidding.

With a multitude of interviews, this film provides a true slice-of-life take on the uncanny story of an American man making a truly American product.

I Didnt See You There

Showtimes: Friday, March 4 at 6:45 p.m. The Picturehouse, Saturday, March 5 at 9:30 a.m. Missouri Theatre, Sunday, March 6 at 5:30 p.m. Showtime Theatre @ Blue Note

The term freak show has been used in circuses, vaudeville acts and numerous shows displaying people doing outlandish things in the name of entertainment. However, when the curtain closes and the costumes come off, how do those people go about their lives? Filmmaker Reid Davenport explores the concept of the freak show both in the past and its modernized depictions. Davenport also connects this back to his own life as a person with a disability. The movie displays how a circus tent pitched outside of Davenports apartment led to a film about soul-searching, unsolicited attention and Americas obsession with infantilizing and othering the different.

Riotsville, USA

Showtimes: Thursday, March 3 at 7:15 p.m. Showtime Theatre @ Blue Note, Saturday, March 5 at 8:00 p.m. The Picturehouse, Sunday, March 6 at 9:30 a.m. Missouri Theatre

The 60s were rife with civil unrest and protests for Black rights and advancements. The police response? Cities called Riotsvilles. Created by the U.S. military, riotsvilles served as fictional places that helped police train for responding to civil disturbances. The main component of this film resides in the never-before-seen footage and images documenting these cities. This film offers a look into the birth of the militarization of state police and the consequences it had on citizens exercising their First Amendment since.

Mija

Showtimes: Thursday, March 3 at 4:30 p.m. Showtime Theatre @ Blue Note, Saturday, March 5 at 12:00 p.m. The Picturehouse, Sunday, March 6 at 6:30 p.m. Missouri Theatre

Mija opens with Doriz Muoz, an up-and-coming music manager supporting her undocumented family and her recently deported brother through her occupation. Launching rising stars like Kali Uchis and Omar Apollo into superstardom, the looming threat of losing her family rings clear with each passing day. When Muoz connects with Jacks Haupt, a young singer encountering the same issues as Muoz, their bond becomes inseparable. Dealing with topics like immigration, creative struggle, family and ambition, the film presents an opportunity to display a story of perseverance that many people go through nationwide.

True/False also offers short films that can be watched in batches listed here. Whether youre attending the festival for the documentaries or just to have fun, now you have some films in your arsenal to check out.

Edited by Lucy Valeski, lvaleski@themaneater.com

See the original post here:
Top five movies to put on your list for the True/False Film Festival - The Maneater

Fremont, CA: Internet marketing has expanded dramatically in recent years. The sheer number of businesses joining the established business bandwagon attests to the enormous income potential of internet ventures. Despite the fact that there are numerous opportunities available online, success in internet marketing requires more effort and resources. In the following paragraphs, we will look at some effective strategies for harnessing the full power of digital marketing to foster businesses.

Figuring out the Area of Expertise

Because internet marketing is such a broad field, it is critical that one can understand who their customers are and what they want. Many businesses conduct consumer and market research to better understand their target buyers' mindsets, preferences, and purchasing patterns. As an entrepreneur or businessperson, one must target a specific market/audience (niche) rather than everyone. This will be reflected in the keywords one selects for SEO and SEM campaigns.

Making an Internet Marketing Plan

An internet marketing strategy guides all of one's decisions and activities along the way. It also assists one in developing and implementing sound strategies, as well as evaluating the outcome or results of one's activities. A company's internet marketing strategy should include all measurable objectives and goals, as well as milestones for one's marketing activities. Most importantly, one should integrate one's internet marketing business plan with the company's existing business plan and ensure that it is in sync with the company's medium and long-term business goals.

Creating a Professional Website and Optimizing It

A company's website serves as its portal into the world of internet marketing. It is the first thing visitors, and customers notice. A company's values should be reflected on its website, and new customers should be able to make quick decisions because of it. To make a company's website useful, include sections such as FAQs, e-mail and chat support, and, if necessary, a ticket system. The key here is to establish and maintain a professional image for a company.

Read more:
Tips to Build a Successful Digital Marketing Strategy - CIO Applications