Mediaboss Marketing

Poor, poor Philip Levine. The Miami Beach mayor has long been suspected of running a massive social-media-blocking campaign over the past few years,he's cut off critics, local activists, and even the main MiamiNew Times twitter account from reading his tweets. Multiple courts have ruled that politicians are not allowed to block people from viewing their social media accounts because those pages disseminate vital public information.

So Levine is getting sued. And his lawyers tried to argue in court yesterday that the mayor shouldn't have to sit for a deposition because answering basic questions under oath would apparently humiliate him.

"The Notice of Taking Video Deposition for the Corporate Representative clearly illustrates that this litigation is being utilized for the purpose of annoying and embarrassing the City," Miami Beach City Attorney Raul Aguila argued in a court filing yesterday.

The activist suing Levine, Grant Stern, has argued for months that the mayor's alleged habit of blocking people who disagree with him online violates the First Amendment. Sterns says he wants Levine to sit for a deposition to answer basic facts about who runs his social media accounts, how they're used, and whether any taxpayer money goes toward maintaining the accounts.

In a move that seems to have deeply upset the city, Stern launched a web page to crowdsource deposition questions for the mayor from citizens and other people who have been blocked. Stern, who does have a flair for drama, maintains he needed to do this because he hasn't been able to view any of Levine's personal accounts for more than a year and isn't able to properly conduct legal research and take note of what Levine has been posting. (Stern provided the mayor and the city with a list of possible deposition topics August 9.)

The city, though, argues the lawsuit is a publicity stunt. Its attorneys are asking a county circuit judge to issue an order preventing Levine from having to speak under oath and asking the court to sanction Stern for his actions.

Aguila, the city attorney, wrote yesterday that Stern's blog post and list of deposition topics "clearly show the intent of the video depositions in this litigation is to annoy Mayor Levine and the City."

That kind of response might only feed the notion that Levine is an out-of-touch rich dude obsessed with his own image. This term is his last as mayor, and he's spent 2017 traveling the state to decide whether to run for governor. Levine is a Democrat and longtime friend of the Clinton family, but earlier this year, he said he appreciated aspects of the Republican platform, called himself a "radical centrist," and claimed he wouldrun as an independent candidate for governor. At a speech in Pinellas County last Friday, Levine walked that ill-advised statement back and assured local Democrats he's one of them.

Such is the Tao of Levine: He has spent his mayoral career yelling at critics and putting his foot in his mouth, including jokingly threatening to invade Cuba.(He has been uncharacteristically well behaved since the Cuba flap and, to his credit, seems to genuinely care about sea-level rise.)

In Levine world, getting sued for allegedly censoring your constituents apparently rates as an "annoyance."

Levine could end Stern's suit by handing over the list of people he blocks online. Stern filed a public-records request for that information months ago for the mayor's three Facebook accounts (one private, one for his campaigns, and one official mayoral page). He's also asking for info about any pages that handle official mayoral business.

Stern has filed similar records requests with other Miami-area officials: In June, Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle handed over her own block list, which revealed that the county's top prosecutor was blocking people for criticizing her conduct in office. After Stern, and later New Times , published information about her social media censorship, her office unblocked everybody. (California First Amendment activist Angela Grebenalso obtained ex-state Sen. Frank Artiles' lengthy Facebook block list earlier this year.)

Politicians' social media use has rapidly turned into one of the most pressing issues in First Amendment law: Free-speech advocates say it's important to force courts to recognize political Facebook and Twitter accounts as public records because elected officials use said pages to disseminate vital public information. In 2014, a Hawaii federal court ruled that Honolulu Police couldn't delete comments from its Facebook page, and this year, a federal court in Virginia ruled that politicians are not allowed to block people from viewing their pages. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University is also suing Donald Trump to force him to unblock what is likely a massive list of censored accounts on Twitter.

But Levine refuses to give his block list to Stern, a move made doubly absurd by the fact that the mayor voluntarily gave that same list to Greben in 2015. So Stern claims he's had no other recourse but to sue.

"Mayor Levine must have done something even worse than we know about with his social media accounts since hes so scared to show up to a deposition about information which he is posting publicly," Stern said via phone today.

Link:
Miami Beach Mayor's Lawyers Say Censorship Suit Is "Embarrassing" Him - Miami New Times

I taken a look at I'm pretty opinion poll on WW all dot com write them Osama home page is where you'll find it you can cast your vote dissipate and we always ask you look you to do that. Should movies that some find offensive be banned from. Private showings on a 100%. Right now I'm never seen one of these polls and at a hundred sometimes they start early but. What sense I know they should not camp on anyone yet that says yes they should have been I'm sure there's some optic. I'd take a look at that text message board in response to that question. I'll tell you one I have been doing on radio for about 32 years. And I don't think I've ever had a more positive in prolific response. To a caller. Then this guy Shannon that call. The thanks and the agreements and you know. And there and the kudos in the you nailed that more people need to think I'd never seen it in its it's very very refresh and I agree with you. Text there's a 100%. I here's one that says one person may be offended by the movie one another may not be offended. Another says room it's not about the movies it's about blacks getting their way out I don't think that's true either think there's a very small minority. As looking to get power and capitalizes doubly determined charlatans. I here's one Donna us on TV show that should never be man fishing game report. I saw a Gracie in Millie chasing quail this morning adorable dogs in good TV I gotta tell you I'm glad you appreciated seeing. My two bird dogs grace humility because that was a full talk. That was supposed to be a dove running feature because dumb running opens statewide and in Mississippi tomorrow more on that afternoon anyway noon. And somebody he ran a thanks give him Quayle he's today I'm glad you enjoyed it anyway. Here's another one pop was a who's Bob Bob all of these justice to remove things to help us get along. Is only making it worse we are our own worst enemy. They Don look at what's so shoot me. Radical media did when Molina Mel and a chrome was giving on the jet wearing high heels when they were going to Texas. They acted like when she got off the plane she was going to be wearing those high heels walking around and disaster area. The joke was on them when she got off the jet she was wearing ten issues. With a baseball cap on. They're asking for replays of Shannon's phone call. You will be able to week we archive the ease in the if you go on our web page you can find the the shows and and really if you missed it. Is it deserves a listen. A lot of people texting and saying they missed it. And you really shouldn't I we come back we'll pick it up and they also check on a pretty opinion also get to vote in a WWL dot. Com we'll listen a lot of the local talked asking you this question. Should movies that some find offensive be banned from private showing sunk Taylor thank you got to watch it. Go go do some analysis lot of stuff I will not watch. But I don't want him man we'll be right back. And don't forget we do have an instant message board comes right here in the studio 870870. Luggage attacks as long as you do it responsibly no texting and driving. Also want to have displayed them not ready opinion poll question still as I'm saying on percent saying that movies that some people find offensive should not be banned. From private she'll also won remind you if you want to help the Harvey relief effort is too easy ways to do it through our partners at united way. A southeast Louisiana who came through big time for us don't Louisiana record floods just go to united way sealock. Dot org slash army relief fund. And you can just click on the link and donate another simple way you just text the word heart beat. To 90999. It's 90999. And a ten dollar donation will be made to the American red cross and army relief efforts again just text the word Harvey. To 90999. And with that in mind I got an interesting text in this says to people trying to divide us kkk. And T phone. And BLM I didn't see any of them in Texas saving their people. I saw blacks helping whites and whites helping blacks. And you're exactly right I didn't mean to make any difference economics. Gender race. When people and a crisis staple together and I think that's going to be true of most people but yeah I'm for sure. Most people don't have enough to do. And now I don't think there was anybody in the Houston and I didn't have enough to do over the last week. I his a rhetorical question what about the movie frozen it's about an evil snow queen or evil snow queen's good. Maybe we should ban all movies with evil snow queen's. And again more compliments to Shannon Shannon's a year old maybe a year might be the man the call of the year for the accolades he's get. I now we have Nazi. They took the dukes of hazard soft TV show love that if that was banned any reason they took colonial shows she is run their course. Most of them don't have a real long shelf life. I his one I'm a black man and I hate that they ban may be banned the dukes of hazard Madonna miss out. I love the show regardless of the flag outfield the Jefferson's crossed the line more. I his one reference gone with the wind reviewing cancellation come on man. As the singing of humanity of America with Houston army flooding you'd call Aaron Downey provided United States commentary. Think that was Shannon that you were referring to. Am. Not what about the jingle I haven't seen the jango I'm not sure what that was all about but hey I'm in for LS it's. Portland graphically. Disgusting. Or it's brutal or you know showing blood and gore to the point that it is truly offensive. Anything that is an expression of ideas or portrayal of history you society. It's never a good. To put any kind of restrictions censorship on ban on. A good went to with regard to the NFL people realize that NFL is a business. And they really control what goes on. Within them games in the N teams in their franchises and there was one on here. It was a way back though and get so many of these it's it's are we keep bobbled the wall on the way out I'll share a couple more than. What about the movie Independence Day aliens attacking earth and humanity is that good maybe we should ban all movies that have. Bad things. Today in his one according to reporting this is a private company that decided not to show movie. That characterizes. Black people in the book foolish way in a city. That acts. I don't know can't find the rest of that when. All right we'll be right back after this time miles got some more more whole lot of text messages coming in on this if you wanna call us we welcome you calls to. 5042601878. Do you agree or disagree with the orpheum theater in Memphis in how many years thirty something years admin showing this. The movie is one or column awards first black woman a little women and Academy Award. As a moral to and it's it's. I don't know how accurate. A portrayal of what was on non backed in the civil war days. But to remove it does some people say innocent censorship Omar you agree or disagree give us a call or text. Our guest at voted dubbed it a deal that town. I know what they are right in in removing in the movie gone from the wind from the off him did in Memphis says there. Four years of running it will not be seen this is in response according to the theater manager and the president of the opium. On social media pointed out to them that this is racially insensitive a large part of population. And we need to do away with the and right now was still a 100% say no we don't ban movies because some people. Find them offensive. Right back to the text. You activity at Texas to dale you're right on target today what you should be sharp on ruled notes about today Mitt. A whole lot of good ones coming in this one says. I don't think it should be banned if you don't want to go see the movie don't go. The DA issued none have taken it down for people who probably wouldn't have gone to see it anyway this is getting way out of control you have to people so that's a business decision on their part was he got people who certainly know that offended and in Indy about it. They're not gonna reach into their pocket and pay my medical sing it so you know it'll loosen it and market. The only losing money but people who did wanna see it not being able to. Not a good business decision closely know I'm not the greatest businessman but I don't think it takes a lot to figure that wanna. His on the cartoon road runner needs to be banned it promotes violence yet number and there's no end to it. It is the right associated to show what they wanna stay at the data. I don't agree it is their right to show what they want yeah I agree with that too it is their right to show what they want but. Is it a good decision probably not. Oh and thank you 47 twice now we've got rapist texting in rap today. The test the first wrap text on them and gotten his one that says I'm a black man I'm more offended with what comes out rappers miles. And then. On jumped on me on seventy year all of them a movie that's over seventy years old I tell you. That line frankly I don't give a damn that shocked the nation when that came the shows just. What do you think they'd they'd do if they heard some of the wrap this pulpit today which is not banned by the way. Here's another on portraying something in art does not mean one approves of what's being portrayed. Much of what we consider classic literature. Contains a racial or general gender or stereo. Who. As the rest of it. You know I really would hope you always keep it to one liners is what you know and there's like ten people one more. The cuts off where I have to pick it up from his very difficult to keep up this. I don't have a problem with his movie are seeing an already therefore I will not be going to see you again if they don't like the content of the movie. Don't go see it exclamation point just like I don't go see the movies I don't care for example scary. Violent. Racially. Overly sexual content movies are. Beast. I'm not sure I think that OS are armed malign engine that's the main thank you food put him into it not many people do that. I got Dell also talked a guy engine till he's been hanging on while also discuss censorship on line one guy thanks for you call. Yeah and I mean not only thing on what it was and it is something that should be continued to be tired but I mean you know. I'm on the serious movie but mean yes and he can just took place shortly and it too seriously and and and and bring that and that. Actually on the a lot of people. Are great. Comedy sketch. And like dumb and dumber I mean you know what potential. In these two white can unity among these two and it's funny it's on to want to. It's seriously and art. And we should be real and to anger or. More also ultimately you know me. So a guy you Brian on man we just need to take a look and you know him and laugh on ourselves sometime we take ourselves all the way too serious and wait to. Analyze to show confidence. No wait she's short. I don't know signaling he's in right now learn about all with the winner of the wonderful lawyer and I else. Gotta agree with the I don't think so but Texas is coming back momentarily. Yeah and if you haven't seen it Gloria Gaynor has got to Texas so will survive song I've got to listen that. Oh yeah. An. All right guy thanks for the call appreciate it. I Diamondbacks after this sun news update from CBS and also from a local first news crew we'll talk flood insurance and also all the pomp situation. With senator John Kennedy. I hadn't realized this but the flood insurance program expires it's got to shelf life of September 30. Month away what's gonna happen upon from Senator Kennedy coming back right after the news.

More here:
The Art of Censorship - WWL First News

The governments anti-radicalisation scheme, Prevent, is instilling fear, suspicion and censorship on university campuses, an advocacy group has warned.

In a report based on interviews with 36 Muslim students, academics and professionals, Just Yorkshire said the scheme had fostered a policing culture in higher education and argued that it should be closed down immediately.

It concludes: A wide spectrum of our respondents articulated concerns in relation to surveillance, censorship and the resultant isolation felt by many.

Prevent, a voluntary programme, aims to divert people from terrorism before they offend. Public bodies such as schools and universities have a duty to report those they suspect are at risk of being radicalised.

Just Yorkshire described the scheme, which police and ministers are considering making compulsory, as being built upon a foundation of Islamophobia and racism and said it was ineffective and counterproductive.

The report said there was an abundant body of evidence that Prevent officers had disrupted or closed down events about Islamophobia or terrorism that had been organised by academics and campaigners.

A National Union of Students activist told researchers that students felt spied upon when a Prevent officer demanded a list of names associated with the universitys Islamic society.

Dr Waqas Tufail, the reports co-author and a senior lecturer in social sciences at Leeds Beckett University, said fellow academics both Muslim and non-Muslim were resorting to self-censorship when discussing topics around Islam.

Tufail said he knew of a case where a criminology lecturer ran her courses reading list past the police just in case there was anything too critical. He said: I was gobsmacked by that. If we get into this habit of the police authorising what we teach then were living in dangerous times.

Tufail said young Muslims saw Prevent as compulsory. Making participation in the programme mandatory would certainly damage relations between the state, the police, local authorities and Muslim communities, he said.

Max Hill QC, the governments independent reviewer of terrorism laws, said earlier this month he had met Muslim communities across England in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Westminster, Manchester, London Bridge and Finsbury Park and that the vast majority of people expressed distrust and resentment towards Prevent. He stopped short of calling for the programme to be revoked.

The Home Office said Just Yorkshires report was not independent and questioned how its 36 interviewees were chosen.

The security minister, Ben Wallace, said: It is no wonder people are concerned about Prevent when reports such as this peddle falsehoods and create myths. Anonymous and misleading quotes riddle this report. Are we really to be expected to stop safeguarding vulnerable people from being exploited because of this flawed report?

At its heart Prevent is about safeguarding. In the age of the internet and social media people of all backgrounds and religions are vulnerable to being exploited. The Prevent duty sits alongside the duties to protect people from sexual, bullying or criminal manipulation.

As a parent if my children were being targeted by bullies or terrorists or paedophiles at school I would expect that such occurrences were reported and dealt with. But this report seems to suggest such reporting be stopped when it relates to exploitation by terrorists. We all have a stake in delivering safeguarding in society and I am pleased we are seeing really successful results.

Originally posted here:
Prevent scheme 'fosters fear and censorship at universities' - The Guardian

By obstructing its own academics, Beijing is limiting the judgment of its own advisers

By Rana Mitter

26 Aug 2017

Last week, Cambridge University Press proposed to limit access to The China Quarterly, a major academic journal in the field of Chinese Studies. A Chinese import agency had requested Cambridge University Press (CUP) alter the website to make articles concerning topics such as the 1989 Tiananmen killings and the Cultural Revolution unavailable to readers inside China.

The reaction from the academic world was swift and outraged. Dr Tim Pringle, the editor of the journal, made an unequivocal statement that this was unacceptable: the standards of international academic freedom meant that either the whole journal must be made available, or none of it. CUP in fact reversed its decision very swiftly and its unlikely that they or any other publisher will try to promote selective access to its journals in the near future. But this tactic highlights why China remains hobbled when it comes to understanding a topic of more concern to the Chinese than to anyone else: the reasons for change and conflict in their own society. By obstructing free research by its own academics, the Chinese government limits the analysis and judgment of the experts it surely wants to advise it. In the end, China loses more from censorship than Westerners.

The Chinese government has repeatedly stated that it is keen to internationalise its higher education sector. Slowly but surely, more foreign-trained and foreign faculty are being taken on at Chinese universities. Large amounts are spent on scholarships to send Chinese students abroad. However, this laudable tendency has come into clear conflict with the increasingly controlled atmosphere in the Chinese academic world.

Research in political science and sociology in China has become much harder since 2012. Conditions were never easy, but scholars pursued a wide range of topics in the 1990s and 2000s: the possibilities of urbanisation, the previously hidden parts of Chinese history, the emergence in the new millennium of a form of civil society. It was possible for researchers to live in Chinese villages, visit Chinese historical archives, interview Chinese decision makers. They worked together with Chinese colleagues and institutions, with both sides becoming richer in knowledge as a result. China has never lifted censorship, but in the 1990s, despite the post-1989 crackdown, significant Chinese journals such as Zhanlue yu guanli (Strategy and Management) gave important insights, sometimes at odds with mainstream thinking, drawing on international scholarship. For academic readers, access to Western thinking on China through English-language journals was another source of lateral, unofficial thinking. That space for free writing and thinking seems to be disappearing.

Theres a particular irony in trying to censor a journal largely written by Western academics who work on China. If there is one group that gives a nuanced, and broadly sympathetic, view of contemporary China, it is Western academics who actually spend time researching the country. Articles in The China Quarterly (Ive published a couple there myself) illuminate whats happening in contemporary China in ways that draw on Chinese perspectives and input. This is a not a journal of pure opinion, and nor are its scholarly counterparts such as The China Journal or the Journal of Asian Studies. Its articles are based on empirical evidence gathered, often under difficult conditions, from Chinese from all walks of life: migrant labourers, young urban professionals, and even diplomats and government officials. As a result, read across the entirety of its issues, such a journal provides one of the most comprehensive views of what contemporary China looks like, both positive and negative, and, more often, the grey areas in between that inform questions of the utmost importance such as Is environmental pollution a price worth paying for stellar economic growth? Its writers take particular pride that they do not take orders from governments, Chinese, American, or any other.

Most of the discussion has been about the restriction on the rights of the authors in the journal, and it is important that their protests have led to such a swift reversal. But consider the dispute from a different point of view: that of scholars in China. The China Quarterly is one of the major outlets for scholarship on China anywhere in the world (many scholars from the Peoples Republic publish there). If the censorship had continued, it would have meant that the only country in the world that was obstructed from gaining access to all the latest scholarship would be China itself. While scholars in the United States, Britain, Australia, Hong Kong, or Singapore continued to have full access, readers in mainland China would be placed in a second-class position by their own authorities. I suspect I speak for most academics when I say that China really ought to be at the cutting edge of scholarship on its own politics (can you imagine people arguing that the best scholarship on American politics came out of France or Germany?). Limiting access to the scholarly resources that every other university in the world is allowed to read will not help in that aim. Its a self-inflicted wound.

See original here:
Why China hurts itself more than others with censorship - South China Morning Post

As legal cases go, Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Trump is slightly complex. As politics goes, the Department of Justices (DOJ) involvement makes it even more so.

Reporter John Gizzi alluded to this case in a question to Sarah Sanders at a White House press briefing last week. Gizzi asked if President Trump was aware of the complaints surrounding religious freedom issues. Sanders replied she wasnt sure. Regardless, freedom of religious expression for religious leaders could be at stake in an important legal battle pitting three parties against one another.

When President Trump issued an executive order about the Johnson Amendment, limiting it from extending the Internal Revenue Services power to challenge churches tax exemption based on their teachings, the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed suit. It wants the IRS to enforce regulations to fine churches based on bureaucrats judgments of sermons.

There are three facets to this case: legal, political, and one blending both. At stake are religious expression and the separation of church and state.

First, the legal portion: Since 1954, many churches have operated in trepidation of the Johnson Amendment, a provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. The IRS has interpreted the Johnson Amendment aggressively, threatening consequences if churches get too political, even though its unclear whether the laws authors intended to target churches, instead of non-religious nonprofits, with its provisions.

The Federalists David Harsanyi has covered this particularly egregious amendment thoroughly. Sure, the IRS rule violates the First Amendment, but that hasnt stopped organizations from pushing the IRS to enforce it more, or at all. That includes FFR, a devout atheist organization that has sued over this amendment before.

Enter President Trump, the political portion of this legal battle. In May, Trump issued an executive order stating that the IRS should not enforce its interpretation of the Johnson Amendment on churches. Their speech should not be censored out of fear of the government. To wit:

In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury.

In response to Trumps Executive Order, FFRF filed a lawsuit in a Wisconsin district court demanding that the IRS enforce the pulpit speech restrictions. Essentially FFRF is asking the court to enforce regulations that would threaten churches tax-exempt status, involve the IRS in churches finances, and levy fines against both the churches and their individual leaders. FFRF has tried to enforce the Johnson Amendment in a similar way three years ago but retracted their suit after Becket, a religious liberty law firm, got involved.

Finally, the political angle as it relates to these lawsuits. Several religious leaders in Wisconsin were concerned if FFRF won this suit the government would begin to censor their worship services. So they, with the help of Becket, filed suit to intervene. Becket filed a motion asking the court to reject FFRFs suit outright as a violation of the separation of church and state.

This case gets even more interestingand complicatedin the way DOJ responded to Beckets intervention on behalf of the Wisconsin pastors. Again, the pastors wish to actively oppose a suit that, if it succeeds, could harm their religious expression. They are essentially wishing to join the case in support of the executive branchs decision, and the Department of Justices job is to defend executive branch decisions in court.

Yet the same day the DOJ filed suit asking the court to reject FFRFs claims, it told the court in a separation motion two key facts: 1) that President Trumps May promise was meaningless and 2) the religious leaders Becket represented had no business intervening in this case. This means they argued if the court reached the motion to intervene, intervention should still be denied.

While the proposed intervenors desire to be heard in this litigation is understandable, and they offer a unique perspective that could be valuable to the Court, they do not meet the requirements for intervention, and it would be more appropriate for them to advance their arguments through participation as amici curiae. The proposed intervenors do not meet the requirements for intervention of right, because they do not have an interest in the outcome of the action that would meet the requirements of Rule 24(a)(2) (emphasis mine).

I asked Daniel Blomberg, legal counsel on this case at Becket, why he thought the DOJ would believe churches had no vested interest in legally protecting themselves by intervening in this lawsuit. If were talking about the IRS getting involved in the internal affairs of churches, surely churches have an interest in protecting themselves against that, he said. The real people who are going to be harmed if FFRF wins its lawsuit are the churches, so of course they should be allowed to speak up for themselves.

Blomberg added that whats even more strange is that FFRF didnt oppose the church leaders intervening in this case against Trump, even though they lost the last time Becket intervened, but for some reason Trumps own Department of Justice did. It looks weird when DOJ is opposing the churches and FFRF isnt.

Blomberg thinks people who care about religious expression need to start asking a few questions, namely, Why is the DOJ saying Trumps executive order is meaningless and How does it makes sense for DOJ to tell church leaders to stay out of this case?

Of course some would argue the Department of Justice is merely a band of civil servants, dedicated to doing work many of us never hear about much less can be grateful for, particularly during a tumultuous and unpredictable one-of-a-kind presidency. Others say this could be yet another exhibit of an administrative state rebellion against the presidents authority. Because this case is still ongoing, and the court has not responded to any of these motions filed last week, its difficult to conjecture.

The legal and political facets of this case are not only unique and complex but compelling, especially to those with a vested interest in the Constitutions Free Exercise and Establishment clauses. While its typical for an atheist organization to attempt to pressure government to censor religious speech, its more eyebrow-raising when the Department of Justice, which ostensibly works to accomplish the presidents goals, tries to invalidate the presidents attempts to encourage religious liberty, and actively works against religious leaders fighting censorship.

Excerpt from:
Why Is The Justice Department Telling Churches They Can't Defend Themselves Against Censorship? - The Federalist