Mediaboss Marketing

SALEMAs WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's father told a crowd at Cinema Salem Thursday night, there is no free America without a free press.

The 2021 film "Ithaka" was created by Assange's brother, Gabriel Shipton, and focused on Assange's story through the eyes of his father, John Shipton, and wife, Stella Assange. It was shown at Cinema Salem on opening night of the 2023 Salem Film Festival, which runs through April 2.

Assange founded WikiLeaks in 2006 and gained notoriety in 2010 when the outlet leaked hundreds of thousands of documents provided by former U.S. Army Intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.

The documents showed that war crimes were committed with the knowledge of the U.S. during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and set off over a decade of intense criticism from the U.S. government toward Assange. The Australian publisher and journalist has since received dozens of journalism awards and was nominated multiple times for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Assange found asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in the United Kingdom from 2012 to 2019, at which time he faced sexual misconduct charges in Sweden, which were later dropped, and extradition to that country and, likely, the U.S. Since April 11, 2019, Assange has been imprisoned in the max security prison H.M Belmarsh in London and faces extradition to the U.S. on 17 counts of espionage.

If found guilty, he could receive a max sentence of 175 years under the Espionage Act of 1917. That act was signed into law by the U.S. government during World War I as a controversial measure to limit criticism of the American government.

While whistleblowers have been sentenced under the act, Assange would be the first journalist it has ever officially punished.

It seems to me and many other commentators that what the United States Department of Justice, in particular, the national security section, have embarked upon, in this matter, with encouragement from other institutions of state, that this is utterly ruinous, John Shipton said at the screening Thursday night.

"Ithaka" explores the danger Assange's possible conviction poses for the free press, and anyone who aims to hold the government accountable for injustice.

If you imagine just for a moment the removal of the First Amendment, then the people of the United States have lost the fundamental guide to the origination of a culture thats now grown up with 250 years, Assanges father said.

The film also documents the emotional toll Assange's ongoing imprisonment has taken on him and his family. As shown in the film, Assange has struggled with severe depression throughout adulthood, which has only gotten worse since hes been in prison, and in October 2021, suffered a stroke in prison.

With the Biden administration still pursuing the extradition that President Donald Trump initially called for, and with the U.S. appealing a British judges decision to not extradite Assange in 2021, his time in prison is far from over.

"I dont think that people who exposed war crimes should go to prison for the rest of their lives, his wife said in the film. The injustice is overwhelming.

The five media organizations that collaborated on the WikiLeaks U.S. war crimes publications include the New York Times, Der Spiegel in Germany, The Guardian in the U.K., El Pas in Spain and Le Monde in France. The outlets published a letter on the 10th anniversary of the U.S. war crimes leak calling for the end of Assange's persecution.

While the U.S. is still seeking Assange's extradition, support for Assange has grown over the years across the world, his brother said.

These prestigious media organizations, these corporations, now are concerned of what this prosecution means to their position in our societies. And so they're now coming forward, Gabriel Shipton said Thursday.

His father made that message even clearer in the film.

If he goes down, so will journalism, John Shipton said.

More than 70 documentaries, filmmaker question-and-answer sessions, student film competitions, panel discussions and parties will be held in Salem and Beverly as part of the festivals 16th year.

For more information on the festival, visit http://www.salemfilmfest.com/.

Contact Caroline Enos atCEnos@northofboston.comand follow her on Twitter@CarolineEnos.

Read more here:
Assange's family speak on threat to 1st Amendment at Salem Film Fest - The Salem News

SOUTHWICK In an effort to avoid unwanted litigation, Select Board member Jason Perron has been working for several months on language to create a policy that would guide the town on flags that could be flown in front of Town Hall.

Its a work in progress, Perron said about the proposed policy.

He said the motivation for drafting a policy outlining what flags can be flown on the single pole at Town Hall came from a lawsuit filed against the city of Boston in 2017. A Christian group sued after Boston officials refused to fly its flag on one of three poles at Boston City Hall.

It was the first time Boston had denied a flag flying request. The city said flying a Christian flag would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion.

The group appealed: first to state District Court and a U.S. Appeals Court, which both upheld the lower courts ruling, and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled the groups First Amendment rights had been violated.

With that history, Perron said that during a meeting of the Massachusetts Municipal Association in January, it was suggested that all towns and cities establish a policy that clearly outlines the circumstances under which flags can be flown on municipal government property.

When discussing the proposed flag policy this week, Perron stressed to residents that it is still being developed and tweaked.

Were going to have to dance around it and be careful it is a work in progress, Perron said, adding that the number of days a flag might fly has yet to be determined.

According to the proposal: The choice of which flag to raise on town-owned property is hereby declared to be governmental speech, communicating a message to the public, to which the strictures of the First Amendment do not apply.

The town does not, nor has it ever, intended to designate the flying of flags on town-owned property as a public forum by permitting a non-governmental party to raise a particular flag.

The operative term in the proposed policy is public forum.

A strict interpretation of public forum means speech that occurs on governmental property, on which the government cannot place content-based restrictions.

If it can establish that flying a flag at Town Hall is not defined as a public forum, the Select Board can choose to raise, or decline to raise, a flag without running afoul of the First Amendment, according to the fourth sentence of the proposed policy: Accordingly, the Select Boards choice of whether to raise, or decline to raise, a flag on town-owned property, the process for such a decision, and the adoption of the policy shall not be interpreted as designating any town-owned property as a public forum for the flying flags.

The flags currently approved to fly on town-owned property are the U.S. flag, the state flag, the town flag, flags of branches of the U.S. military, the prisoners of war and missing in action (POW/MIA) flag, or flags of officially recognized veterans organizations, such as Disabled American Veterans flag and similar.

For any other organization that wants to fly its flag at Town Hall, the proposed policy will require a written request and paying a fee that has yet to be determined.

The applications will be reviewed by the Select Board and if the request is denied, a written explanation will be provided to the organization or group.

The policy provides the type of flags that may be flown: Those related to special circumstances; town-based events; recognition of days of honor that might include Autism awareness, Armed Forces Day, Pearl Harbor Day, 9/11 Remembrance Day, or flags supporting nonprofit organization.

No commercial business flags or promotional flags or banners may be flown, according to the proposed policy.

There is no time frame for adoption of the policy, but it has been included for several weeks on the Select Boards agenda.

Link:
Flag flying policy a work in progress, says Southwick Select Board member - MassLive.com

Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit held that Twitter did not act as the government by banning a user months after a government agency flagged for Twitter one of his tweets on alleged election fraud. OHandley v. Weber is the latest decision rejecting social media users attempts to hold platforms liable for deleting, demonetizing, and otherwise moderating their content.

Twitter is a private entity, so the government and the courts cannot tell it what speech it must remove or what speech it must carry. The First Amendment restricts censorship only by the government, not private entities, unless those entities are using government power or otherwise effectively acting as the government. But in OHandley, even if Twitter and the government were generally aligned in their missions to limit the spread of misleading election information[, s]uch alignment does not transform private conduct into state action.

Moreover, as we argued in our amicus brief in the case, holding Twitter liable for content moderation would likely violate the platforms own First Amendment rights. For example, when Twitter took down plaintiff Rogan OHandleys tweets and then his account, it made an editorial decision about what content it would publish.

OHandleys lawsuit, relied on the fact that the California Office of Election Cybersecurity flagged one of OHandleys tweets for supposedly violating Twitters misinformation policy. But as the Ninth Circuit explained, Twitter developed and applied that policy at its discretion, and the government did not order Twitter to take any action. The court said, and we argued in our brief, that Twitter is not a state actor unless it ceded control over its content moderation process to the government. In general, the government is free to talk to Twitter, and Twitter is free to listen (or not listen).

The Ninth Circuit pointed specifically to Twitters user agreement with OHandley as justifying the content moderation, and declined to say whether the First Amendment also protects that moderation. But many other courts have dismissed these must carry lawsuits under the First Amendment, including the lower court in this case. OHandley is the Ninth Circuits second published decision rejecting a must carry lawsuitthe first being Prager v. Googleand provides clear precedent for other courts considering these cases.

Finally, the court said OHandley had standing to sue the California government for flagging his tweet, but that it ultimately did not violate his First Amendment rights because flagging a tweet was mere government speech and not coercion.

View original post here:
Victory at the Ninth Circuit: Twitter's Content Moderation is Not State ... - EFF

Frances Madeson| Louisiana Illuminator

TikTok influencers visit Washington amid possible ban

A heavy public relations campaign involving TikTok influencers has come to the nation's capital as U.S. officials are considering banning the hugely popular video-sharing app over worries it poses risks to cybersecurity and data privacy. (March 22)

AP

ALEXANDRIA Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry has declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of an amendment to the Rapides Parish Librarys collection development policy, as requested in January. He offered no reason in his offices March 2, 2023, letter to the parishs Library Board of Control.

At issue is a policy change the Rapides Library Control Board considered in January. Board member James Morgan suggested the amendment after his 4-year-old son came across a copy of Pride Puppy in the childrens section of the library. Its an alphabet book that tells the story of a family losing then finding their puppy after it runs off the leash at a Pride parade.

Morgan, who the Rapides Police Jury appointed to the board in September, authored the proposed update to the librarys collection development policy.It reads: [Children and teen] collections shall not include materials containing obscenity, sexual content (including content regarding sexual orientation and gender identity), or any other material that is unsuitable for the children and teen collections. Library events and displays for children and teens shall be held to the same standard.

Library board counsel Greg Jones, experts at the Tulane First Amendment Law Clinic, and three local attorneys who weighed in during public comments at the December and January board meetings, all cautioned that Morgans language was unconstitutional. The parish library and elected leaders would not be able to defend themselves against the exposure to lawsuits to follow if the amendment is adopted , they said.

Storyteller, writer teaches Alexandria children the power of F-words

Tulane law professorKatie Schwartzmann, who directs the First Amendment Law Clinic, confirmed that position in an email to the Illuminator. The clinic also provides guidance to the Illuminator.

Its unfortunate that Attorney General Landry chose not to provide the guidance requested by Rapides Library Board of Control, Schwartzmann said. Rapides proposed book ban would be unconstitutional, but the Attorney General chose not to advise them as such. Louisianians (and local government bodies) need to be able to rely upon Landrys office to provide clear-eyed legal guidance.

The proper guidance would be to advise the library board that its proposed restrictions on books would violate the U.S. Constitution, she said. Landry has acknowledged previously that the First Amendment is broad and protects controversial books, evensexual content, Schwartzmann added.

Louisiana already has laws that criminalize obscenity and material harmful to minors, she said. If officials reach beyond those limits, they will be censoring protected speech and violating the Constitution.

Landry established a Protecting Minorstip linelast year for the public to report the taxpayer-subsidized sexualization of children at libraries. Through a public records request, the Illuminator reporter the line wasflooded with spam complaints.

At the January library board meeting, president LeAnza Jordan lamented that the troublesome verbiage had not been vetted by a board committee. Her comments came after hours of public comments from religious leaders and parents decrying nonexistent pornography in the childrens section.

Alexandria hospitals fail to comply with price transparency law, patient advocates say

At that meeting, in addition to seeking permission to contact the attorney generals office on the boards behalf, Jones suggested the members consider creating a board Policies and Reconsideration Committee. It could be dually charged with scrutinizing proposed amendments for lawfulness and redundancy, and it could serve as another layer in the librarys review procedures for reconsideration of material patrons find objectionable.

Morgan, in an email to the Illuminator at the time, stood behind his proposed changes.

I continue to believe that it is practical, legal and consistent with our current policy, and I think it would be a great addition to our librarys development policy, he said.

The board was to consider the new committee at Tuesdays meeting, but it was tabled until after the Louisiana Legislatures session in case relevant state policy is enacted. In his letter, Landry suggested the board monitor the session for bills enforcing library restrictions. Lawmakers will convene April 10 and must adjourn no later than June 8.

Sen. Heather Cloud, R-Turkey Creek, and Rep. Julie Emerson, R-Carenco, havepre-filed billsto restrict materials available to minors at libraries.

Jones advised it could be July before any legislation reaches the governors desk, where his options include a veto.

Morgan stunned attendees at Tuesdays library board meeting when he asked for a copy of its reconsideration procedures, saying he had never seen it.

Library patron Loren Ryland, who has attended and spoken at library board meetings since December, told the Illuminator after the meeting her communitys libraries are under attack by members of its board.

The only thing that I can consider, and Ive thought about this a lot, is that it seems like their ultimate goal is to gut the library from the inside, Ryland said.

TheLouisiana Illuminatoris an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization driven by its mission to cast light on how decisions are made in Baton Rouge and how they affect the lives of everyday Louisianians, particularly those who are poor or otherwise marginalized.

Read the original:
AG Landry offers no opinion on Rapides library children's book policy - The Town Talk

The News Corp. and Fox News headquarters building is seen on January 25, 2023 in New York City.

A courtroom showdown between Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems over the networks coverage of the 2020 election is putting a spotlight on protections for journalists that typically insulate them against defamation claims, including the neutral report privilege and the actual malice standard. Both sides argue their loss would have a devastating impact. Fox News claims no outlet would be able to cover newsworthy allegations without fear of a lawsuit and Dominion says siding with the network would give broadcasters free rein to knowingly spread lies. Despite their apparent alarm, or maybe because of it, First Amendment experts expect that theyll settle their fight and soon.

The legal battle began in March 2021 when Dominion sued Fox News for $1.6 billion. The company claims the cable channel knowingly amplified radioactive falsehoods about election fraud made by Donald Trump and his supporters because it was worried about losing its audience to Newsmax and OAN.

Fox sold a false story of election fraud in order to serve its own commercial purposes, several injuring Dominion in the process, states the complaint. If this case does not rise to the level of defamation by a broadcaster, then nothing does.

Dominion alleges that Fox experienced backlash for accurately reporting on the results of the election including a Twitter tirade from Trump himself and opted to knowingly disregard facts to try to win back viewers.The election technology supplier argues this damaged the companys reputation, subjected its employees to harassment and death threats and undermined the credibility of U.S. elections.

In order to succeed on its defamation claim, Dominion would need to prove actual malice meaning that Fox either knew the statements to be false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The standard was established in 1964 in The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Knight First Amendment Institute Senior Counsel Katie Fallow says the elevated requirement ensures free speech and the ability of the media to report on public officials and figures without the fear of lawsuits based on a mere mistake.

Generally, the standard makes it an uphill battle to successfully sue a media outlet for defamation. Its become somewhat of a political football as critics mostly politically conservative figures including U.S. Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis say Sullivan and the current landscape of U.S. libel law effectively let the media operate unchecked.

Currently a lot of conservatives are arguing that the actual malice standard should be overturned based on this theory that the mainstream media has an agenda and is out to mislead and defame people who dont share its agenda, says Fallow, noting that Florida lawmakers have introduced bills that would considerably lower the bar. I would think conservative commentators would be subject to more defamation lawsuits, and would lose more of them, if First Amendment protections were rolled back.

In this case, its those very protections that Fox News is relying upon, under both Sullivan and New Yorks anti-SLAPP law, as the company argues that Dominion cant prove malice.

Argues Fox News in a reply brief, When Dominion finally turns to the evidence of what the relevant hosts actually knew and believed at the time, instead of what Dominion thinks they should have known and believed, it identifies nothing that comes close to clear and convincing evidence rebutting their uniform testimony that they did not know whether the Presidents claims were true or false.

Court filings over the past few months have generated no shortage of headlines especially after Dominion unleashed a trove of communications including private messages among Fox News talent and staff in support of its motion for summary judgment. The voting machine supplier argues that inside the network there was widespread knowledge of the truth and claims those messages prove that Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs and others knew there was no election fraud but felt it would be bad for business to shut down the claims. One message written by the networks former managing editor noted, Its remarkable how weak ratings make good journalists do bad things.

This appears to be a relatively unusual case where Dominion has presented a remarkable array of statements by Foxs own executives, on air hosts and producers showing that the knew the claims were false but they continued to air them because they knew they would lose their audience, says Fallow.

Fox argues that the messages Dominion is sharing have been cherrypicked and insists that it did present both sides of the story. The network argues that Dominion has not even identified any defamatory statement of fact as opposed to newsworthy allegations or opinions attributable to Fox News, let alone identified any such statement published with actual malice.

And Fox says holding the network liable for repeating allegations made by the then sitting President of the United States would chill free speech.

There is some merit to that in the abstract, says Fallow. It is newsworthy that theyre making these false claims, but there is a difference between reporting on that and essentially acting as a mouthpiece for the false statement.

So, much of the debate centers on whether Fox News was merely reporting on newsworthy events or if it was endorsing lies about Dominion pushed by Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell by continuing to air them after becoming aware that they were false.

The amount of facts that they have that show that Fox executives, producers and hosts all subjectively believed that these claims about Dominion and the election were false using words like nuts thats pretty unusual, says Fallow.If Fox were to be held liable based on this level of facts I dont think it would create a bad precedent for other news organizations.

Media law specialist Daniel Novack isnt so sure. As a media lawyer, Im worried about the neutral report privilege getting stomped on, he says, pointing to an adage that bad facts create bad law. Its extremely irritating to watch Fox cloak itself in neutral reportage and First Amendment protections when this has the potential to destroy those protections because the facts are so bad.

Loyola Law School professor Aaron Caplan sees it a different way. There are some cases that are important because they might change the law, and there are others that are important because of what happened, he says. I dont think this Fox case is going to change the law any. Whats important about it is the underlying facts. Getting the truth about the election is tremendously important, getting the information about the machines our country uses for elections is important, whether one of our major news networks routinely lies is important. I think the facts of the case are important and thats why theres attention being paid to it.

But, based on how disputes of this nature usually go, theres a solid chance there wont be a definitive finding either way.

Most civil cases between two corporations end up settling before trial, says Caplan. Most corporations would rather know for sure its going to be X dollars than take the risk that it might be $1.6 billion. Its a business judgment about how much risk they want to take and how much money they have on hand.

So, why hasnt this fight settled? Surmises Fallow, I assume that it hasnt settled yet because theyre waiting to see how the judge rules on the motion for summary judgment.

The ruling could give one side or the other more leverage and affect how much money is on the table. Experts think its unlikely that either Fox News or Dominion will prevail on its motion for summary judgement, but are eager to see what judge Eric M. Davis says in a Tuesday hearing in Delaware Superior Court.

I dont think either side is going to win their motion, says Novack. Im expecting this to go to trial if nobody blinks and settles.

But, Novack thinks ultimately Fox will write a check to avoid a trial, which is currently set to begin April 17. There is an obvious endgame here, he says, and is it to settle for a few hundred million dollars and walk away and never discuss it again.

Follow this link:
Why First Amendment Experts Think Fox News Will Settle Its Dominion Dispute - Hollywood Reporter