Mediaboss Marketing

The Department of Homeland Security's announced "pause" of its Disinformation Governance Board, 21 days after creating it as a "national security" measure, probably is itself disinformation.

DHS realizes that its 10-thumbed debut of this boneheaded idea almost doomed it, so the "pause" feigns deliberation while the department plots the DGB's resurrection.

Government pratfalls such as the DGB are doubly useful, as reminders of government's embrace of even preposterous ideas if they will expand its power, and as occasions for progressives to demonstrate that there is no government expansion they will not embrace. Progressives noted approvingly that DHS was putting a disinformation "expert" - a "scholar" - in charge, so science would be applied, including the "science" of sorting disinformation from real information.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas's short-lived choice as DGB executive director was Nina Jankowicz. Before becoming, for three weeks, head of the "nonpartisan" (so said the president's press secretary) disinformation board, Jankowicz had a colorful career chastising "Republicans and other disinformers." The contents of Hunter Biden's laptop? "A Trump campaign product," she decreed. Her certitudes are many.

To assuage the anxieties of those uneasy about government bestowing the imprimatur of truthfulness on contested propositions, DHS officials said the disinformation board had no "operational authority or capability," and denounced as a "great misperception" the idea that the board's mission would involve dispelling what it deems unhelpful statements. The White House said the DGB would "prevent" the circulation of disinformation, yet without trying to "adjudicate" truth or falsehood.

Barack Obama, commenting on disinformation and offering a sample of it, recently called himself "pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist" while fondly remembering the Fairness Doctrine (1949-1987) as part of the "framework" that made broadcasting "compatible with democracy." That doctrine allowed the federal government to require broadcast entities - all dependent on federal licenses - to be what government considered fair and balanced.

Using radio spectrum scarcity as an excuse, even before the Fairness Doctrine was created, Republicans running Washington in the late 1920s pressured a New York station owned by the Socialist Party to show "due regard" for other opinions. What regard was "due"? The government knew. So, it prevented the Chicago Federation of Labor from buying a station, saying all stations should serve "the general public."

In 1939, Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration conditioned one station's license renewal on ending anti-FDR editorials. (Tulane Law School professor Amy Gajda's new book, Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy, reports that earlier, FDR had "unsuccessfully pushed for a code of conduct for newspapers as part of the Depression-era National Recovery Act and had envisioned bestowing on compliant newspapers an image of a blue eagle as a sort of presidential seal of approval.") John F. Kennedy's Federal Communications Commission harassed conservative radio, and when a conservative broadcaster said Lyndon B. Johnson used the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 as an excuse for Vietnam escalation, the Fairness Doctrine was wielded to force the broadcaster to air a response.

As the Disinformation Governance Board floundered in ignominy, Mayorkas, the DHS secretary, said, "We could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't." It is ever thus: No progressive ideas are foolish or repellant, although a few are artlessly merchandized.

But to be fair to DHS, it has more employees (240,000) than Richmond, Va., has residents, and there is enough disinformation in circulation to preoccupy all of them. The Manhattan Institute's Brian Riedl offers some examples from the administration that conceived the DGB:

President Joe Biden said the $2.4 trillion Build Back Better spending bill "costs zero dollars." Biden calls today's inflation, which ignited a year before the invasion of Ukraine, "Putin's price hike." Speaking in 2021 about his American Rescue Plan, Biden said, "According to Moody's ... this law alone will create 7 million new jobs." Moody's actually said the law would add 4 million jobs to the 3 million that would be created without the law. Last year, the Biden administration said Moody's predicted "19 million jobs" would be created by the American Jobs Plan. Moody's actually predicted 2.7 million jobs over a 10-year period, with the other 16 million representing the baseline of expected job growth.

If - when - the DHS's "pause" ends and a resuscitated disinformation board buckles down to protecting Americans from falsehoods, it will of course concern itself with only disinformation of foreign origin, the theory being that only this sort threatens national security. The theory will, of course, be disinformation.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

See the original post:
Watch for a return of the ignominious Disinformation Governance Board - Lebanon Reporter

LAWRENCE When a sexual assault survivor tells their story to a journalist, they may have any number of reasons for doing so, but almost certainly not because that reporter would be required to pass the information on to university administrators. Yet Title IX, the landmark gender equality in higher education legislation, has been used to make student and university-affiliated journalists required reporters of sexual assault in an attempt to prevent them from reporting publicly on the issue. A new study from the University of Kansas titled Investigative vs. Mandatory Reporting: Weaponizing Title IX Against Journalists explores such situations and recommends how to avoid such use of the law.

In 2019, National Public Radio and Pro Publica published several articles about sexual assault by faculty at the University of Illinois. Administrators responded by designating affiliated journalists at the Springfield NPR station mandatory reporters. While that may be one of the most high-profile cases, it is not the only situation in which institutions have used Title IX as a way to prevent reporting on sexual assault. That indicates a troubling trend of using the law to cover misdeeds instead of as a way to protect and help survivors, the authors wrote, noting that it could be stopped through legal and policy changes as well as extra-legal practices by journalists.

Genelle Belmas, associate professor of journalism & mass communications, and Harrison Rosenthal, an attorney who recently completed his doctorate in media law at KU, have published their study in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

During the Obama administration, Title IX was expanded to include wide-net requirements of mandatory reporting or responsible employees. Any university employee with such a designation is required to report to supervisors any case of sexual harassment or sexual assault they hear of. While the intent is to ensure cases of abuse are not ignored, it has been used to ensure student journalists or those associated with public media affiliates such as National Public Radio stations do not have anonymity with sources discussing abuse.

It frustrates the purpose and objective of Title IX when its weaponized like this, Rosenthal said. Weve learned it is unfortunately not a unique incident and student journalists especially have been designated mandatory reporters in higher ed and in K-12.

In the Illinois case, the stories still came to public light because of the partnership with Pro Publica, a media outlet not affiliated with any university, unlike roughly two-thirds of National Public Radio affiliates, the authors wrote. In that case, the university was not able to prevent the outlets coverage and did not attempt to do so. However, the designation of NPR affiliates associated with the university represents a troubling effort to keep publicly damaging information from reporting in the media, the authors wrote.

The authors traced how Title IX guidelines both widened reporting and later gave more leeway to those accused of sexual harassment or assault under former President Trumps Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

There is nothing stopping universities from implementing these rules on any employees theyd like. The DeVos rules are very clear on that, Belmas said. K-12 rules are also very clear: Everyone reports, but higher ed rules have more leeway on who is a responsible employee.

The authors wrote that there is no blanket policy at American institutions for how they designate which employees are mandatory reporters, though schools in the South tend to use a wide-net approach, while northern schools tend to be narrower. Authors wrote, however, that legislators and universities should do away with the wide-net approach, especially as it applies to student and affiliated journalists.

It is a perfect confluence for an end run around the rules and the intention of the law, Belmas said. If these requirements are in place for journalists, they cannot guarantee anonymity to these students anymore.

Belmas and Rosenthal made several recommendations to prevent misuse of Title IX.

The most effective way to do this would be to amend the law itself, Rosenthal said. That probably will never happen, given the divided, political nature of the country and federal government and what would need to happen to make it a reality.

State governments would have the ability to prevent such tactics, however. Title IX provides states authority to amend their own laws on who is required to be a mandatory reporter. Perhaps the simplest route, the authors wrote, is for institutions to change their own policies on who is a mandatory reporter and ensure that both student and affiliated journalists are not designated as such.

Its as simple as universities knowing this is a problem, and because of that, through the stroke of a pen, saying, We are going to excuse journalists from being mandatory reporters, Rosenthal said. Title IX and the federal government give them the power to make that change.

Whether governments or institutions make legal or policy changes, journalists have options to ensure their reporting on sexual assault or harassment is not stifled, the authors wrote. They can partner with off-campus affiliates such as NPRs work with Pro Publica in the Illinois case. Reporters can also share information via methods universities cannot regulate, such as personal social media accounts or news outlets outside of the universitys purview to bring such information to light. In the meantime, misuse of Title IX is damaging to victims, free press and the public, the authors said.

That is a direct assault on Title IX and the First Amendment. Its subverting a law intended to provide protections for sexual assault survivors, Belmas said. That is very pernicious to me. How dare anyone hide their misdeeds behind the law itself?

Image credit: iStock

The rest is here:
Study recommends how to prevent 'weaponizing' Title IX to cover up sexual assault | The University of Kansas - KU Today

from the better-late-than-ignored-indefinitely dept

Its 2022 and yet we still havent received a nationwide blessing from the countrys top court that recognizes a First Amendment right to record public officials carrying out their public duties. In most cases, this involves cops, whose public activities are far more public than those of most other public servants.

For whatever reason, the Supreme Court has avoided establishing precedent, despite the omnipresence of cameras carried in the pockets of every cell phone owner in America. Cell phone video has proven instrumental in several police misconduct cases, perhaps most importantly in the George Floyd case, where a witness video helped secure a murder conviction for white police officer Derek Chauvin, who knelt on the unarmed Floyds neck for nearly 10 minutes, ending the arrestees life.

Maybe the nations top court is just waiting for a case that it likes. Its had plenty of opportunities to affirm this right but has ignored them. The court that seems poised to overturn nearly 50 years of reproductive rights may just be waiting for a complicated case that allows it to tip its hat to the First Amendment while erecting all sorts of exceptions that make a right-to-record meaningless. The Supreme Courts history as a protector of police, rather than the people they serve, makes it the worst option for the establishment of citizens rights. But its also the only option for people seeking precedent that would force every cop anywhere in the nation to play by the rules.

Until the Supreme Court decides to address this issue, its up to appellate courts to define precedent in the jurisdictions they preside over. This may create a legal patchwork, but at least the patches encompass several states, rather than small jurisdictions within certain states.

Right now, another appellate court is being asked to affirmatively recognize a right to record police officers. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which presides over Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Utah, and New Mexico is handling a case involving a plaintiff who sued after Colorado police officers prevented him from recording a traffic stop. Here are the details, as reported by Colleen Slevin for the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

In the Colorado lawsuit, Abade Irizarry said he was filming a police traffic stop in the city of Lakewood when he claimed Officer Ahmed Yehia stood in front of the camera to block Irizarry from recording. The officer was on foot shined a flashlight into Irizarrys camera and the camera of another blogger. Then Yehia left the two, got into his cruiser and sped the cruiser toward the two bloggers, the lawsuit said. The cruiser swerved before reaching the bloggers and they were not hit, according to the lawsuit.

The case was heard in federal court in Denver, where a magistrate judge sided with lawyers for Yehia and dismissed it last year, agreeing with Yehias lawyers, who contended the right to record police was not clearly established by the time of the incident in 2019.

Fortunately for Irizarry, he has more than usual rights groups in his corner. None other than the US Department of Justice is advocating on Irizarrys behalf, arguing in favor of citizens right to record. The DOJ filed its own amicus brief last fall. Somehow, despite this being forwarded to the 10th Circuit nearly a year ago, it has yet to issue a ruling. It is just now hearing oral arguments on the case and, again, the DOJ is helping Irizarry out, arguing again that citizens have a right to record police officers.

Natasha Babazadeh, an attorney for the Justice Departments Civil Rights Division, urged a three-judge panel from the court to rule in that filming police is a constitutional right and said there has been an increase in the number of lawsuits filed against police by people saying they could not record them in public.

If the court sides with the plaintiff (and there seems to be little reason why it shouldnt), this would establish a right to record in the Tenth Circuit, bringing the total to seven out of thirteen circuits that have established this right. The addition of this precedent would make it that much more difficult for the Supreme Court to continue ignoring an issue that has been steadily gaining momentum for the past two decades.

Unfortunately, the establishment of a right to record wont do much for this plaintiff. It will probably be argued (successfully) that the lack of precedent did not make it clear officers could not directly impede the plaintiffs efforts to record the traffic stop. This will probably still be the conclusion even though these police officers were on notice as early as 2014 that there was presumptive right to record based on precedent established in other circuits.

But courts should refuse to continue humoring this sort of law enforcement gamesmanship. On one hand, cops love to argue anything that can be seen by passersby has no inherent expectation of privacy. But on the other hand, they argue anything they do that can be witnessed by passersby is somehow more deserving of an expectation of privacy or at least, a large number of restrictions that would allow officers to go about their business with no permanent (outside) record of their actions. This is de facto bullshit and should not be given credence by courts. Hopefully, the Tenth Circuit will establish this right going forward and, in doing so, force the Supreme Court to again take notice of an issue it has chosen to neglect.

Filed Under: 10th circuit, 1st amendment, abade irizarry, ahmed yehia, recording police

Originally posted here:
10th Circuit Appeals Court Asked To Recognize A First Amendment Right To Record Cops - Techdirt

In court, "truth" is more subjective than you may think.

THIS CASE IS DEAD AS WELL. AN 18 YEAR-OLD. >> HI, EVERYBODY. HELLO THERE. I'M DAN HAGGERTY. THIS IS THE PART OF THE NEWSCAST. WE DISCUSS THE NEWS A LITTLE BIT NOW WORKING ON A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT I DO WANT TO CHECK IN CHECK IN WITH YOU QUICKLY TONIGHT IN JUST A COUPLE OF E-MAILS BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN SENDING SO MANY OF THEM LIKE BETSY FROM CHAPEL HILL, WHO IS APPARENTLY A BIG FAN, BUT SHE'S A LITTLE CONFLICTED. SHE EMAILS DAN WRAL DOT COM AND SAID THIS. WE FIND OURSELVES TO BE JEOPARDY. LOYALISTS IN COMMERCIAL BREAKS. WE SWITCHED WRAL NEWS. IF YOU'RE RUNNING AN IN-DEPTH FEATURE, WE'VE CAUGHT A FEW, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHEN YOUR SEGMENTS TYPICALLY RUN ARE THE WEEKLY OR ARE THEY ON A PARTICULAR DAY AND WE JUST HAVE NOT FOUND A PATTERN YET. THAT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A PATTERN YET, BUT WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. I'M TRYING TO BUILD A LITTLE BIT OF A TEAM POSSIBLY AND HOPEFULLY SOON WILL BE DOING SOMETHING EVERY NIGHT. IN THE MEANTIME, THAT C. WHO CARES ABOUT JEOPARDY. HONESTLY, I KNOW IT'S ON THE SAME TIME AS ME. I KNOW IT RECENTLY PASSED 60 MINUTES TO BECOME THE MOST WATCHED NON-SPORTS SHOW ON TV. BUT LET'S SEE. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO FOLLOW THE PACK AND WATCH ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR THINGS IN AMERICAN CULTURE OR AND HEAR ME OUT HERE OR >> YOU WANT TO WATCH ME. >> A GUY SPENDS SOMETIMES 8 STRAIGHT MINUTES TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE BRIAN AND THE OLD SUPREME COURT OPINIONS TO A COOLER THAT WAY. IN FACT, YOU CAN FIND EVERYTHING I TALK ABOUT ON WRAL'S NEW YOUTUBE CHANNEL HAVE AN ENTIRE PLAYLIST CALLED IN DEPTH WITH DAN HAGGERTY WERE STILL KIND OF FINE TUNING THE VISUALS. IF YOU LOOK AT A COUPLE OF THE THUMBNAILS LIKE THIS ONE DOESN'T EXACTLY SAY LOOK AT ME, I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING SMART, BUT WE'RE WORKING ON IT. OKAY. SO PLEASE STICK WITH US. YOU'LL FIND ALL THE TOPICS THAT YOU EMAIL ME ABOUT THAT WE DISCUSS HERE DURING THIS SEGMENT LIKE MY RECENT DISCUSSION WITH YOU ABOUT POLITICAL ADS, YOU MAY REMEMBER THAT WE TALKED TO A LAWYER WHO WORKS WITH CAMPAIGNS TO CHECK THEIR ADS BEFORE THEY AIR. IT CONFIRMED TO US SOMETHING THAT WAS KIND OF HARD TO BELIEVE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT EFFECTIVELY THESE CANDIDATES CAN LIE IN THESE ACTS BECAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. AND IN THAT SEGMENT, I DISCUSSED THE CONCERNS THAT A VIEWER NAMED CAROL SHARED WITH ME RECENTLY. CARROLL SAID DAN. I WONDER ABOUT THE ETHICS OF THE STATIONS TO RUN ADS. IF THE AD IS DECLARED FALSE, BY FACT, CHECKED, WHY IS THE AD NOT PULLED THE MONEY? IS THE MONEY VALUED ABOVE THE TRUTH. I'M DISTURBED BY AS NOT BEING PULLED THE NEGATIVE. CHERI BEASLEY AD IS ONE THAT STICKS OUT. AND I KNOW THAT IT FEELS KIND OF STRANGE, BUT THE TRUTH ISN'T NECESSARILY PART OF THAT TRANSACTION. AND IN COURT, TRUTH IS MORE SUBJECTIVE THAN YOU MAY THINK. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PEOPLE LIKE PAUL SPAY AND POLITIFACT TO EXPLAIN THE FREE SPEECH THAT YOU HEAR DURING OUR COMMERCIAL BREAK. SOMETIMES PAUL CARROLL MENTION CHERI BEASLEY AND ADD THAT RUNS ON OUR AIR MAKING SOME CLAIMS ABOUT HER RULINGS AND A DEATH SENTENCE CASE AND AN ASSAULT ON A MINOR. >> THE FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CHERI BEASLEY GO EASY ON DEFENDANTS IN A PAIR OF SENSITIVE CASES. THAT'S WHAT THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE SUGGEST ITS NEW ATTACK AD. TAKE A LOOK. >> THE WORST THING COMES. THE STATION AND CHIEF JUSTICE SHERRY BEASLEY FAILED TO PROTECT THEM. THE MURDERER SHOW DOUBLING THE FACE BC. THEY CAME TO HIS SON'S MEN CONVICTED OF SEXUALLY ASSAULTING A 7 YEAR-OLD GIRL. SHE THREW OUT THE INDICTMENT. >> BEASLEY IS A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IN NORTH CAROLINA'S U.S. SENATE RACE WILL TAKE ON REPUBLICAN TED BUDD IN NOVEMBER. THE AD MAKES 2 CLAIMS ABOUT HER THAT SHE VACATED THE DEATH SENTENCE FOR SOMEONE WHO SHOT A TEENAGER AND THAT SHE THREW OUT THE INDICTMENT OF A MAN CONVICTED OF ASSAULTING A YOUNG GIRL. THE AD IS SOMEWHAT ACCURATE. BUT LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING NEITHER OF THESE CASES WAS ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S ACTIONS AND THE DEATH SENTENCE CASE. A MAN HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDERING A 17 YEAR-OLD. HE WAS INITIALLY GIVEN THE DEATH PENALTY. BUT THEN YOU SOMETHING CALLED THE RACIAL JUSTICE ACT TO GET HIS SENTENCE REDUCED TO LIFE IN PRISON. STATE LAWMAKERS THEN REPEAL THE RACIAL JUSTICE ACT AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT WAS ASKED SHOULD THE MEN BE SENT BACK TO DEATH ROW BEASLEY IN THE COURT RULED NO, THAT WOULD BE DOUBLE JEOPARDY. SO HE'LL SERVE LIFE IN PRISON. AS FOR THE CASE WITH THE YOUNG GIRL, THE MAN WHO HAD BEEN CONVICTED ARGUED TO HAVE HIS CASE THROWN OUT BECAUSE PROSECUTORS DIDN'T COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AS IT APPLIES TO IDENTIFYING HIS ACCUSER. THE INDICTMENT REFERRED ONLY TO THE GIRL AS VICTIM ONE. THE COURT RULED 42 THAT THE INDICTMENT DID NOT DISTINGUISH THE DEFENDANT ACCUSER FROM OTHER VICTIMS. BEASLEY IN THE 3 OTHER CITED THIS STATE LAW WHICH SAYS INDICTMENTS MUST HAVE SOME FORM OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION FOR THE VICTIM. SO ALTOGETHER, THAT AD HAD SOME ACCURATE INFORMATION, BUT IT LEAVES OUT A LOT OF IMPORTANT CONTEXT AND THAT'S WHY THE TREATIES OR A GET AFTER IT. >> TO READ MORE ABOUT THOSE CASES, GO TO WRAL DOT COM. THANKS TO PAUL TRYING TO HELP US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SEE IN THESE ADS AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE PLENTY MORE AS WE APPROACH THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. BUT THERE'S A LOT MORE IN GENERAL TO TALK ABOUT. SO PLEASE E-MAIL ME AT DAN. >> AT WRAL DOT COM, NOT TRY TO RESPOND TO EVERY SINGLE E-MAIL. PLEASE BE PATIENT. I GET A TON OF THEM. SO IF YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN A RESPONSE YET, TRUST ME. I'M WORKING ON IT. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY BE PERSISTENT. LIKE KARL WHO SAID, I ENJOY YOUR PROVOKING DISCUSSIONS OF CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS, BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE PRESSING ISSUE TREATED. WHAT HAPPENED WITH KAT CAMPBELL IS VISIT TO ICELAND. WE WERE SUPPOSED TO GET DAILY REPORTS WITH PICTURES OF WATERFALLS AND VOLCANOES, ET CETERA. BUT I SAW ONLY ONE ON THE FIRST DAY OF ARRIVAL WITH A HUGE CHURCH. THEN SUDDENLY SHE WAS BACK ON THE AIR AS IF NOTHING HAD HAPPENED. NO WORD MENTION OF ICELAND, WRAL TRYING TO COVER SOMETHING UP. YES. IS A SECRET AGENT.

Read this article:
First amendment allows political ads to run -- even if they have misleading statements - WRAL News

Many drivers consider their cars an extension of themselves and their personalities. Thats why its not terribly uncommon for drivers to drop thousands of dollars on custom paint jobs or other body modifications. With a bit of mechanical expertise, you can even add custom horn sounds to your car. However, horns are, first and foremost, a car safety issue.

Most of us dont appreciate excessive car horn blaring, but its hard to control the actions of other drivers. In fact, some people would even say that limiting how much one can honk infringes on free speech. What do the courts have to say about honking your car horn and the First Amendment?

According to AAA, the first Klaxon car horn was introduced in the early 1900s. Back in those days, it was considered polite to fire off an ahooga at pedestrians and other drivers. Still, just like today, it was primarily installed as a safety feature.

Car horn units are located under the hood, usually behind the grille or the front firewall. When you press down on the horn at the wheel, it sends electric currents into a metal diaphragm. The vibrations caused by this diaphragm can produce between 100-110 decibels.

Eventually, the Klaxon was swapped out for electric car horns in the 1930s. Since then, the car horn has received minimal upgrades, though mostly just material swaps.

In most cases, judges wont recognize honking your horn as exercising your First Amendment rights. In 1985, one driver claimed that he was allowed to repeatedly honk in traffic because it was his right of expressive conduct.

According to the First Amendment Encyclopedia, New York law states that he only should have been honking his horn if he was in danger. In order to violate the First Amendment, something must restrict the viewpoint or content of an individual. New Yorks law to reduce noise pollution and traffic noise does neither.

Another driver, Lori Compas, contested that she was allowed to honk her horn as much as she pleased because it was in protest. She thought that a parking lot for recreational vehicles had no place in a national park, so she used her horn to express that. The judge argued that honking your horn to express displeasure at something is not the kind of protest protected by the Constitution.

One Oregon court argued that banning horn honking could be seen as restricting free expression. The court made the case that using your horn to sound off a friendly greeting shouldnt be illegal. Such a harmless act is one thing, but breaking another law or causing a public disturbance with your honking is another.

In many cities, its illegal to honk your horn unless you or another driver is in immediate danger. You know those quick, happy beeps you might make when passing a friend on the road or at a stoplight? An officer might give you a ticket for that, possibly costing a few hundred dollars.

It might seem harsh, but beeping your horn at a friend encourages your friend to honk back. Other drivers probably dont appreciate getting stuck in the middle of a screeching conversation between two vehicles. At that point, youre both disrupting traffic and possibly disturbing the peace.

Likewise, you shouldnt honk your horn just because someone is making you angry. Obviously, a quick honk before someone cuts you off can prevent injury to everyone. However, if someones music is too loud or you spy an ugly bumper sticker, its better to look the other way.

Unrestrained car horns arent just annoying: theyre also not that great for your ears. Any excessive noise louder than 70 decibels can cause hearing damage over a long period of time.

The bottom line is that were not in the 20th century anymore. Unless you live in another country with more pedestrian traffic, most drivers wont appreciate excessive honking on their morning commutes. Free speech is obviously important, but theres more value in using our voices (and honks) for constructive purposes.

RELATED: Is It Illegal to Beep Your Horn at a Cop Car?

Visit link:
Is Honking Your Car Horn a First Amendment Right? - MotorBiscuit