Mediaboss Marketing

Opinion | LetterEveryone who wants to see our freedom of civil discourse continue must speak out

By Matt Regier // May 31, 2020

One of the elements at the heart of the First Amendment is a deep respect for the people. It is the public that has the great responsibility of listening to free speech and determining the validity of that speech. We were entrusted by the framers of our nation to have the discernment to judge for ourselves. That is why I was very concerned to read the Flathead Beacon article, Pressure Intensifies on County to Remove Health Board Member. It quotes the Whitefish City Council saying Dr. Bukaceks right to engage in free speech ends where the publics right to be safe from COVID-19 begins.

A quick search to learn more revealed Dr. Birx (an Obama appointed U.S. AIDS coordinator and White House coronavirus task force appointee) stated, There is nothing from the CDC that I can trust. She also said she was worried the CDC was inflating the COVID-19 death rate by as much as 25% (Washington Post, May 9). No matter where you land on the topic of death rates, CDC, government response etc., should we not be able to have the discussion on these topics?

Health board members or Dr. Birx are not my point in writing. This pandemic will pass and we will be on to something else. What will not pass is a city council that is so scared of the First Amendment and the power that it gives to the people that they feel the need to silence the conversation.

I have many friends that are liberal in their thinking. It is fun to grab a pint with them and chat about government roles and personal freedoms. At times we agree, sometimes minds are changed but most of the time we walk away having had a rousing conversation and a good IPA. The same happens with my conservative friends. However, a leftist does not want to even have the conversation. They make accusations like being a danger to the citizens. This of course is according to them. The underlying notion is they dont trust the publics intelligence enough to think for themselves. They skip the dialog and say things like right to engage in free speech ends where the publics right to be safe from COVID-19 begins.

What is ironic is that the Whitefish City Council does have the First Amendment right to express speech that degrades and limits that very same First Amendment right. It is up to us, the people, to stand up for our rights against those that express anti-constitutional views. There are those that enjoy a good conversation; liberal, conservative, independent or even if you are one who could not care less about politics. Everyone who wants to see our freedom of civil discourse continue must speak out. We can change minds, change votes, and change leadership of those around us. Bottom line is have the conversation. President Ronald Reagan was right when he said Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

Rep. Matt RegierR-Columbia Falls

Read this article:
Stand Up for the First Amendment - Flathead Beacon

In episode 123 for June 1st 2020: The controversy continues over fact checking and First Amendment rights on Twitter, and why government mandated encryption backdoors are bad for everyones security.

** Show notes and links mentioned on the show **

Trump to sign executive order aimed at cracking down on Facebook and Twitterhttps://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/28/trump-to-sign-executive-order-aimed-at-cracking-down-on-facebook-twitter.html

The law enforcement backdoor debate continueshttps://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2020/05/26/backdoor-encryption/

OWASP Top 10 2020 Data Analysis Planhttps://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/

** Thank you to our sponsors! **

Silent Pocket

Visit https://silent-pocket.com to check out Silent Pockets amazing line of faraday bags and other products built to protect your privacy. As a listener of this podcast you receive 15% off your order at checkout using discount code sharedsecurity.

Edgewise Networks

Find out how Edgewise can stop lateral threat movement and prevent data breaches. Visit https://edgewise.net and request a demo!

Take the Click Armor 3-minute interactive assessment: Can I be Phished?https://www.clickarmor.ca/canibephished

** Help support the show **

Looking for an affordable, reliable, no logs VPN provider? Support the podcast by purchasing a Private Internet Access VPN subscription via our affiliate link: http://www.privateinternetaccess.com/pages/buy-vpn/sharedsecurity

** Subscribe and follow the show **

Sign-up for our email newsletter to receive our free Facebook Privacy & Security Guide, full transcripts of each weekly episode, contest announcements, and special offers from our sponsors: http://eepurl.com/dwcc8D

Subscribe on your favorite podcast app: https://sharedsecurity.net/subscribe

Contact us: https://sharedsecurity.net/contact

Website: https://sharedsecurity.net

Twitter: https://twitter.com/sharedsec

Facebook: https://facebook.com/sharedsec

Instagram: https://instagram.com/sharedsecurity

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SharedSecurityPodcast

The post First Amendment Rights and Twitter, Encryption Backdoors appeared first on Shared Security Podcast.

Recent Articles By Author

*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from Shared Security Podcast authored by Tom Eston. Read the original post at: https://sharedsecurity.net/2020/06/01/first-amendment-rights-and-twitter-encryption-backdoors/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=first-amendment-rights-and-twitter-encryption-backdoors

Read the original here:
First Amendment Rights and Twitter, Encryption Backdoors - Security Boulevard

Post Views: 393

Neal Boortz, former attorney and popular radio host famously said, Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection. In the rest of the western world, speech is not protected. In Canada, comedian Mike Ward was fined $42,000 by the Human Rights Tribunal for telling a joke about young disabled singer, Jeremy Gabriel. In Scotland, stand up comedian and YouTuber Mark Meechan was brought to court and fined $800 by the British government for making a video of his pug doing a Nazi salute. Whether or not one sees the humor in this, by an American standard it is clearly ridiculous that any government would infringe upon a comedians free speech rights.

America has a long history of defending even the worst kinds of speech in our society. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which fights for the rights of immigrants, LGBTQ, reparations and reproductive rights, also fights to defend the greatest constitution ever written in the history of mankind, for it provides more civil liberties and freedoms for its people then any constitution ever has.

The ACLU defended the Nationalist Socialist Party of Americas (NSPA) right to march in 1977 in Skokie, Illinois. The Village of Skokie passed three city ordinances which would prevent any future political demonstration like this from ever happening. People could not wear military-style uniforms during demonstrations, the distribution of hate speech literature was prohibited and there was a required $350,000 insurance bond to hold a demonstration. The case was taken to the Supreme Court in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie in which the ACLUs lawyers argued before the court that to prevent the NSPA from marching was a violation of the First Amendment.

The requirement of a $350,000 insurance bond is similar to todays battle on college campuses over exorbitant security costs on student clubs that want to bring incendiary speakers to campus. These student clubs, aided by groups similar to the ACLU like the FIRE Legal Network which focuses specifically on defending the First Amendment on college campuses, have argued that these security costs prevent clubs from bringing speakers to campus a clear violation of the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

Nevertheless, there are limits to the peoples right to free speech. In the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio decision the Supreme Court wrote, Speech aimed at sparking lawless action such as inciting a riot, true threats or words that incite violence. The problem with this is that those seeking to limit college campus free speech have used this case to justify shutting down speakers.

It should be obvious to anyone that the ruling applies to what the speaker says, not how people are offended by it. For example, if an incendiary speaker like Richard Dawkins, who has been denied a platform before by universities such as UC Berkeley, advocates for atheism and then encourages his audience members to go out and harm Christian students on campus, this would violate Brandenburg v. Ohio. Making a criticism of someones belief system or political ideology is not an advocation of violence. It was clearly not the intention of the Founding Fathers that the peoples right to freely assemble should be infringed upon or prohibited because a separate group threatens violence.

What is considered to be hate speech or a controversial idea is ultimately subjective. A Catholic student club might find sexually explicit images offensive while a person who advocates for sex-positivity might consider this to be an element of her free speech. Essentially, all people have strongly held beliefs and an identity which carries an ideology, and when those strongly held beliefs are criticized or challenged, they might very well be offended.

It is important that people do not just use their right to free speech, but they should also devise solutions to remedy violations. First and foremost, the equal time clause, Requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time, should be expanded not only to all forms of news media but also to college campuses.

Moreover, social networks should be considered public forums and subject to the First Amendment protections, meaning that companies like Facebook and Twitter cannot mitigate or shut down certain speakers while propagating others. As these social networks become an increasingly popular way in which Americans consume their news, they should be subject to the same equal time clauses as traditional news media companies.

Last but not least, public universities that consume tax dollars who deny any speakers a platform to speak should lose their public subsidies. The dollars of liberals, conservatives, libertarians and socialists, pay to support our public parks, public hospitals and even public universities. Therefore, its very usage is supposed to be available to everyone, because every American, of all ideological backgrounds, pays into the system to support these amenities that improve society.

The whole point of the First Amendment is to allow controversial speech. Words can be restricted when they incite violence or call one to action, but merely offensive words are not an incitement of violence. It was former U.S. Congressman Henry Hyde who said, Free Speech is meaningless unless we tolerate the speech that we hate. Free speech is not a privilege, its an unalienable right, and every new generation of Americans has to fight to preserve it, otherwise it will slowly be chipped away until it is completely eroded and we are left with nothing but rubble.

Read the original post:
America's First Amendment is what sets it apart from the rest of the western world we have a duty to protect it - Highlander Newspaper

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The above was adopted on December 15, 1791 in the United States of America as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

I dont typically dive into politics unless I really feel it necessary, and over the past few weeks it has become obvious to me that I cant be quiet anymore. My livelihood is coming under attack literally.

Unless you have been living under a rock, you are sure to have heard about the unlawful and disgusting murder of George Floyd. Floyd, a black man, was murdered on camera by a police officer in Minneapolis.

After footage hit social media and the news, protests by those who believe the killing to be unjust broke out both in Minneapolis and soon after across the country as a show of both solidarity and to showcase that Black Lives Matter.

And, with those protests came rioting and looting by those who take advantage of those peacefully expressing their concerns, their right.

Media personnel from all over the country have reported from the protests and riots, risking their lives and probably their sanity to bring news to their fellow Americans as the situations unfold and become violent. Journalists are there to show first hand what is going on and pass that information on to the country.

And then, a CNN broadcast journalist was arrested on live television for doing what appears to be by most Americans his job. A BLACK male journalist, who was televised asking how to comply with officers. He was in the designated press section, he was where he was supposed to be but he was arrested. I, as well as others Im sure, thought this was another senseless act perpetrated by police to undermine a person of color.

Then, after news of this questionable arrest circulated, other journalists throughout the country were shot with rubber bullets, tear gas and were subject to other forceful restraints by police. There are now multiple instances in which unlawful force was used on journalists and a good portion of it was televised lived or recorded. They are of all races and genders.

The words at the beginning of this column protect both myself and my fellow journalist. They give us the constitutional right to cover the news and report it so that our fellow Americans can know what is happening throughout the county. They protect other freedoms as well, but for me, that press mention is a big deal. Those words ensure that I am not only allowed to do my job, but to provide a service to my community and on a larger scale my country.

News at its core is a service to the country, the world.

News is that part of communication that keeps us informed of the changing events, issues, and characters in the world outside. Though it may be interesting or even entertaining, the foremost value of news is as a utility to empower the informed, according to the American Press Institute.

The purpose of journalism is thus to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments. We are here for you. We are here to attend meetings, attend events, attend potentially dangerous situations so we can tell you about them.

But, it has been very apparent that current leadership in America doesnt believe we should be protected. We are labeled as fake. We are disrespected. We are accused of just wanting views. We have become an enemy, when in fact we are a very important part of all aspects of the world.

I know that bias exists, and I know those freedoms allotted in the first amendment can be abused, but please keep in mind that journalists are here for you. We are providing you a service, and most importantly we are supposed to be protected and right now, it doesnt seem as though we are.

View original post here:
Nikki Dotson Merritt: First amendment protects journalists, at least it is supposed to - Huntington Herald Dispatch

The Fourth of July is the most important date in the United States calendar, commemorating the day the 13 former American colonies declared themselves independent states and thumbed their collective nose at Great Britain. This paved the way, 13 years later, for the US Constitution to be enshrined in 1789. The First Amendment followed in 1791, establishing the basic rights of freedom of all US citizens. The second was also added at the same time and is perhaps the most contentious and famous of all the 27 amendments the right to bear arms, which has been in the headlines during the coronavirus pandemic and the aftermath of George Floyds death. Also slipped in on 25 September, 1789, among the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, was one that has been practically forgotten by history: the Third Amendment.

The decision by Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to write to President Donald Trump demanding the ousting of 1,000 Utah National Guard troops from hotels in the capital has suddenly thrown the little-studied Third Amendment into sharp relief with dusty tomes being pulled from shelves to see what exactly the Democratic mayors issue is.

The first to find the relevant page was US Senator Mike Lee, the Republican representative for Utah, who was incensed that Bowser had invoked the centuries old small print to evict the National Guard from Washington hotels after the state of emergency put in place due to protests over George Floyds death had been declared over by Bowser on 4 June.

The original text of the Third Amendment is brief and specific: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

It was added to the Bill of Rights in response to the Quartering Acts drawn up by the British parliament in 1774 in the run-up to the American Revolutionary War. These acts (a previous one had been introduced in 1765) essentially ordered that British troops be housed wherever necessary if there was not sufficient space in barracks, be this in uninhabited houses, out-houses, barns, or other buildings including private homes.

This was among the list of grievances aired in the Declaration of Independence and the wording of the Third Amendment was crafted in response to Britain slyly building up forces at strategic points by waving the Quartering Act about and to ensure no internal antagonists could concentrate troops using a similar ruse.

However, under the terminology of the amendment, National Guard troops are considered soldiers, even if they are hardly an occupying army. Thusly Bowser was able to invoke the Third Amendment to make her point.

Not a great deal, other than a raft of memes, a little head-scratching and some political point-scoring. Even though the hotels that had billeted the National Guard had consented to their presence, Defense Secretary Mark Esper elected to send all troops in Washington back from whence they came as the path of least resistance, allowing the Third Amendment to return to its two-century hibernation.

Continue reading here:
What is the third amendment and can it be applied now? - AS English