Mediaboss Marketing

Supporters of President Donald Trump riot at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021. House Democrats are asking for legislation to make sure that military personnel and recruits are not participating in extremist activities as was seen at the Capitol insurrection. (Yuri Gripas, Abaca Press/TNS)

WASHINGTON (Tribune News Service) House Democrats want the new National Defense Authorization Act to make plain that armed services personnel and recruits are not allowed to advocate or take part in extremist activities or belong to extremist groups.

But the debate over what extremism means and how such a prohibition would be enforced is expected to be fierce starting at Wednesdays House Armed Services Committee markup of the fiscal 2022 bill.

Maryland Democrat Anthony G. Brown plans to file an amendment at the markup that would make explicit a military commanders authority to bar or expel people who espouse or act on extremist beliefs or are members of such groups. The amendment also says that the military can use social media posts as evidence of extremist views that could lead to so-called separation from service.

An individual who engages in extremist activities or is a member of an extremist organization may not serve as a member of the armed forces, states a draft of the amendment.

Brown would leave it to the secretary of defense to define extremist activities. A Pentagon Countering Extremism Working Group is reportedly already at work on that question.

Brown told CQ Roll Call in a statement that he recognizes that extremists form a tiny fraction of the U.S. military, but he believes it is a growing peril.

Racism, white supremacy, antisemitism, discrimination, and other extremist beliefs are not in line with the values of our armed services and have no place in our ranks, Brown said.

Browns amendment would set up a Pentagon Office of Countering Extremism to track reports of such behavior across the Defense Departments uniformed and civilian ranks. The office would share data on the problem with other federal agencies and would produce an annual report to Congress. The amendment would empower the military services to train personnel and recruiters in identifying and avoiding extremism.

The amendment is a response to recent data indicating that extremists ranging from white supremacists to criminal gangs represent a small but seemingly growing and increasingly dangerous portion of the U.S. military. The fact that some 20% of the rioters in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol reportedly had ties to the military has catalyzed these concerns.

But Republicans have regularly pushed back against most attempts to crush extremism in the ranks and are expected to do so again. The GOP critics generally say Democrats are exaggerating the extent of the problem. Republicans say they are concerned too that what constitutes extremist activity is not clearly defined. And they worry that service members privacy and their rights to due process could be threatened.

Browns extremism amendment is not the only NDAA proposal that will stir a racially charged, partisan debate.

One of the highest-temperature debates could come when Republicans offer one or more amendments seeking to restrict the Pentagon from teaching so-called critical race theory, an academic approach to reexamining how racial bias is encoded in social institutions.

Brown, a retired Army aviator and judge advocate general, believes U.S. military commanders already have inherent authority to ban extremism to the degree that it is, by its nature, a threat to military order and discipline. His measure is intended to clarify the terms of that authority, aides said.

The amendment does not create a new crime in the Uniform Code of Military Justice but would alter the law to explicitly authorize commanders to root out be it in recruits or those currently serving anyone who advocates hatred based on bigotry or puts it into violent practice.

The measure would not mandate monitoring of social media but would authorize the services to use an online post advocating supremacist views as cause for discharge.

Brown also argues that nothing in the bill would shortchange due process protections for service members.

Even beyond the attack on the Capitol, troubling signs have appeared recently of a small but festering problem in the ranks.

The director of national intelligence said in March that violent extremists pose a heightened threat to the homeland.

Moreover, the Army Criminal Investigation Command, in a report last year, found a 66% increase in gang or domestic extremist activity from the previous year, Brown said.

A 2019 survey found more than one third of all active-duty servicemembers had witnessed instances of white nationalism or ideologically driven racism in their units.

The Pentagon has been working on this issue for many months.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III required in February that all military commanders take time over a two-month period to discuss extremism. And he set up the Countering Extremism Working Group to study the issue.

In April, Austin ordered the review of how best to define extremism. He also mandated updating security questionnaires to more accurately determine recruits backgrounds on the issue. And he required new training for retiring personnel who may face recruitment efforts from extremist groups.

In 2020, after protests over the killing of George Floyd, the department convened a task force to take a closer look at military efforts to become more racially diverse. One of the groups recommendations, buried in its voluminous report, was to make extremist violence punishable under the militarys code of justice.

The Houses fiscal 2021 NDAA included language by California Democrat Jackie Speier that would have done just that. But senators, fearing a veto by President Donald Trump over the issue, diluted that mandate in the final measure, Speier said earlier this year.

The fiscal 2021 NDAA instead created a new deputy inspector general to oversee diversity and anti-extremism efforts. Browns bill would require the director of the proposed Office of Countering Extremism to coordinate with the deputy inspector general.

The Senates fiscal 2022 NDAA would again defer definitive action on the matter. It would merely require the Defense secretary to report to Congress on whether and how to potentially make violent extremism a crime under the military code.

The House Appropriations Committees report accompanying its Defense Department spending bill would require a series of Pentagon reports on its efforts to address extremism.

During the markup of that bill, Republicans gave voice to arguments that may come up again during Wednesdays House Armed Services markup.

The Republican appropriators said they were worried the campaign against extremists could target unpopular views or become an unfair witch hunt, or target only white supremacists and not other violent extremists.

The Appropriations Committee defeated an amendment by Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., that aimed to block funding for the Pentagons Countering Extremism Working Group until 30 days after the Defense secretary performs three tasks: gives Congress a definition of extremism; briefs lawmakers on due process protections for those accused of extremism; and certifies that their First Amendment rights are not violated by that process.

The 24-33 vote to defeat the amendment fell along party lines.

2021 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Visit cqrollcall.com.

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Originally posted here:
House panel to debate amendment to defense budget banning extremism in the military - Stars and Stripes

Makana Chock

Makana Chock, David J. Levidow Professor of Communications in the Newhouse School, has been awarded a $75,000 research grant from Facebook Reality Labs to explore the impacts of augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) on bystander privacy.

Chock will work withSe Jung Kim, a doctoral student in Newhousesmass communicationsprogram. They will focus on two countries with disparate cultural normsthe U.S. and South Koreato examine the impact of cultural differences on privacy concerns and ultimately inform the design of AR/VR technology.

This is another example of how many of the leading communications companies in the world are turning to the Newhouse School to better understand some of the challenges we are facing as a society, says Newhouse Dean Mark J. Lodato.

Chock developed her proposal, AR/VR recording: Cultural differences in perceptions of bystander privacy, in response to Facebooks request for proposals on responsible innovation in AR/VR: Consider Everyone.

Chock says the ubiquitous and covert nature of AR/VR recording poses the threat of serious privacy violations as bystanders are captured without permission. At the same time, different societies often have different concepts of bystander privacy, and those differences are reflected in the way image recording is regulated.

In the individualist culture of the U.S., recording bystanders in a public space is largely accepted and often protected under the First Amendment. In the collectivist culture of South Korea, where a higher premium is placed on privacy, express permission is required to record individuals. Yet even there, younger adults regularly post images and recordings on social media that may contain bystanders.

Additionally, Chock says bystander privacy issues are especially important when it comes to vulnerable populations like immigrants.

Over the last few years, immigrants in both the U.S. and South Korea have faced restrictions and increased scrutiny from the government agencies, as well as discrimination and bullying from some members of their communities, she says. These factors may heighten concerns about privacy and the potential misuse of immigrants personal information or images. It is therefore important to increase awareness among AR/VR users of bystanders concerns and the potential for inadvertent harm.

The three-part study will begin with an online survey conducted in both countries to assess potential differences in bystanders privacy perceptions and concerns and identify additional concerns of targeted immigrant groups. The team will then conduct a series of in-depth interviews with a subset of survey participants to provide additional qualitative data about cultural differences in bystander privacy concerns. Finally, they will facilitate a series of focus groups comprised of U.S. and South Korean users in a multi-user social VR environment in order to determine if the cultural differences seen in real world public spaces also apply in social VR spaces.

Chock is set to be the founding research director of the Newhouse Schools new XR lab and is co-leader of the Virtual and Immersive Interactionsresearch clusterat Syracuse University.

More here:
Newhouse Professor Wins Facebook Reality Labs Research Grant to Study Impacts of Augmented and Virtual Reality - Syracuse University News

The start of the school year in many districts came with some fierce, at times hostile, debate over masks.In New Berlin, a sign from a week ago with the letters KKK sparked outrage."Initially, it represents hate for individuals, for groups of people," said Jeanette Nowak of New Berlin Speaks Out.The sign reads "Krislyn Kauses Khaos." Krslyn is a school board member who favors mandatory masks in elementary school.The other words, causes and chaos, the first letter was deliberately changed from the letter "C" to "K.""What was the intention of that sign?" WISN 12 News reporter Hillary Mintz asked a woman who was in the photo but not holding the sign."It was an alliteration. Her name starts with a K. I guess we should have spelled it with a C and this would have never happened," the woman, who did not wish to be identified, said.She agreed to talk to WISN 12 News but did not want her face to be shown because she said she's received threats."We're literally afraid for our safety. This never had anything to do with race. It was all about masks," the woman said.She said the picture was posted in a private parent group, but somehow got shared publicly."Did anyone think the letters KKK might mean something to somebody else?" Mintz asked"We didn't hold the sign up in the meeting. The sign was put away," the woman said.The photo was reportedly taken inside the school cafeteria but was never seen at the actual school board meeting.School Superintendent Joe Garza declined an interview with WISN 12 News but issued a statement:"We were first made aware of the sign in question the day after the School Board meeting, which was held Aug. 23, after the photo appeared on social media. We presume the photo was taken prior to the meeting in our school cafeteria, but I did not personally see the sign at the meeting, nor did any other district administrator, nor did anyone bring it to our attention. Im also not aware of any School Board member having seen the sign at the meeting."We fully understand that the letters KKK elicit emotions of racism, and we want to be clear that the School District of New Berlin does not in any way condone racism. Signs brought to our public meetings are protected by the First Amendment. The District understands its obligations with respect to First Amendment rights and all forms of speech that take place on school grounds, and all instances are handled on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the law. Specific to your hypothetical question, if a student wore a questionable shirt that was brought to administrations attention and it was deemed vulgar, offensive, profane, promoted illegal conduct, and/or caused a disruption to the school day, that student would be asked to change their shirt. Similarly, if someone brings a sign that disrupts a public meeting, and it is brought to our attention, that person may be asked to remove the sign."To reiterate, we take our responsibilities seriously with respect to balancing staff, student, and community member rights with maintaining a safe and effective learning environment for our students. But again, to be clear, no administrators were aware of the sign in question until the day after the meeting. "He was allowing it to be OK on school property that this is acceptable behavior, and I felt really sick inside," Nowak said.New Berlin ended up voting to have masks optional.The school board member named on the sign told WiSN 12 News it was "inappropriate and poor judgment."

The start of the school year in many districts came with some fierce, at times hostile, debate over masks.

In New Berlin, a sign from a week ago with the letters KKK sparked outrage.

"Initially, it represents hate for individuals, for groups of people," said Jeanette Nowak of New Berlin Speaks Out.

The sign reads "Krislyn Kauses Khaos." Krslyn is a school board member who favors mandatory masks in elementary school.

The other words, causes and chaos, the first letter was deliberately changed from the letter "C" to "K."

"What was the intention of that sign?" WISN 12 News reporter Hillary Mintz asked a woman who was in the photo but not holding the sign.

"It was an alliteration. Her name starts with a K. I guess we should have spelled it with a C and this would have never happened," the woman, who did not wish to be identified, said.

She agreed to talk to WISN 12 News but did not want her face to be shown because she said she's received threats.

"We're literally afraid for our safety. This never had anything to do with race. It was all about masks," the woman said.

She said the picture was posted in a private parent group, but somehow got shared publicly.

"Did anyone think the letters KKK might mean something to somebody else?" Mintz asked

"We didn't hold the sign up in the meeting. The sign was put away," the woman said.

The photo was reportedly taken inside the school cafeteria but was never seen at the actual school board meeting.

School Superintendent Joe Garza declined an interview with WISN 12 News but issued a statement:

"We were first made aware of the sign in question the day after the School Board meeting, which was held Aug. 23, after the photo appeared on social media. We presume the photo was taken prior to the meeting in our school cafeteria, but I did not personally see the sign at the meeting, nor did any other district administrator, nor did anyone bring it to our attention. Im also not aware of any School Board member having seen the sign at the meeting.

"We fully understand that the letters KKK elicit emotions of racism, and we want to be clear that the School District of New Berlin does not in any way condone racism. Signs brought to our public meetings are protected by the First Amendment. The District understands its obligations with respect to First Amendment rights and all forms of speech that take place on school grounds, and all instances are handled on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the law.

Specific to your hypothetical question, if a student wore a questionable shirt that was brought to administrations attention and it was deemed vulgar, offensive, profane, promoted illegal conduct, and/or caused a disruption to the school day, that student would be asked to change their shirt. Similarly, if someone brings a sign that disrupts a public meeting, and it is brought to our attention, that person may be asked to remove the sign.

"To reiterate, we take our responsibilities seriously with respect to balancing staff, student, and community member rights with maintaining a safe and effective learning environment for our students. But again, to be clear, no administrators were aware of the sign in question until the day after the meeting.

"He was allowing it to be OK on school property that this is acceptable behavior, and I felt really sick inside," Nowak said.

New Berlin ended up voting to have masks optional.

The school board member named on the sign told WiSN 12 News it was "inappropriate and poor judgment."

View post:
Sign with 'KKK' on it brought to New Berlin school board meeting - WISN Milwaukee

Video: Buncombe County school board meeting sees anti-mask protesters

Buncombe County resident Stephanie Parsons protests during a meeting with the Buncombe County Board of Education on Thursday, August 5, 2021.

Maya Carter, Asheville Citizen Times

Todays batch of burning questions, my smart-aleck answers and the real deal:

Question:In Buncombe County's recent mask mandate order and the city's, too it gives an exemption for First Amendment rights. What does that mean? It seems kind of nebulous...

My answer: Who doesn't like a nice splash of nebulousness in their mask mandate? I just wish they would've added some language along the lines of, "The mandate also does not apply to those wishing to remain in touch with their inner child, hoping not to inhibit the free flow of chi or just wanting to ride free and not be hassled by the man."

Real answer: The county and city recently did pass mask mandates for public places. The city order essentially mirrored the county's, which did offer mask exemptions for several activities. It reads:

Worship, religious, and spiritual gatherings, funeral ceremonies, wedding ceremonies, and other activities constituting the exercise of First Amendment rights are exempt from all the requirements of this order.

More: Protesters object to Buncombe County Schools' mask mandate, attempt to 'overthrow' board

This being the land of the free, I can see where some folks, whether they're customers, employees, or just folks trying to ditch the mask because it "inhibits their free speech," may try to take advantage here. The mandate is meant to be pretty narrow, though.

"This language is straight out of language used in the Governor's Executive Orders," Buncombe County spokeswoman Lillian Govus said via email. "The language in the Executive Orders speaks primarily to mass gatherings, and specifically exempts fundamental First Amendment rights. The U.S. District Court essentially held that the state cannot restrict religious gatherings of 10 or more people."

More: Asheville City Schools clarifies COVID-19 protocols ahead of first day of school

The county's new order "simply requires face covering in public spaces and does not prohibit or define gatherings," Govus said. It implements public health officials' recommendation to require people to wear face coverings indoors in public in communities with substantial or high transmission.

Buncombe County, like many other counties nationwide, has seen COVID-19 cases surge in recent weeks as the delta variant spreads.Health officials told county leaders last week the rate of COVID-19 infections have increased six-fold, or 500% in a month's time.

In mid-July, the county was seeing 34 cases per 100,000. Last week the number had skyrocketed to 261 per 100,000, a rise attributed tothe coronavirus' highly contagious delta variant, which some data showcauses more severe illness than earlier strains.

TheCDC also strongly encourages social distancing again.

"When preparing the order, we felt it was important to clearly indicate that there is no intention to abridge the First Amendment rights of persons by implementing this new local order requiring face coverings in public spaces," Govus said.

By way of review, here's what the First Amendment says: "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."

For Asheville, City AttorneyBrad Branham responded, first noting the city wanted to maintain consistency with the county by mirroring the county directives. The First Amendment exception "is intended to be very limited in nature," Branham said.

The city believes strongly in the need for the most recent mask mandate, but while also safeguarding the constitutional rights of our residents and visitors," Branham said via email. "We do not consider the mere act of mandatorily wearing a mask to infringe upon a persons freedom of speech.Therefore, this exception would be limited to circumstances in which a person was prevented from fully exercising their free speech rights because of the mask.

I can imagine anti-maskers trying to fall back on all sorts of "free speech" arguments to shed their masks, but Branham said the exemptionis meant to be very narrow in scope.

"We can envision very few, if any, circumstances in which this would arise, but wanted to ensure that recognition of personal freedoms be included in the document," Branham said. "To reiterate, this language should absolutely not be read to mean that disagreement with the mask mandate gives someone the right to refuse to wear a mask under the guise of the First Amendment.

Judging by the lack of masks I saw at the Arden Walmart Saturday evening, I'd say folks are doing just fine in finding plenty of ways around the mask mandate. I suspect most folks would just claim a "medical exemption," if asked.

But honestly, I don't think stores, restaurants, bars or other establishments really want to fight the mask fight anymore. I'm still wearing a mask indoors, because it's the right thing to do to beat down the delta variant, but I'm probably in the minority these days.

It's a sad statement about society, folks. For nearly all of us, wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience.

Please, just do it.

This is the opinion of John Boyle. To submit a question, contact him at 232-5847 or jboyle@citizen-times.com

See original here:
Answer Man: In mask mandate, what's the meaning of 'First Amendment rights?' - Citizen Times

Petitions of the week ByAndrew Hamm on Aug 27, 2021 at 9:12 pm

This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, how the First Amendment constrains taxes on billboard owners, whether the mailbox rule applies to prisoners represented by counsel, and the scope of district courts jurisdiction over expungement motions.

In November, the court will hear argument in City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Texas, a First Amendment challenge to an Austin regulation that bars some digitized billboards but allows others depending on the billboards location. A new petition asks the court to take up another challenge to a city policy that involves differential treatment of signs.

The city of Baltimore taxes the owners of displays that advertise services that occur in a different location, meaning many billboards but not other types of signs. One of the countrys largest billboard-advertising companies challenged the tax under the First Amendment. Applying a relaxed standard, Marylands highest court upheld the tax as rationally related to the citys legitimate interest in raising public revenue. In its petition, the billboard owner, one of four such companies in Baltimore, argues that a heightened standard should apply. The company also argues that Baltimores distinction between on-premises signs and off-premises signs is even more problematic than the one presented in Austin. The case is Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC v. Raymond.

Under the mailbox rule, a prisoners filing is timely if mailed by the due date, even if it arrives late to the court. In Cretacci v. Call, Blake Cretacci argues that a circuit split has arisen as to whether the rule applies to prisoners represented by counsel. Cretacci, a pre-trial detainee, submitted to the inmate mail system a civil complaint before the statutory deadline on his claims, but the pleading arrived at the district court too late. Although a lawyer had helped Cretacci to prepare the complaint, Cretacci had filed pro se (representing himself) because the lawyer was not a member of the relevant bar. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit denied Cretacci the benefit of the mailbox rule on the ground that he was sufficiently represented by counsel. Cretacci asks the justices to review and reverse this holding.

Valueland Auto Sales, Inc. v. United States concerns the scope of jurisdiction in federal criminal cases. In 2013, the federal government indicted Ron Benit and Valueland Auto Sales on charges that they structured cash deposits at banks to avoid filing required reports, and it seized over $70,000 of their funds. The government later dismissed all charges and returned all the funds. Benit and Valueland then moved to expunge the records of their indictment. However, the district court determined that it did not have any jurisdiction over the expungement motions because the charges had been dropped, a ruling that the 6th Circuit affirmed. Arguing that a circuit split exists over this issue that is important and recurring, Benit and Valueland ask the Supreme Court to reverse the 6th Circuits decision.

These and otherpetitions of the weekare below:

Mohamud v. Weyker21-187Issue: Whether a constitutional remedy is available against federal officers for individual instances of law enforcement overreach in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Valueland Auto Sales, Inc. v. United States21-211Issue: Whether, when the district court dismisses all criminal charges against a defendant, that court has jurisdiction over a motion to expunge the records relating to those charges, as held by the U.S Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 10th and D.C. Circuits, or whether the district court lacks jurisdiction over such motions, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 11th Circuits.

Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC v. Raymond21-219Issue: Whether a tax singling out off-premises billboards is subject to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment.

Cretacci v. Call21-221Issue: Whether a prisoner who submits a filing through the prison mail system loses the benefit of the mailbox rule if he has counsel.

Excerpt from:
Billboard taxes, the mailbox rule and expungement jurisdiction - SCOTUSblog