Mediaboss Marketing

Last week the U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga released Chelsea Manning from detainment after concluding that the grand jury that she had been subpoenaed to testify before no longer needed her, since it was being disbanded. Manning was incarcerated because of her principled stance against the secrecy of the grand jury and her refusal to cooperate in its coercive procedure.

The release of Manning came after the U.S. government tried to break her to the point of suicide. Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, wrote a letter to the U.S. government late last year indicating that Manning's imprisonment amounted to torture. Her resistance is a part of the U.S. government's war on the free press, going after WikiLeaks' publisher Julian Assange.

Assange has been charged under the Espionage Act for publishing classified documents which exposed U.S.war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. This indictment is recognized by free speech groups as an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment. In February, the first week of the U.K. hearing of the U.S. request for Assange's extradition revealed a scale of this 'war' that goes well beyond press freedom. What took place inside the Woolwich Crown Court in south-east London was a sign of a dangerous slippery slide towards fascism.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser's deliberations on the U.S.extradition request for Assange was a trial for journalism, where bullying of an innocent man is camouflaged as a judicial process and the prosecution of a publisher that has no legal ground is given legitimacy. As Assange's defense team argued, the proceedings have shown a serious disregard for the rule of law, including abuse of process and ignoring the political nature of this case.

Craig Murray, a U.K. ex-diplomat who attended the hearing everyday, gave a report of his first hand account, pointing out the very oppressive nature of the building and physical arrangement inside the maximum security anti-terrorist court. He made it clear that Assange is a remand prisoner who completed an unprecedentedly long sentence for a minor bail violation and an innocent man facing charges for publishing documents that exposed the U.S.and U.K. government's war crimes.

The former ambassador to Uzbekistan described how Assange is now treated like a violent criminal. On the first day of trial, Assange was subjected to strip searches twice, handcuffed 11 times and his court papers were removed. In the courtroom he was held behind a glass pane in the presence of private security officers, being unable to communicate with his legal team confidentially during proceedings. During the hearing, Assange spoke:

"I cannot communicate with my lawyers or ask them for clarifications without the other side seeing. The other side has about 100 times more contact with their lawyers per day. What is the point of asking if I can concentrate if I cannot participate?"

Clare Daly, member of the European Parliament from Ireland for the Dublin constituency was at the hearing and commented on this draconian measure taken against international standards. She mentioned that she was shocked to see Assange isolated behind the glass window, away from his legal team. Another member of the Parliament, Stelios Kouloglou, who was also at the court observing the hearing noted how what he saw reminded him of the dictatorship in Greece.

What is this prosecution of WikiLeaks founder really about? What has quietly taken place in the U.S. government's war on free press was a shredding of the Magna Carta as the very foundation of democracy. The Magna Carta is one of the most important historical documents, having established the principle of due process. It embodies the idea that everyone is subject to the law, even the king, and that all are entitled to the right to a fair trial, thus guaranteeing the rights of the individual.

The Founding Fathers of the United States considered this protection against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment essential in securing individual liberty. For this, they aimed to guarantee the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus, in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.

By prosecuting Julian Assange, the U.S.government is not only violating the First Amendment, but also engaged in a direct assault on the core of civil liberties. The steps toward destruction of the constitution didn't just begin now. It didn't happen accidentally, nor does this government's obstruction of human rights only concern Assange as an individual. If we look carefully, we can see a series of events that were carefully orchestrated, leading to the extremely disturbing scenario of the detention of a multi-award winning journalist inside a glass box, as seen during the extradition hearing.

Assange through his work with WikiLeaks came to understand the hidden oppressive force that has insidiously stripped him of his own democratic rights. In his 2006 essay Conspiracy as Governance, he wrote:

Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a people's will to truth, love and self-realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or out weighed by the efficiencies of naked power. This collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population, is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial.

What Assange described as "conspiratorial interactions among the political elite" can be identified in power networks documented by Peter Phillips in his book "Giants: The Global Power Elites." This includes efforts such as the Project for the New American Centuryan enterprise established in 1997 for the purpose of exercising American global leadership. Consisting of top-level personale in the George W. Bush administration, it aims for total military domination of the world.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, networks of "collaborative secrecy" that Assange analyzed, seemed to have gained momentum. Investigative journalist John Pilger revealed the American plan to exploit a catastrophic event and the way the 9/11 disaster provided the "new Pearl Harbor" (discussed in the plan) as the opportunity for the extremists in America to grab the world's resources.

Right after the event the U.S., supported by its close allies, invaded Afghanistan. Then, just weeks later The USA PATRIOT Act, that radically expanded the government's capability of surveillance, was developed as anti-terrorism legislation. The following year, in 2002, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was set up in Cubain violation of due process clauses of the Constitution. From the Iraq War in 2003 to the passing by Congress of the Military Commissions Act (MCA), that completely dismantled the principle of habeas corpus, the erosion of civil liberties was made under the pretext of "fighting terrorism"America's official mission to wipe out al Qaeda and the terrorist Taliban leaders.

How did this radical transgression against democracy come about? Author Naomi Klein in "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" investigated how the state exploits crises through taking advantage of the public's psychologically vulnerable state to push through their agendas. She described the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq as a prime example of this shock doctrine.

The terror invoked by the Bush doctrine of "war on terror" in the wake of 9/11 was truly an attack on the heart of democracy. It paralyzed people and decapitated their ability to define reality, uprooting them from their own history. With the mainstream media broadcast of repeated images of the collapse of the Twin Towers, a climate of fear was amplified.

In response to the event portrayed as "terrorist attacks", President Bush in his address to Congress and the American people, expressed his patriotism with the deep emotional tones of vendetta. While the nation was disoriented, and before people had time to process this tragic incident or even really know who perpetrated it, the narrative of victimization was deftly put forth. Many wrapped themselves in the flag and joined the drumbeat of war with a sense of righteous self-defense.

The hearts of people that had frozen became numb. Many of us became unable to feel a sense of wrongness in the face of injustice. A steady advance in the reduction of civil liberties came to be normalized. In the euphemisms of "enhanced interrogation" and "extraordinary rendition" reprehensible human acts such as torture and kidnapping were made more acceptable. The term "bulk collection" was used to disguise "mass surveillance", making unconstitutional NSA spying of an entire world seem less severe or immoral. Cruel killings of civilians became less sensational when they are called "noncombatants" or become "collateral damage" after they were killed.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

Two months after 9/11, in a news conference, President Bush urged the international community to form a coalition for military action. He said, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror!"claiming there is no neutrality in this war against terror. With a police crackdown on activists creating a chilling effect, the nation entered a political winter. Consequently, Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential election appeared to have lifted up the dark cloud of the post-9/11 world. Yet by the end of 2009, the American public became disillusioned with Obama's empty promises of "hope and change."

In spring of 2010, as waves of apathy were moving through the country, a shift in the tide emerged. WikiLeaks published classified military footage of the July 2007 attack by a U.S.Army helicopter gunship in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad. The video, titled "Collateral Murder", depicted the killing of more than a dozen men, including two Reuters' staffers.

The release of the Collateral Murder video brought a real catalyst for change. In the 17-minute film that portrayed the everyday life of the brutal military occupation in Iraq, we were given an opportunity to see with our own eyes who those labeled as enemies in the "war on terror" really werea group of adults and children trying to defend themselves from being shot and journalists risking their lives to do their job.

The light that unveiled the U.S.military's senseless killing was the conscience of the U.S.Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. It brought an awakening to the heart that remembers our inherent obligation to one another, helping to recover stolen memories of our own history.

The act of conscience of this young American whistleblower was met with cowardliness and indifference of the established media. Manning first reached out to major U.S. news outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post with material that exposed U.S. war crimes, but they turned her away.

With a vacuum of moral courage in the media landscape, WikiLeaks became the publisher of Manning's last resort. Nelson Mandela, who led the emancipation of South Africa, once spoke on how courage is "not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it" and that "the brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear."

In the face of the prevailing terror of an authoritarian state, WikiLeaks demonstrated truly fearless journalism, igniting the courage of their sources. A project of Sunshine Press launched in 2006, WikiLeaks began to melt frozen hearts, revealing the reality covered up by the corporate media.

In releasing the Collateral Murder video, Assange indicated that the purpose of this publication was to show the world what modern warfare actually looks like and that "his mission is to expose injustice, not to provide an even-handed record of events." An Australian journalist, Assange explained how WikiLeaks gave a political slant to their naming of the video as a way to give it maximum political impact, because the organization wanted to "knock out the euphemism of 'collateral damage', so when anyone watches it they will think 'collateral murder'."

In the summer of 2010, the light of transparency grew stronger. WikiLeaks published the Afghan War Diary, the trove of U.S.classified military records concerning the war in Afghanistan, revealing around 20,000 civilian deaths by assassination, massacre and night raids. This was quickly followed by their subsequent release of the Iraq War Logs, which informed people in Iraq about 15,000 civilian casualties previously unreported and not known to the international community. WikiLeaks' release of 779 classified reports on prisoners of the U.S.military prison in Guantnamo shed light on illegal detention and interrogation practices that were carried out during the Bush regime.

After their release of documents concerning wars in the oil-rich Middle East, the Pentagon swiftly attacked WikiLeaks. Despite the organization's careful harm minimization efforts of redacting sensitive information, U.S. Joint Chief of Staff Mike Mullen threatened the whistleblowing site with a bombastic line of "blood on their hands." This official spokesperson of the Pentagon called WikiLeaks publications "reckless" and "irresponsible" although not one single shred of evidence has ever been brought forth that any of these disclosures caused anyone harm.

At the time WikiLeaks began publishing the U.S. Diplomatic Cables, revealing countless wrongdoing, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (in the Obama administration) strongly condemned the whistleblowing site. Clinton, who admitted the Iraq War was a mistake and confessed how the U.S.had created Al Qaeda and ISIS, said: "This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community."

Contrary to the U.S.government's portrayal of itself as a victim, WikiLeaks' released documents which have shown the truththat they are the perpetrator of human rights abuses, engaging in illegal wars. Manning's conscience, through WikiLeaks' brave act of publishing, was a response to the U.S.imperial war of aggressionthe massive political offence committed against the entire world.

America's political offense continued even after the Bush-Cheney era. President Obama not only refused to prosecute the previous administration's war criminals, he himself became a successor to their crimes. In 2009, instead of withdrawing troops, he added more, fueling the war in Afghanistan. Despite his promised "sunshine" policyto make the government more transparent Obama waged an unprecedented war against truthtellers, charging Manning and the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden under the Espionage Act.

With his 2012 campaign slogan of "Forward", Obama went "forward" with Guantanamo Bay and drone attacks. He signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 that contained controversial provisions of a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention, which is still effective today. With his "kill list", this supposedly 'progressive' president expanded the power of the executive branch in ways that enabled him to act as accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner all in one, including assassinating anyone, even U.S. citizens.

In 2012, declassified military documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the U.S.government has designated WikiLeaks and Julian Assange as enemies of the United States, putting the media organization in the same legal category as Al Qaeda and violent terrorist groups.

From secret grand jury investigation to extrajudicial financial blockade, to harassment of WikiLeaks' associates at borders (including Assange's lawyer), the Obama administration attacked the publisher who has fiercely defended the public against the empire's repeated human rights abuses and egregious political offenses. Now, in the Trump administration's indictment against Assange on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit computer crime, we are seeing the escalation of this unprecedented war against the First Amendment.

Assange's U.S.extradition case is our fight against the empire's perpetual "war on terror"the war that started with lies, and a war with no end. This is a political battle and Assange's freedom cannot be won by the court.

Julian Assange created a new form of journalism that enabled a free press to perform its true functionthe role of watchdog for democracy. WikiLeaks opened a possibility for ordinary people to use information as power to participate in unfolding events, thwart authoritarian planning, so as to never repeat the tragic hijack of history that led to atrocities in distant landskilling tens of thousands of innocent people.

Networks of contagious courage that emerged through waves of whistleblowers began to dissolve the conspiracy of governance. The heart of democracy that is resuscitated now inspires us to move toward justice, to recognize our own significance and look one another in the eyes as we become who we are meant to be movers and shakers of our own history. Only through the courage of each individual to overcome fear and confront this terror that has been unleashed, can we end this war and free those who sacrificed their liberty, so we all can be free.

Read the rest here:
Assange's Extradition: An Escalation of the US War on Terror - Common Dreams

Thats how you diversify the economy here. Its going to be mineral-based, said Bob Vlaisavljevich, mayor of nearby Eveleth. If copper is down, youve got three other minerals. Thats where you get those dips, not the peaks and valleys where people are losing their homes, moving away. As far as diversification, thats how its going to be.

Twin Metals said the 100-acre site wont pose the environmental risk that people fear. The company insists its method of processing the mine waste wont jeopardize the surrounding lakes and waterway. Proponents point to an underground nickel-copper mine in operation on Michigans Upper Peninsula as a model for the industry in northern Minnesota.

Environmentalists insist otherwise. They say the nickel-copper mining process, no matter how technologically advanced, will risk leaching sulfuric acid, heavy metals and sulfates into the surrounding watershed. A statewide poll released last month showed that a majority of Minnesotans opposed the project near Ely.

Our communities have built our way of life around the wilderness. This poll makes clear that the majority of Minnesotans stand with us in protecting our nations greatest canoe country wilderness, said Becky Rom, national chairwoman of the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters.

Nonetheless, the Twin Metals project, still in the planning and permitting phase, is estimated to directly employ 700 people and create 1,400 spinoff jobs for the area. And it isnt the only nickel-copper project in the area. A mining company called PolyMet has gotten all of its permits for a similar mine in nearby Hoyt Lakes, but the project is tied up in complex litigation.

Trumps steel tariffs and protective trade policies have left a region long dependent on mining here wanting even more. The president imposed a 25 percent tariff on most imported steel in 2018, but most people dont highlight the policy as the saving grace Trump touts it to be. While steel prices initially shot up, theyve settled back down as the U.S. steel industry continues to undergo a somewhat painful transformation.

Theres sure no boom up here, Gary Skalko said. After nine terms as mayor of the town of Mountain Iron the self-described hippie and former school teacher is standing down. Hes a strong supporter of the mining industry, but he senses a change in culture.

Im a pro-choice guy. Im still worried about losing my First Amendment rights, not my Second Amendment rights. I felt [Trump] should have been convicted for what he did, he said. Why would I represent people who dont have the same values? Theres so much hatred on both sides.

Preserving our way of life has become a rallying cry in the region. Rep. Pete Stauber, a former Duluth police officer who once played professional hockey, flipped the state's 8th Congressional District to red in 2018. He used the phrase in his campaign.

Stauber is not running a political campaign, hes running a cultural campaign, and its invincible as far as Im concerned, said Aaron Brown, a fifth generation Iron Ranger who teaches at Hibbing Community College and writes commentary on local issues.

It all comes down to a cultural balance that remains undecided and almost a sense of inferiority that comes from an up and down economy, he said.

Presidents have come and gone. Clinton and Bush and Obama and now Trump, said Brown. Very different policies but this place hasnt changed that much, and I think theres something about the hollowing out of the industrialization of this area that we feel that we no longer have any control over our self-destiny and I think that just feeds into our politics.

* * *

See the original post:
Minnesota on the edge: Ive voted Democrat my whole life. Its getting tougher. - POLITICO

Jim Zachary Published 6:26 p.m. CT March 19, 2020 | Updated 7:26 p.m. CT March 19, 2020

The media is most definitely not your enemy.

Far from being the enemy of the people, day in and day out we take our role as the Fourth Estate seriously and work hard to protect your right to know, making public records requests and attending public meetings to keep you informed.

Why?

Because we believe all the business government does, whether in open public meetings or behind closed doors, is your business.

We believe every last penny government spends is your money.

We believe it is your right to know every transaction, every decision, every expenditure and every deliberation of your government.

Whether talking about the White House, the statehouse or the county courthouse, all the documents held in government halls belong to the people, and all the business conducted by our governors is public business.

We believe our government your government can only be of, by and for the people when it is out in front of the people.

Primary to our Republic is the understanding that we are the government and the government is us.

The only powers held by federal, state or local government are the powers we give.

So, whether it is Congress, the states General Assembly, county commission, city council or the board of education, it is your right to know all of the peoples business.

When you attend local city, county or school board meetings, ask questions and hold elected representatives accountable, you are not minding their business, you are minding your own business.

When you make a public records request, you are not asking local records custodians to give you something that just belongs to them or the office where they work. You are simply asking for your own documents.

The Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment which guarantees the freedom of speech and the freedom of press, is not intended to protect the media, per se. Rather, the founders built a hedge of protection around the media because of the media guards and fights for the publics right to know.

According to a Brookings Institution report,more than 2,000 newspapers across the country ceased publication in the last 15 years or so. The shuttering of newspapers presents a very real and present danger to our most basic freedoms. Thats why communities should support their local newspapers, through subscriptions and advertising, now more than ever before.

Journalists keep an eye on government, shine the light on its actions, fight the good fight for access to documents and meetings, champion transparency and defend the First Amendment because of a core belief in your basic, fundamental rights principally, your right to know.

CNHI Deputy National Editor Jim Zachary is the president of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation. He can be reached ajzachary@cnhi.com

Read or Share this story: https://www.news-leader.com/story/opinion/2020/03/19/jim-zachary-sunshine-week-its-always-your-right-know/5048146002/

See the rest here:
Sunshine Week: Its always your right to know - News-Leader

Did the U.S. Supreme Court go too far in its rationale for free speech and press when ruling for the New York Times in a landmark libel case brought by a public official 56 years ago?

President Donald Trump believes so and he now seeks to narrow the latitude of the press and the publics constitutional protections in three defamation cases filed recently in federal courts against the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN.

The lower court outcomes will doubtless find their way to the Supreme Court in an effort to fulfill Trumps aspiration to change federal libel law. In the meantime, the president can boast during his campaign that hes going after the enemy press.

News outlets big and small have enjoyed the body of law that has grown up around Times vs. Sullivan, the 1964 libel case brought by an Alabama police commissioner after the newspaper published an advertisement about the mistreatment of civil rights demonstrators. The ad included minor errors such as Martin Luther King being arrested seven times instead of the actual number of four and the demonstrators singing the Star Spangled Banner, not My Country Tis of Thee.

The Alabama courts found in favor of the police commissioner but the Times appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which overturned the finding on the ground the First Amendment restricts the ability of public officials to sue for defamation.

This week news organizations across the country are celebrating Sunshine Week, a time to inform the public about the value of government transparency and the watchdog role of the press.

But the public should also celebrate the protections of the First Amendment that permit citizens to engage vigorously in civic affairs and speak their mind about public officials.

The Supreme Court ruling in the Times case established the actual malice standard which requires a public official to prove a citizen or news organization knew damaging information was erroneous and published it anyway. Or recklessly disregarded whether the information was true or not.

This standard was later expanded by the courts to include celebrities and other public figures.

Trump has chafed under the legal principle, vowing to change it through the appointment of conservative Supreme Court justices that would restrict the protections of free speech and free press.

But as recently as three years ago, the court upheld the constitutional concept in a trademark case brought by an Asian-American rock band named the Slants.

A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all, wrote then Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the governments benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

President Trump considers the press, and its constitutional protections, contrary to his interests when news and opinion coverage are unfavorable. Other presidents have felt similarly. But they did not seek to overturn those protections with lawsuits challenging press freedoms.

Nor should Trump. The Founding Fathers adopted the First Amendment when a free-wheeling, raucous and highly partisan press existed in America. Yet they realized it offered protection against censorship and corrupt government.

Trump is different. He is determined to take down what he calls the enemies of the people. His policy of winning no matter the consequence allows no thought of failure.

Thus the defamation lawsuits filed by his campaign against the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN for opinion columns accusing Trump of inviting Russian assistance in the 2016 election and possibly in the upcoming presidential election.

The Trump lawyers claim they have much evidence of bias and fake news reporting against Trump by all three news organizations, suggesting they knew the opinion columns were false on the matter of soliciting Russia assistance and printed them anyway.

Fortunately, Trump has a high bar to get over to prove his case as the highest public official in the land. He has no qualms about using his right to free speech to scorch rivals, but objects when others turn the heat on him.

Thats the kind of vigorous give-and-take the First Amendment is intended to protect. For presidents, for the public and for journalists.

Bill Ketter is the senior vice president of news for CNHI. Reach him at wketter@cnhi.com.

Read the original post:
Embrace First Amendment freedoms to keep them | Don't Miss This | times-news.com - Cumberland Times-News

The National Socialist Movement, the American Nazi party, does not have a First Amendment right to rally in Williamsport at Brandon Park (or anywhere else) because their agenda is to encourage violence. Currently, a lawsuit is underway by the City of Charlottesville based upon the efforts of the organizers of the National Socialist Movement to both plan and encourage violence at a rally held in that city.

Our Mayor and City Council are wrong to believe that there is any First Amendment right. It seems quite clear that the authorities in this city have not looked even casually at the history of the National Socialist Movement or examined their postings in connection with the event to be held in Williamsport.

Williamsport, Pennsylvania will now become known as the City of Hate. It behooves our newly elected Mayor, City Council and the Chief of Police to do some research on this organization and to deny the permit.

A number of years ago, I received a telephone call from Mayor Campana when the Ku Klux Klan sought a permit in Williamsport. The Mayor said that because of the groups history of violence, he would not permit it. I received a similar phone call from the Mayor of Montoursville. The Ku Klux Klan did not hold its rally.

After the permits were denied, the head of the Ku Klux Klan was referred to me by the ACLU in Washington, DC. I met with the Klan head in my office for approximately 3-1/2 hours. After the meeting, I told the Klan head that I would not represent him but that there were plenty of other lawyers who had a twisted notion of the First Amendment. I encouraged the Klan leader to work through conventional, non-violent channels.

The Chief of Police of the City of Williamsport later told me that the man I talked to quit leading the Klan and that the organization would not be pursuing any legal action.

Our current Administration has to stand tall. Have some backbone on this issue. Hatred and incitement to violence must be opposed regardless of where those extremist views come from. The question is not one of opinion, but rather a history of violence and the promoting of behaviors that are a clear and present danger to others.

One must ask whether the Mayor, City Council and Chief of Police have looked into the organization, its history, its social media prior to rallies around the country, and what has occurred at those other events.

I am and remain a proud civil rights lawyer. As I write this piece, I am preparing a federal complaint against a school district that denied to my client her first amendment rights and retaliated against her for exercising those rights. The First Amendment is crucial. The document inked by our Founders was meant to be enforced.

Nevertheless, and in spite of the First Amendment, the Congress of the United States, during one of the earliest administrations, passed the Alien and Sedition Act. Under the Presidency of John Adams, publicists and journalists were jailed for expressing negative views and opinions about the Federalists who were in power. This was a dark and ugly history for our nation. Other attempts to quash First Amendment rights have occurred throughout our nations history. The First Amendment must be a bulwark that stands between democracy and totalitarianism.

The Supreme Court is often quoted as having stated that one has a right to yell fire in a crowded movie theatre. The First Amendment does not permit advocating or planning violence. People are criminally punished and go to jail who plan or try to convince others to commit violent acts. Violence is the agenda of the American Nazi Party.

No counter-demonstration or police presence will remove the stain from this Citys reputation and history should it permit the Nazi event to go forward in Brandon Park. Our City officials should stand up proudly against granting this permit and should fight in the courts for the principle that violence and advocates of violence have no home in our beautiful City.

We live in an era where it seems that the First Amendment is defined by whether a particular official belongs to the left wing or right wing. Williamsport is taking an anemic stance towards a hate organization such as the Nazi party because of a misplaced and completely inaccurate view of the First Amendment. Such views are not progressive or open-minded, but rather represent the equivalent of unintended cooperation with forces of hate. History has shown us that the Roosevelt administration not only failed to oppose the Nazi effort to destroy all Jews in Europe, but through its indifference actually encouraged the Holocaust. The Roosevelt administration was filled with anti-Semites who acted as a silent cheering section for the goals of the Third Reich. Our public officials must be cognizant of history. Liberalism and open-mindedness should never be an open highway to permit the promulgation of violence in the name of the glorious First Amendment to our Constitution.

The question as to whether the Nazis will be allowed to rally in Williamsport or whether the permit will be revoked is a defining moment in this Citys history.

Cliff Rieders is a Board Certified Trial Advocate in Williamsport, is Past President of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association and a past member of the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority.

Link:
Distorted View of the First Amendment | Clifford Rieders - The Times of Israel