Mediaboss Marketing

Two Chinese tourists were arrested last Sunday after taking photos of each other giving the Nazi salute in front of the Reichstag building in Berlin. Unlike in the United States, certain types of speech are illegal in Germany, including almost any Nazi symbolism.

Supposed comedian Chelsea Handler, weighed in on the story, suggesting the U.S. be more like Germany, which would require eliminating the First Amendment.

Most people in a civilized society agree that Nazi salutes are offensive, even if given in jest. Labeling speech that we all agree to be wrong as "hate speech" and then banning it by law might seem like a simple solution to the problem of occasionally hearing things that decent people don't like. However, passing laws to weaken our own rights in response to somebody else's poor behavior is not the solution.

If we want to be aware of what can transpire on the fringe of society, everyone should be free to express all of their opinions, even the ones that offend us. The Constitution treats us as grown-ups, depending on us to have the sense to reject opinions that are genuinely evil.

Take the Westboro Baptist Church for example, a group consisting mostly of family members. They scream obscenities and anti-gay slurs as they picket events such as papal visits and the funerals of service members killed overseas. They offend virtually everyone on earth. America, with its population of over 300 million people, seems to have collectively ostracized the 70-member group despite our government never making it a law to do so. No one is terribly worried that their annoying behavior is causing a trend.

Making any type of speech illegal would in itself destroy the First Amendment, which contrary to the claims of some washed up politicians, contains no exception for hate speech. Nor should it. The definition of hate speech is subject to continuous change. There are words no decent person will say, but the banning of even one word would eliminate the right to freedom of speech, replacing it with a subjective list of prohibited terms to which the government could and would add to over time.

It is strange that those who depend on free speech to make their living are often its most vocal opponents. Handler, for example, wants to ban offensive speech, but she engages in it quite often, as when she made fun of the first lady's accent, claiming Melania Trump barely speaks English. It's her right to tell that joke, of course. But it might not be if she had her own way.

Today's "safe space" culture has created the concept that words -- not threats, mind you, just unkind words -- are equivalent to physical harm. It just isn't so. And the First Amendment is a treasure, even if it does subject us all to Kathy Griffin posing in ISIS-inspired photoshoots, Johnny Depp expressing his envy of John Wilkes Booth, and Snoop Dogg shooting a clown dressed as Trump in a music video. As always, the proper answer to offensive speech is more speech, not violence or government coercion.

At a moment when leftists can't seem to get enough of speaking out against the current administration, their sudden turn against the First Amendment is a puzzling and troubling development. Their short-sighted talk of giving our government unacceptable authority to regulate our personal lives should be rejected like all the other bad ideas that people are free to express.

Alana Mastrangelo is a political activist and writer.

Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.

Visit link:
Liberals need to stop messing with the First Amendment - Washington Examiner

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Several Republican governors have joined President Trump in an exclusive but growing club: They are being sued by left-wing organizations for removing persistent critics from their Facebook or Twitter pages.

In many cases, were talking about trolls, the people who post inflammatory, irrelevant or offensive comments. The latest to face the trolls wrath is Maine Gov. Paul LePage, who the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued last Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on behalf of two clients who say they were unconstitutionally blocked from Mr. LePages Facebook page.

Mr. LePage responded immediately on his Facebook page: This page was started by volunteers in the governors first campaign to support his candidacy. After that time it became his official political page. This page has never been managed by taxpayer-funded state employees. Under the about section of this Facebook page it states that is Paul LePages official politician page not a government page.

Well, so what, the ACLU suit says, in effect. Youre a public figure and must open yourself to any and all criticism.

On Aug. 1, the ACLU sued Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan on behalf of four disappointed commenters. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, includes a request for an injunction to block any more removals and to force the reinstatement of several hundred blockheads, er, Mr. Hogans spokespeople call the suit frivolous and note that his site reserves the right to block any comment that is profane, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, defaming, threatening or amounts to spam or repetitiveness. In February, his office reported that they had blocked 450 people for abusive language or spamming.

The ACLU managed to find some clients whose posts they say were none of the above, but the complaints enforcement would effectively stop any blocking.

On July 11, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a federal suit against President Trump and two aides (former press secretary Sean Spicer and social media director Dan Scavino) in the Southern District of New York for blocking users critical of him from his private Twitter account. The key word here is private. Mr. Trump had the account before becoming president, and the First Amendment does not apply to non-governmental entities. It doesnt matter how big the audience is.

Mr. Trump has in excess of 33 million followers on his @realDonaldTrump Twitter feed and has tweeted more than 35,000 times since first starting the account in 2009, according to USA Today.

One of the plaintiffs, Rebecca Buckwalter of Washington, D.C., is a fellow at the Center for American Progress, a George Soros-funded left-wing think tank. She complained that her response to a June 6 Trump tweet was removed.

Trump: Sorry folks, but if I would have relied on the Fake News of CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS washpost or nytimes, I would have had ZERO chance winning WH.

Buckwalter: To be fair you didnt win the WH: Russia won it for you.

Should Mr. Trump be forced to keep her conspiracy theory tweet on his non-governmental site?

On July 31, the ACLU of Kentucky sued Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky for removing trolls from his Facebook page. Two blocked users are demanding that they and 600 other blockees be reinstated.

Bevin spokesman Woody Maglinger responded that blocking these people in no way violates their right to free speech under the U.S. or Kentucky Constitutions, nor does it prohibit them from expressing their opinion in an open forum.

Not all cases involve Republicans. A federal judge ruled on July 25 that Loudoun County, Virginia county board Chairwoman Phyllis J. Randall, a Democrat, committed a cardinal sin under the First Amendment when she blocked a constituents criticism for half a day from her official Facebook page.

But in his ruling, U.S. District Judge James Cacheris also said public officials are allowed to moderate comments to defend against harassment and against those who take over an online forum in such a way that violates the free speech rights of others.

Given the prevalence of online trolls, this is no mere hypothetical risk, the judge said.

The issue of public officials social media management will eventually wind up at the Supreme Court, where perhaps a clear distinction will be made between public and private communications.

Until the courts definitively rule, troll-beset lawmakers might want to have different social media accounts for different purposes, like Maines Gov. LePage:

This FB page has always noted it is for those who support the governor. This page is not a tool for organized, nationally-connected political protests against the governor. Those organizations wishing to attack and protest Gov. Paul LePage can create their own pages.

Robert Knight is a senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union.

Read this article:
Beyond the First Amendment - Washington Times

Conservative commentator Jeffrey Lord spoke out about being fired from CNN, saying "CNN caved" when they let him go on Thursday.

"I want to make something very clear. I have nothing but respect, affection and love for CNN. I think the world of CNN," Lord told The Associated Press. "I think they're terrific people and serious people."

Lord was given the boot after he tweeted a Nazi salute at a critic.

A network spokesperson called the Nazi salute "indefensible" in a statement, confirming that Lord was no longer with the network hours after Lord tweeted the Nazi slogan "Sieg Heil!" at the head of a liberal advocacy group, Media Matters for America.

Lord called himself a "First Amendment fundamentalist" and said CNN's decision was disappointing.

"From my perspective CNN caved on the First Amendment of all things. I disagree. I respectfully disagree."

He said his "Sieg Heil!" tweet was not an endorsement of Nazism or fascist tactics, but was meant to mock Media Matters and its use of boycotts.

He declined to get into specifics of how he was fired, saying he wanted to keep that a private conversation.

Lord may think CNN made the wrong move in letting him go, but many people on Twitter felt the network was right in saying "good riddance."

Lord is a former Reagan administration staffer who is currently a columnist for the conservative magazine The American Spectator. He was brought on to CNN in 2015 as one of the first fully pro-Trump commentators after the then-candidate first entered the GOP primary race. The network has since added pro-Trump contributors following the election.

Caving to bullies, caving to people who use fascist and Nazi-style tactics to try and remove people from the air is unacceptable, Lord toldEntertainment Weeklyafter his dismissal.

I mocked this guy. Mocking Nazis is OK. Thats a good thing, not a bad thing. A writer has only a handful of tools in his writers box, and mockery is one of them. To suggest that this is anything other than that, to my way of thinking, is caving in. And Im not going to cave.

The Anne Frank Centertweeteda rebuke of Lords use of the phrase.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View post:
Jeffrey Lord: 'CNN caved on the First Amendment' when it fired him - Fox News

Enlarge / Issue ads like this one from 2012 used to be commonplace in the DC metro.

The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday sued the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the government agency thatoperates the capital region's subway system and its primary bus network. The ACLU argues that the transit agency's policies for accepting advertisements on its subway stations, trains, and buses violate the First Amendment by discriminating against controversial and non-mainstream viewpoints.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are ideologically diverse: the ACLU itself, an abortion provider, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and alt-right-Internet-troll-to-the-point-Twitter-actually-banned-him Milo Yiannopoulos.

The inclusion of an alt-right figure like Yiannopoulos helps to demonstrate the ACLU's point that WMATA's policy squelches free-speech rights across the political spectrum. But Yiannopoulos' inclusionhas also raised the hackles of some on the political left, who see associating with the controversial authoras beyond the pale. Chase Strangio, an ACLU attorney who has represented whistleblower Chelsea Manning, posted a statement calling Yiannopoulos "vile" and attacking the ACLU for defending his First Amendment rights.

But the ACLU has a long history of defending the First Amendment rights of groups far outside the mainstream, including Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.As such, the organizationhasn't backed down from its defense of Yiannopoulos. "Protecting the First Amendment rights of all of these speakers is crucial to the ability of civil rights movements to make the change we need to make," the group argued in a Wednesday blog post.

The controversy began in 2015, when anti-Muslim activist Pam Geller tried to place ads depicting a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad on DC subways. That put WMATA in a difficult position, because some Muslim extremists have threatened violence against anyone who publishes Muhammad cartoons.

In an apparent effort to duck the controversy, WMATA announced that it was suspending "issue oriented" advertising across the board.

Of course, the big problem here is that it's not so clear what counts as an "issue oriented" ad. For example, military contractors have long taken out lavish ads touting their latest fighter planes. Arethey merely advertising commercial products or are they trying to influencepolicy decisions about what hardware to buy?

The ACLU believes that the "no issue ads" standard is unworkable and unconstitutional, and it assembled a group of plaintiffs to illustrate the point:

A couple of things are obvious from this list. First, while Yiannopoulos'participation in the lawsuit has gotten the most attention, the ACLU isn't only defending the rights of right-wing provocateurs like Yiannopoulos and Geller. Groups defending left-wing causes like animal rights and abortion rights have also been affected.

Second, while WMATA might have thought "issue ads" were a clear and value-neutral category, in practice it has turned out to be unworkably vague. Rules that allow companies to hawk fighter jets and hamburgers, but ban anti-war and animal rights groups from advertising, is the opposite of viewpoint-neutral. The WMATA's guidelines give the agency unfettered discretion to decide which positions are too controversial to appear in ads, and that seems hard to square with the First Amendment.

The ACLU is generally viewed as a liberal group, but itsabsolutist stance on the First Amendment doesn't fit well with everyone on the political left. A growing contingent of left-wing thinkers have come to see "hate speech" as a serious problem and free speech absolutism as an obstacle to addressing it.

Controversy has become more common over the last eightmonths as the ACLU has attracted a wave of new supporters alarmed by the Trump presidency. Many people donated to the ACLU in the expectation that the group would oppose Trump administration policiesand the group has done plenty of that. But not all of the ACLU's new donors understood the depths of the ACLU's commitment to free speech rights.

"Especially for many of our new members, they may be surprised by the ACLU's robust First Amendment positions," ACLU staff attorney Lee Rowland said in February. "But it's certainly not new."

Over time, defending the free speech rights of right-wing extremists has become something of a trademark for the group. For example, in 2012 the ACLU sued the state of Georgia defending the right of the KKK to "adopt a highway" in the state. In 2010, the group defended the free speech rights of Fred Phelps, the infamous pastor who pickets the funerals of LGBTsoldiers with anti-gay messages.

The ACLU has been doing this kind of thing for almost 100 years now, and it's not likely to stop any time soon. Individualswho don't want their donations supporting the rights of people who engage in "hate speech" mightbe wise toresearch organizations ahead of time.

See more here:
DC's transit agency rejected ads touting the First Amendment (really) - Ars Technica

WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing individuals in Kentucky, Maine and Maryland who argue that the governors in those states have violated the First Amendment by deleting comments and blocking users on the governors' Facebook and Twitter pages.

The plaintiffs in each case argue that they were shut out of a public political forum because they had been critical of the governors' policies or expressed views were at odds with their state's chief executive. By blocking comments and users, the plaintiffs say their governor has violated their right to free speech and their right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

One of the issues at stake is whether public figures can use their social media accounts to sanction other users based private preferences. More fundamentally the cases could determine whether political speech is protected in the social media age.

"In this new world of social media, government officials and constituents are using these platforms as a powerful tool to connect with each other," said Meagan Sway, Justice Fellow with the Maine ACLU chapter. "But when that happens, the First Amendment applies."

Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) has been accused of using his Facebook account in an official government capacity to conduct official government business. He has also taken advantage of the platform's features to block certain constituents. According to the ACLU, "that's unconstitutional censorship."

The arguments are similar in Kentucky and Maryland, where numerous constituents have come forward to challenge the 21st century version of being banished from the public commons. In Utah, the ACLU has put the state's federal congressional delegation on notice after similar complaints from constituents.

Already, experts anticipate the cases in Kentucky, Maine and Maryland will shape the environment for the high-profile case involving President Donald Trump blocking Twitter users.

The Knight First Amendment Institute filed suit against the president in June arguing it is unconstitutional for an elected public official using a "designated public forum," like Twitter, to block speech just because it is critical or disagreeable.

"It's a new area of law," Sway said in an interview with WGME News. "We think courts will agree with us ... that this is an open platform, that the government cannot kick people off just because [they] dont agree with them."

Roy Gutterman, director of the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, said the pending social media cases beg for a "firm declaration" from the courts that blocking political speech on social media a violation of the First Amendment.

"If you're a government official, your social media is an extension of your office and you cant block people for innocuous reasons, or for political reasons" he emphasized. "If you're a government official, especially a governor, I don't think you can bifurcate your personal speech from your official speech."

In Maine, LePage has worked to do just that and distance his official position from his official social media accounts.

A few weeks ago, the governor's "about" page on Facebook was updated. It now states that the page is "official-but not managed by gov't officials," was a fan page but is now home to LePage supporters. However, the page was verified on behalf of the governor and LePage even opted into Facebook's "Town Hall" feature, which helps connect constituents and their government representatives.

Shortly after taking office in 2015, Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland set up Facebook and Twitter accounts and by January 2017, Hogan had reportedly blocked 450 people.

"He didnt like [the posts], but thats not enough," Legal Director for ACLU Maryland Deborah Jeon told WBFF earlier this month. "People have a First-Amendment right to their own opinions. And when the governor establishes a forum for speech between constituents and the government, then he has to listen to what they have to say, whether or not he likes it."

The governor never responded to the ACLU's letter asking him to reinstate the seven individuals banned.

Hogan reacted to the lawsuit saying it was "frivolous" and motivated by partisan politics.

"Its silly, its ridiculous," Hogan told reporters last week. "We have about a million people a week on our Facebook page. Four of them were blocked for violating our Facebook policy and now the Maryland Democratic party got them to file suit with the ACLU."

The governor has defended blocking constituents on the basis of his office's "social media policy," which ACLU claims violates the state's social media policy. Under Hogan's personal policy, comments and users can be blocked if they are deemed irrelevant to the governor's announcements or initiatives, and if the users engage in a "Coordinated Effort" to petition the office. The office claims the right to block users and comments "at any time without prior notice or without providing justification."

"I don't buy that argument," he noted, adding that such arguments get into "untested" legal areas. "This is public business. This is clearly a first amendment issue with political speech implications and the right to petition government."

In Kentucky, Gov. Matt Bevin has argued that the only comments or users being blocked are "abusive trolls" and others who are posting obscene or inappropriate content.

"Gov. Bevin is a strong advocate of constructive dialogue," his communications directed said responding to the ACLU suit. "Blocking individuals from engaging in ... inappropriate conduct on social media in no way violates their free speech right under the U.S. or Kentucky constitutions, nor does it prohibit them from expressing their opinion in an open forum."

According to the plaintiffs, there are "hundreds" of users who have been permanently blocked by Bevin, including "Kentuckians Against Matt Bevin," a public Facebook group with over 1,900 followers.

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Mary Hargis, noted that while she has been critical of the governor on certain issues she was "shocked" to discover he had blocked her. "I may not have voted for Governor Bevin, but I'm one of his constituents," she said. "He shouldn't be permanently dismissing my views and concerns with a click."

As these suits are litigated and President Trump squares off against his blocked Twitter followers, it is unclear how the courts will rule, though U.S. courts tend to rule firmly in favor of protecting political speech.

"If these cases keep getting litigated and appealed ... I can actually see the Supreme Court weighing in on this a year or two down the road," Gutterman suggested. "I think it would be a soft ball."highest level of first amendment activity t

Just recently the Court handed down its first major decision on a social media case in June, ruling unanimously that the First Amendment protected an individual from being refused access to social media. The question before the court was whether a convicted sex offender could be blocked from Facebook , Twitter and other popular social media sites.

The Supreme Court ruling is likely to provide a strong argument for the plaintiffs as the Facebook blocking cases move forward.

"Political speech ... has always been the highest level of First Amendment activity," Gutterman stated. "There's clear First Amendment action here. You've got government activity, government action and citizen expression."

See the rest here:
First Amendment lawsuits pile up against governors who block Facebook, Twitter users - WJLA