Mediaboss Marketing

A lesbian couple says that they were looking for a wedding dress two weeks ago, but all they found in one shop was bigotry.

Shannon Kennedy and Julie Ann Samanas visited W.W. Bridal Boutique in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, with Julie Anns sister to prepare for their March, 2018, wedding.

They were given a form to fill out, and thats where the bridal shop owner found out that they were a same-sex couple.

We filled out the form that said Brides name, Budget and then where it said Groom, we crossed it out and wrote Bride and put Shannons name down, Julie Ann told Philadelphia Gay News.

They handed the form in to one of the employees, who asked them if the dress was for a same-sex wedding. She said, I dont know if youve heard, but were Christian and we dont believe in that; our faith doesnt let us believe in that, Shannon said.

Then they left the boutique. I think we were kind of in shock, Shannon said.

Julie Ann posted about the discrimination on Facebook and received a lot of support.

The bridal shop also posted a message to Facebook that they have since deleted. According to the Philadelphia Gay News, the message said, The owners of W.W. Bridal Boutique reserve the rights afforded to them by the First Amendment of the Constitution to live out our lives according to our faith. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. We will continue to serve our customers based on the tenets of our faith.

Pennsylvania has no state-wide law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The rest is here:
Bridal shop refuses lesbian couple and cites the First Amendment - LGBTQ Nation

When documentary filmmaker Brian Knappenberger set out to make a film about Hulk Hogans lawsuit against Gawker Media, he didnt fully realize the impact of the trial on the future of journalism. It wasnt until the revelation that Peter Thiel was behind thisaka bankrolling Hogans lawsuitthat he realized suddenly this was a very different story, this was about how very wealthy individuals could silence their critics.

Knappenbergers past films, Robert Scheer notes, talk about the possibilities for good and evil in the internet, and his latest, Nobody Speak: Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Trial of a Free Press, is no exception. In this weeks episode of KCRWs Scheer Intelligence, Knappenberger sits down with Scheer for a discussion of freedom of the press in the age of Donald Trump, and the future of online journalism.

I found the Hulk Hogan/Gawker case to be really compelling just by itself. It was the first time a sex tape case like this had ever gone to trial, and there was this kind of veneer of tabloid sensationalism to it. You could tell that there were some bigger-picture things going on, Knappenberger says. There were some, I think, really important First Amendment versus privacy issues happening here, and so I thought that was just really, really interesting.

The movie has resonance beyond whether you like Gawker or not, Scheer says. Its really a question of whats going to happening now with the free press, when you have all this money sloshing around that can punish people, and you have a president who seems to be quite hostile to the press.

Knappenberger goes on to explain how Trump has drastically impacted freedom of the press, and notes that Thiel also financially supported Trumps presidential campaign. I think theyre kindred spirits, certainly, in their hatred of the media, he says.

So how does Knappenberger feel about the future of the free press, especially considering the media consolidation happening under companies like Sinclair Broadcast Group?

Theres a lot of examples, and troubling examples, of big money in news and in media. Theres no question about that, he says. I think what were seeing here in the last year, and what Im responding to in the film, is the beginning of this stuff really ratcheting up, and the stakes getting higher and higher.

Listen to the full interview in the player above. Find past editions of Scheer Intelligence here.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read more from the original source:
'Nobody Speak': How Billionaires Are Silencing the First Amendment - HuffPost

Gene Policinski

Attention you so-called enemies of the people and alleged purveyors of biased reporting: Theres reason to think fewer people than last year might see you that way, despite the ongoing, politicized attacks from multiple quarters on the news medias credibility.

President Donald Trump hurled that enemies epithet at journalists some time ago, and continues to complain about biased news coverage nearly every time there are news accounts regarding contacts with Russian officials by his administration.

But such criticism comes with varying levels of vitriol from a variety of quarters, and started long before Trump took office. Often, the harshest criticism of the media comes just as much from those who consume news as from those who make it.

This year, however, there are signs that the publics disdain for the media has somewhat abated. The 2017 State of the First Amendment survey, released over the July 4 holiday by the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute in partnership with the Fors Marsh Group, found that:

A solid majority of the public about 68 percent still believes in the importance of news media as a watchdog on democracy. Less than half (43.2 percent) said they believe the news media tries to report the news without bias; but this figure is a marked improvement from 2015 (23 percent) and 2016 (24 percent). There are some likely reasons for this shift: A significant amount of TV, online and print journalism has shifted from the softer horse race focus of the 2016 election to this years focus on hard news and complex issues. And with more than a bit of irony as more Americans are inclined only to consume news from sources that line up with their individual perspectives, theres a likely parallel increase in the trust factor in those sources, even if they resemble echo chambers more than truth-tellers. Among those who believe that media tries to report unbiased information, most expressed a preference for news information that aligns with their own views (60.7 percent). Those more critical of media efforts to report news without bias were also less prone to report a preference for news aligned with their own views (49.1 percent).

So, no celebratory back flips in the nations newsrooms, please, especially since the uptick only puts the bias figure roughly back to levels seen in 2013 and 2014 (46 percent and 41 percent, respectively).

Those inclined to support the work of todays journalists hope that the drop in those who perceive media bias generally stems from that combination of dramatically increased visibility of news operations and their reporting on serious news, such as health care reform and investigations of Russian influence in the 2016 election. For my own part, I believe more people saw reporting of real news, not fluffy click-bait features and dramatic but mostly meaningless polling reports, and it earned back some of their lost approval and trust.

Heres an idea for journalists nationwide: Keep trying hard news, accountability reporting on issues that while not necessarily sexy matter the most to people and their communities, such as jobs, health care, education, and local and state government.

For years, news industry moguls and newsroom leaders have sought ways to reverse their dwindling income, which has led to fewer newsrooms resources and less real journalism, and which in turn has prompted additional loss of consumers. Clearly, mushy stories about the travails of celebrities, feel-good stories, and valuing tweets over investigative reporting are not working out that well.

Acting on this realization will mean putting an emphasis on innovation and finding new ways to report on subjects that, in themselves, dont necessarily draw in a new generation of readers. But therein is the opportunity for those who will be the news media success stories of the 21st century. This years survey results show that the opportunity is there, that news consumers are hungry for imaginative reporting on issues that directly impact their lives.

But we can still take comfort in the 20 percent drop in those who presume journalists are incapable of reporting without bias: Attitudes can change, and trust can be regained. Read the full report.

Editors Note: A version of this column appeared earlier on the Newseum Institute website as part of the 2017 State of the First Amendment report.

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute. He can be reached at gpolicinski@newseum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.

Original post:
First Amendment: More Americans see less media bias but why? - hays Post

Questions Neals belief in First Amendment

I was shocked to learn that Richard Neal and many other congressmen think we should take away the First Amendment rights of people who express their support of a boycott of Israel.

I am Jewish, and committed to Israels long-term survival. I think the thuggish actions and racist comments of Benjamin Netanyahus far-right Israeli government represent a long-term threat to that survival. Along with the constant theft of Palestinian land (land the whole world, including Israel, recognizes as Palestinian), these actions arouse deep-seated hatred which can only lead to destructive war. At the end, it will likely lead to the destruction of Israel.

So I think anyone in this country who backs the extremist Netanyahu is really backing the long-term destruction of the Jewish state, and certainly the destruction of Israeli democracy.

But if anyone came up with a law to deprive Netanyahu-backers of the right to express their views, I would oppose it to my last breath. Does Congressman Neal believe in the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech? He should be ashamed of himself.

David Ball

Northampton

See the original post:
David Ball: Questions Neal's belief in First Amendment - GazetteNET

A judge on Thursday declared as unconstitutional a local Wisconsin ordinance mandating that the makers of augmented reality games get special use permits if their mobile apps were to be played in county parks. The lawthe nation's first of its kindwas challenged on First Amendment grounds amid concerns it amounted to a prior restraint of a game maker's speech. What's more, the law was seemingly impossible to comply with.

The federal lawsuit was brought by a Southern California company named Candy Lab. The maker of Texas Rope 'Eman augmented reality game with features like Pokemon Gosued Milwaukee County after it adopted an AR ordinance in February in the wake of the Pokemon Go craze. Because some of its parks were overrun by a deluge of players, the county began requiring AR makers to get a permit before their apps could be used in county parks.

The permitting process also demanded that developers perform the impossible: estimate crowd size, event dates, and the times when mobile gamers would be playing inside county parks. The permits, which cost as much as $1,000, also required that developers describe plans for garbage collection, bathroom use, on-site security, and medical services. Without meeting those requirements, augmented reality publishers would be in violation of the ordinance if they published games that included playtime in Milwaukee County parks.

US District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller issued a preliminary injunction Thursday blocking Milwaukee County from enforcing the law until the outcome of a trial tentatively set for April. "Greater injury will be inflicted upon plaintiff by the denial of injunctive relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of such relief," the judge ruled. (PDF)

The county did not immediately respond for comment.

In court papers, the county said (PDF) that augmented reality games like Texas Rope 'Em"werenot protected by the First Amendment:

Texas Rope 'Em is not entitled to First Amendment protection because it does not convey any messages or ideas. Unlike books, movies, music, plays and video gamesmediums of expression that typically enjoy First Amendment protectionTexas Rope 'Em has no plot, no storylines, no characters, and no dialogue. All it conveys is a random display of cards and a map. Absent the communicative features that invoke the First Amendment, Candy Lab has no First Amendment claim.

In Texas Rope 'Em, the county added, "The player simply views randomly generated cards and travels to locations to get more. That is not the type of speech that demands First Amendment safeguards."

Brian Wassom, Candy Lab's lawyer, said the judge's decision undercuts the county's argument.

"I think it's a huge win for the medium of augmented reality as a whole," he said in a telephone interview. "It's a strong affirmation that AR is a medium for creative expression."

Niantic, the developer of Pokemon Go, told Ars in a recent interview that it was working with Milwaukee County and other jurisdictions to alter game locations and to accommodate park hours.

Link:
Augmented reality wins big in 1st Amendment legal flap | Ars Technica - Ars Technica