Mediaboss Marketing

By Mike Farrell Special to NKyTribune

The Scripps Howard First Amendment Center is looking for a Kentuckian who is a champion of the First Amendment.

The center in the College of Communication and Informations School of Journalism and Media at the University of Kentucky is requesting nominations for its annual James Madison Award. The award, created in 2006, honors the nations fourth president, whose extraordinary efforts led to the passage and ratification of the Bill of Rights.

The Madison Award recognizes someone who has worked in one or more of these areas: open government and open records; promotion of the watchdog role of the press; defense against government or private censorship; or robust debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Nominees must have significant ties to Kentucky, and their efforts must have resulted in the preservation or expansion of freedom of the press and/or freedom of speech. Dedication to the First Amendment principle of free expression is not accomplished in a days work but rather a lifetime. Thus the award recognizes a long-term commitment to such ideals.

The deadline for nominations is Sept. 1.

Honorees do not have to be journalists. Nominees may include, for example, educators, lawyers, judges, scholars, librarians, students or ordinary citizens. The most deserving recipient will be someone who has made a significant contribution regardless of how much public attention it has received.

The nominator should submit a letter identifying the nominee, listing the nominees address, phone number and position, and explain why the nominee would be a worthy recipient. The letter should detail the specific efforts taken on behalf of First Amendment rights and should discuss obstacles and difficulties as well as the impact of the nominees efforts. The nominator may include up to three letters of support as well as other materials such as published or broadcast information.

Entries will be reviewed by a committee that will include previous winners and the director of the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center. The committee will have the option of not selecting a recipient if it does not believe any candidate is deserving.

The award will be presented at the annual First Amendment Celebration, 6 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 28, in the William T. Young Library auditorium on the university campus.

Nominations should be sent to Mike Farrell, Scripps Howard First Amendment Center, School of Journalism and Media, 120 Grehan Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0042, or emailed to farrell@uky.edu.

Mike Farrell is director of the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center and a co-founder of the NKyTribune.

View post:
Scripps Howard First Amendment Center seeking nominations for 2017 James Madison Award - User-generated content (press release) (registration)

An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 1982)

In contradiction to such sentiments, Sen. Maggie Hassan is co-sponsoring a Senate bill Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S.720/H.R.1697) that would make it a felony for Americans to support an international boycott against Israel.

Its a bill designed to strip Americans of constitutionally protected rights, a bill that targets supporters of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement that works to end international support for Israels oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law.

Boycotts to achieve political goals, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has written, are a form of expression that the Supreme Court has ruled are protected by the First Amendments protections of freedom of speech, assembly and petition.

BDS is designed to give Palestinians and their supporters a nonviolent platform from which to resist occupation and illegal settlement activity, activity which the international community believes is a flagrant violation of international law without legal validity, activities condemned by innumerable U.N. resolutions from No. 242 to No. 2334 and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

In 2014, Nobel Peace laureate Bishop Desmond Tutu said: I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces. Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government.

BDS is designed to empower Palestinians to resist that humiliation.

In response to (S.720/H.R.1697) the ACLU has written: The bill would amend those laws to bar U.S. persons from supporting boycotts against Israel, including its settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territories, conducted by international governmental organizations, such as the United Nations and the European Union. It would also broaden the law to include penalties for simply requesting information about such boycotts. Violations would be subject to a maximum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. We take no position for or against the effort to boycott Israel or any foreign country, for that matter. However, we do assert that the government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, punish U.S. persons based solely on their expressed political beliefs.

This bill would impose civil and criminal punishment on individuals solely because of their political beliefs about Israel and its policies.

I support BDS because its a nonviolent response that I recognize initiated by Palestinian civil society to the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, to the oppression of Palestinians, to the continued incarceration of hundreds of Palestinians held under administrative detention without either indictment or trial.

BDS does not delegitimize Israel; it delegitimizes illegal occupation and oppression.

In April, BDS co-founder Omar Barghouti said, Twelve years ago, we were called romantic dreamers or worse. Today, our fast-growing movement is recognized as being so strong as to be fought by the full force of Israels regime of occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid, and by its partners in crime.

Partners like members of the United State Congress whove aligned themselves with oligarchs and power brokers, partners who not only oppose BDS but who oppose making political and economic distinctions between Israel and occupied Palestinian territory.

I support BDS because I recognized, and supported, the boycott in South Africa that helped to strike down apartheid. I supported the Montgomery bus boycott and the Delano grape strike because I believe in justice.

Because I recognize that were called upon to resist oppression and occupation.

I recognize, too, that even when boycotts dont change anything, as in the anti-Nazi boycott of 1933 that did nothing to stop the harassment of German Jews, that its morally necessary to act.

As Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of the American Jewish Congress said at the time, We must speak out, and If that is unavailing, at least we shall have spoken.

BDS is working.

In 2016, the EU, along with Sweden, Ireland and the Netherlands, affirmed the right to support BDS as protected by freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Last month the Spanish parliament unanimously passed a motion affirming the right to advocate for BDS as protected by freedom of speech and freedom of association.

BDS is working.

BDS supporters know its working because of the scale of resources its opponents are devoting to delegitimize and criminalize the nonviolent movement including getting members of Congress to emasculate the First Amendment.

I know BDS is controversial. Some of my dearest friends dont support it at all; others want BDS to apply only to the occupied territories.

I get that, and support their choice.

However, those friends and I do agree that the Israel Anti-Boycott Act is unjust and is a blatant attempt to dissuade American supporters of Palestinian freedom and justice from engaging in protected political speech and action.

Resisting violence is easy. Use greater violence and destroy, imprison and emasculate the enemy. If they resist, hit them harder.

Resisting nonviolence is harder you cant bomb non-violent resisters into submission.

So, to counter BDSs nonviolent philosophy, Israels calling upon America to violently defile existential imperatives and collude in squelching First Amendment rights.

Pay attention: (S.720/H.R.1697) aligns America with governments that choose to deal with dissent and protest by limiting freedoms and speech governments like Poland, Russia, Turkey, Israel and Egypt.

Were not like them. Were better than that.

Pay attention: If speech can be criminalized in order to oppress Palestinians then it could as easily be used against any other group that displease the government or oligarchs in the future.

Pay attention: Last week Vice President Mike Pence said, America stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel, as together we confront those enemies who threaten our people, our freedom and our very way of life.

What he, and Hassan, fail to recognize is that those who threaten our people, our freedom, and our very way of life is us that were in danger of becoming our enemy.

Let us speak out: If that is unavailing, at least we shall have spoken.

(Robert Azzi is a photographer and writer who lives in Exeter. He can be reached at theother.azzi@gmail.com and his columns are archived at theotherazzi.wordpress.com.)

See more here:
Robert Azzi: Congress assails First Amendment, BDS, Palestinians ... - Concord Monitor

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