Mediaboss Marketing

Common practice for liberals and conservatives now is to take turns calling each other enemies of the First Amendment. The results of this year's "State of the First Amendment" survey gave us the opportunity to consider these insults and after the numbers are crunched, who is the real enemy of the First Amendment?

Well, no one. And, everyone.

Most of our fellow citizens, regardless of their political ideology, are quite fond of the First Amendment, at least in the abstract. The people who think that the First Amendment goes too far are a minority 22.5 percent of us. A majority of Americans (67.7 percent) thinks that the press plays an important role as a watchdog on government; a slightly narrower majority (58.8 percent) thinks that freedom of religion should extend to all religious groups, even those widely considered extreme or fringe.

That's the good news: Even in a time of great political turmoil, we're generally supportive of the First Amendment's protections.

The bad news: When it comes down to specific applications of the First Amendment, we're less positive, and also deeply divided along ideological lines. Both liberals and conservatives have certain pain points where they balk at the amount of protection that the First Amendment provides.

Liberals are more likely than conservatives to think:

Colleges should be able to ban speakers with controversial views.

People should not be able to express racist comments on social media.

Meanwhile, conservatives are more likely than liberals to think:

Government officials who leak information to the press should be prosecuted.

Journalists should not be able to publish information obtained illegally, even if it serves the public interest.

Government should be able to determine which media outlets can attend briefings.

Government should be able to hold Muslims to a higher standard of scrutiny.

Worth noting: Some of these differences in attitude may not be a direct result of whether you're a liberal or a conservative; instead, they might be circumstantial. Do more liberals support press freedoms because that's a core value of liberal ideology or because the press is a watchdog on the government, which liberals don't currently control?

Do more conservatives think that colleges shouldn't be able to ban speakers because of a greater commitment to free speech or because most banned speakers, at least in recent years, have tended to be conservative? It will be interesting to see in subsequent years if attitudes change as circumstances change.

One thing that unites the majority of Americans right now: Most of us, liberals and conservatives, prefer to read or listen to news that aligns with our own views.

That's true even if you think that the news media reports with a bias, as most Americans do (56.8 percent). Apparently, we're not inclined to correct that bias by taking in multiple and varied news sources. Instead, we're more likely to double down on the news that fits in with our pre-existing ideological perspectives.

This finding is both obvious and disheartening: Everyone likes reading and hearing news that confirms what they already believed. That's one of the factors that keep us so divided.

Lata Nott

Executive director

First Amendment Center

Newseum Institute.

Washington, D.C.

See the rest here:
Our love-hate relationship with the First Amendment - Progress Index

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Friday that citizens have a First Amendment right to record police performing their duties. The court found that officers, "are public officials carrying out public functions, and the First Amendment requires them to bear bystanders recording their actions. This is vital to promote the access that fosters free discussion of governmental actions." The court was clear that this case was based on a First Amendment right to access of information about how public servants operate in the public realm. This decision follows the rulings by the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. Even with the ruling in favor of the First Amendment argument, two of the three judges ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, effectively shielding them from liability over the incidents.

Trust between communities throughout the US and police officials continues to be an issue, particularly after a series of incidents have led to demand for higher accountability from the public servants. The interactions have created dialogues in communities in an attempt to create a greater trust between members of the public and law enforcement. In April the Department of Justice raised doubts [JURIST report] about a police reform agreement reached in the city of Baltimore. In June rights group decided that they wanted police reform and through a lawsuit [JURIST report] attempted to bring about the change and accountability over the Chicago police enforcement practices.

Continued here:
JURIST - Federal appeals court upholds First Amendment right to ... - JURIST

The First Amendment protects our right to use electronic devices to record on-duty police officers, according to a new ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Fields v. Philadelphia. This right extends to anyone with a recording device, journalists and members of the public alike. And this right includes capture of photos, videos, and audio recordings.

EFF filed an amicus brief seeking this ruling. We argued that people routinely use their electronic devices to record and share images and audio, and that this often includes newsworthy recordings of on-duty police officers interacting with members of the public.

The Third Circuit began its Fields opinion by framing the right to record in history and policy:

In 1991 George Holliday recorded video of the Los Angeles Police Department officers beating Rodney King and submitted it to the local news. Filming police on the job was rare then but common now. With advances in technology and the widespread ownership of smartphones, civilian recording of police officers is ubiquitous. . . . These recordings have both exposed police misconduct and exonerated officers from errant charges.

The Third Circuit recognized that all five federal appellate courts that previously addressed this issue held that the First Amendment protects the right to record the police.

The court next reasoned that the right to publish recordings depends on the predicate right to make recordings. Specifically:

The First Amendment protects actual photos, videos, and recordings, . . . and for this protection to have meaning the Amendment must also protect the act of creating that material. There is no practical difference between allowing police to prevent people from taking recordings and actually banning the possession or distribution of them.

The court also reasoned that the right to record the police is grounded in the First Amendment right of access to information about their officials public activities. The court explained:

Access to information regarding public police activity is particularly important because it leads to citizen discourse on public issues, the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.

The court identified the many ways that civilian recordings of police activity are beneficial by capturing critical information:

Importantly, the court concluded that recordings of on-duty police have contributed greatly to our national discussion of proper policing. Among other things, they have improved professional reporting, as video content generated by witnesses and bystanders has become a common component of news programming. As a result, recordings have spurred action at all levels of government to address police misconduct and to protect civil rights.

Qualified Immunity

The Third Circuit erred on the issue of qualified immunity. This is a legal doctrine that protects government employees from paying money damages for violating the Constitution, if the specific right at issue was not clearly established at the time they violated it. In Fields, the Third Circuit unanimously held that going forward, the First Amendment protects the right to record the police. But the majority held that this right was not clearly established at the time the police officers in the case violated this right.

Judge Nygaard dissented on this point. He persuasively argued that this right was in fact clearly established, given the prior rulings of other appellate courts, the City of Philadelphias own policies, and the frequency that people (including police officers themselves) use their mobile devices to make recordings. On the bright side, the Third Circuit remanded the question of municipal liability, so there is still a possibility that the injured parties, whose right to record was disrupted by police, can obtain damages from the city.

Location of Recording

The Third Circuit in Fields sometimes formulated the First Amendment right to record police as existing in public places. This is true. But the right also exists in private places. For example, a home owner might record police officers searching their home without a warrant. Also, a complainant about police misconduct, speaking to internal affairs officers inside a police station, might record those officers discouraging her from pressing charges. In such cases, there is a First Amendment right to record on-duty police officers in a private place.

Rather than ask whether the place of recording was public or private, courts should ask whether the subject of recording had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Critically, on-duty police have no such expectation while speaking with civilians, whether they are in a public or private place.

The Fields decision is not to the contrary. Rather, it simply addressed the facts in that case, which concerned civilians recording on-duty police officers who happened to be in public places. Also, the Fields opinion at another point correctly framed the issue as recording police officers performing their official duties.

Interference

The court discussed another possible limitation on the right to record the policewhether recording may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions to ensure that it doesnt interfere with policy activity. However, this issue was not before the court. It remains to be seen how future courts will address limitations on the First Amendment right to record the police.

The Third Circuits Fields decision is an important victory for the right of technology users to record on-duty police officers. But the struggle continues. Across the country, many government officials continue to block members of the public from using their electronic devices to record newsworthy events. EFF will continue to fight for this vital right.

View original post here:
Third Circuit Declares First Amendment Right to Record Police - EFF

NewsBusters (press release) (blog)

Here's a First Amendment Case You Should Care About NewsBusters (press release) (blog) First Amendment cases are very much on the national mind these days, and the news from the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is very encouraging for those who believe in strong protections for constitutional freedoms. The court delivered a First Amendment ...

See more here:
Here's a First Amendment Case You Should Care About - NewsBusters (press release) (blog)

Source: OrangeWebsite

Im one of the most fervent supporters of the First Amendment that you can find. I love that we Americans have a right to think, speak, and practice the way that we feel we want to. As I continue to travel to different countries, I repeatedly kiss the founding fathers in my mind for giving us the freedoms to be individuals as opposed to living in a country that is of one belief system.

That being said, I think people are losing the idea of what the First Amendment particularly, freedom of speech actually means.

According to Dictionary.com, freedom of speech is defined as the right of people to express their opinions publicly withoutgovernmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitementto violence or rebellion, etc.In more digestibleterms, this means that you, as a free American, can say things like, I hate my president, or, Hillary Clinton should be jailed, or, all politicians are morons who benefit from the money and ignorance of the middle class without the government coming after you. How great is that? We are allowed to freely criticize our own government. I know many of us do this on the regular; I am no silent critic of Trump in my daily life, and I definitely wasnt a silent critic of Obama either. I also am not a silent praiser when they do something worthy or praise. Either way, I can say whats on my mind about our political institutions without fear of being jailed, tortured, or killed. You can too.

Heres what freedom of speech does not mean. It does not mean that people cannot question or call you on your thoughts. If you stand in the street and say that you love Donald Trump, someone has the right to challenge you on that. They have the right to call you an idiot. Is it mean? Absolutely. Is it ridiculous that we live in such a society where insults are our main form of debate? One hundred percent, friends. But its the truth. Freedom of speech means that you, and anyone else, can challenge someone on their thoughts. It can get dicey. While you are allowed to express your thoughts, other people can express their thoughts too. Whether you disagree with them or not, they hold the same rights you do.

Nothing makes me more annoyed than when someone on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or any other social media site gets behind their keyboard, types something, and then when the heat gets high, they use, but my freedom of speech.. They say that because they have the right to free speech, they should not be challenged. That is NOT what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech simply means that Trump, Obama, Bush, or any future president that we have cannot throw you in jail or make you disappear forever because you said something hostile against the state. Freedom of speech prevents a situation like that of North Korea or China, where people are held for speaking badly of their leaders. It is not a card for you to spew your opinions without repercussions. It is not a right for you to say whatever you feel like in your daily life to other people and not be corrected. Sure, you wont be thrown in jail, but I can guarantee youll either annoy someone or youll be embarrassed when they correct you and/or tell you where to shove your rude words.

The biggest thing to remember? We are human beings. Opinions are not right and/or wrong. I could be very wrong in a lot of the things Ive written in my life. My opinions could be based on fallacies, I could be seeking information from the wrong places. Heck, I might even have opinions that are based on prejudices that I dont even see. You might be in the same boat. Life is a learning experience. Like anything in life, your words and opinions develop with you as you grow, mature, and learn. You will never stop learning or at least, I hope you never stop learning. Theres too much knowledge out there for you to know everything before death.

So the next time you see someone trying to play but my freedom of speech, or even worse, you play that game; try to remember what freedom of speech was originally made for. Originally, America was under a monarch. We created these rights so we could give ourselves the freedom we didnt have under British rule. Its fine to have opinions. Its fine to voice them. Just please remember that people can challenge you. You have the right to defend yourself too. But discourse (polite discourse, of course) and debate are what we are made of. A single, concrete mindset is the exact thing we do not want as Americans.

With free speech comes a ton of responsibility.

More here:
But the First Amendment. - Albany Times Union (blog)