Mediaboss Marketing

Columbia Universitys Knight First Amendment Institute is suing Donald Trump for blocking people on Twitter, claiming that it violates free speech protections. The institute filed suit today on behalf of seven Twitter users who were blocked by the president, which prevents them from seeing or replying to his tweets. It threatened legal action in a letter to Trump in June, and now asks the court to declare that the viewpoint-based blocking of people from the @realDonaldTrump account is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the Southern District of New York, elaborates on the Knight Institutes earlier letter. It contends that Trumps Twitter account is a public political forum where citizens have a First Amendment right to speak. Under this theory, blocking users impedes their right to participate in a political conversation and stops them from viewing official government communication. Therefore, if Trump blocks people for criticizing his political viewpoints, hed be doing the equivalent of kicking them out of a digital town hall.

Trump has definitely used his Twitter account as an official platform. The White House confirmed that his tweets are official statements, and its preserving them as public presidential communications. However, its much less clear that it counts as a public forum, or that being prevented from viewing or participating in a Twitter thread chills free speech. Users can still view tweets by logging out or creating a new account, and as First Amendment lawyer and blogger Ken White told Vox, a successful lawsuit could make it difficult for any official Twitter account to block trolls or spammers without worrying about legal action.

Nonetheless, the Knight Institute has printed statements from its seven plaintiffs, who say they feel measurably impacted by the block. My Twitter following is relatively small, but because my tweets show up in the comment threads under the presidents tweets and can be seen by his millions of followers, my replies could gain traction, says surgery resident Eugene Gu. Now I have extremely limited access to the public forum where I once could be heard. I feel cut off and as though Im being treated like an outsider in my own country.

Read more here:
Trump is being sued by a First Amendment group for blocking Twitter users - The Verge

Even though a backlash against it arguably contributed to President Donald Trumps election, political correctness retains a firm foothold in American society.

The 2017 State of the First Amendment survey shows 54.9 percent of Americans believe racist comments should not be allowed on social media, 43.3 percent say colleges should be able to ban controversial speakers and 22.5 percent think the First Amendment goes too far in the freedoms it guarantees.

Taken together, those figures suggest discomfort with free expression resides largely on the left side of the political spectrum, but not all is as it seems.

Respondents who identified as conservative (24.6 percent) and moderate (26.3 percent) were more likely than those who said they were liberal (15.8 percent) to consider the First Amendment too far-reaching.

And while more conservatives than liberals understand that a free society must tolerate offensive speech, the right lagged behind the left and center where religious liberty one of the five First Amendment freedoms along with speech, press, assembly and petition is concerned.

Asked to respond to the statement, Government should be able to hold Muslims to a greater level of scrutiny in considering immigration applications or status, even if it infringes on their religious liberty, 33.3 percent of respondents agreed and 62.1 percent disagreed overall.

Among conservatives, support for religion-based vetting stood at 51.2 percent, compared to 32.9 percent for moderates and 17.9 percent for liberals.

Commissioned by the Newseum Institute, the State of the First Amendment survey has been conducted each year since 1997. While some questions remain the same, a new batch is added to the brew each year. Some of the 2017 queries were squishy, gauging attitudes rather than knowledge of legal absolutes. First Amendment advocates could plausibly find themselves on either side.

For example, the First Amendment does protect racist comments, but as private companies, social media sites can set the ground rules for fair play in their respective sandboxes. Freedom of speech means the government cant punish you for speaking your mind, but it doesnt prevent Facebook or Twitter from suspending your account.

As for campus speaker bans, public colleges and universities are arms of the government and cannot lawfully discriminate against controversial views, but private institutions can.

Results showed 26.5 percent of people believe the First Amendment should protect the publication of news reports even if they are purposely fake while 70.8 percent disagree that fake news should receive free-speech protections.

The case law here is murky while lies are often protected speech, knowingly false factual claims about individuals can constitute libel. Some fake stories are legally actionable and others are abhorrent but constitutionally permissible.

Of particular concern to us is the rising proportion of Americans who believe the First Amendment goes too far. The survey shows this figure has inched upward each of the past three years.

Neither conservatives nor liberals have a monopoly on the First Amendment. It transcends partisan politics, and its up to all Americans to defend its core constitutional rights from erosion.

.

Read the original here:
TAR HEEL VIEW: First Amendment challenges beliefs on right, left alike - Richmond County Daily Journal

Mary Hogan

The West Peoria Fourth on July Parade, by it nature and history, is a time to wave the flag and celebrate the nation. It is not a place to make a political statement.

Like it or not, Donald Trump is the elected president of the United States and deserves our respect. It is disgusting and deplorable that some use the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to make a distasteful display during the parade to voice displeasure with Mr. Trump.

Fourth of July parades have always been a traditional way to pass on to our youth the meaning of patriotism and respect for our nation. Our children should not have to see this type of vulgar display.

Yes, these dissenters have the right to make a statement, but it is also the responsibility of the parade organizers to set the theme of the parade by previewing the content of exhibits before the parade begins. If parade officials do not monitor the content in the future, I fear the parade will fade.

Mary Hogan

Dunlap

See the original post:
Letter: First Amendment no excuse - Peoria Journal Star

Common practice for liberals and conservatives now is to take turns calling each other enemies of the First Amendment. The results of this years 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) think 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.

Thats the good news: Even in a time of great political turmoil, were generally supportive of the First Amendments protections.

The bad news: When it comes down to specific applications of the First Amendment, were 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 youre a liberal or a conservative; instead, they might be circumstantial. Do more liberals support press freedoms because thats a core value of liberal ideology or because the press is a watchdog on the government, which liberals dont currently control?

Do more conservatives think that colleges shouldnt 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.

Thats true even if you think that the news media reports with a bias, as most Americans do (56.8 percent). Apparently, were not inclined to correct that bias by taking in multiple and varied news sources. Instead, were 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. Thats one of the factors that keep us so divided.

Lata Nott is executive director of the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute. Contact her via email at lnott@newseum.org, or follow her on Twitter at @LataNott.

SHARE YOUR VIEWS

The Commercial-News invites readers and organizations to submit columns for this page. Submissions should be 500-600 words and must include the authors name, address and telephone number. Local topics are preferred. Send submissions to newsroom@dancomnews.com; submit them through the Letters to the Editor function on our website, http://www.commercial-news.com; or mail them to: Commercial-News, c/o PO Box 787, Danville, IL 61832.

Read the original:
Nott: Our love-hate relationship with the First Amendment | Opinion ... - Danville Commercial News

In a decision in a ripped-from-the-headlines issue, a federal appeals court has held that recording video of police officers in the act of performing their duties is protected First Amendment speech.

The issue is a hot-button one given the recent incidents of officer-involved shootings captured on cell phones and other recording devices.

"[T]he First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public," said a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

It was reversing a district court finding that recording was not a First Amendment activity because it was not "sufficiently expressive."

The panel said the case was not about whether or not the plaintiffs have expressed themselves but about whether there was a First Amendment right of access to information about how public servants operate in public. The panel said there definitely is.

The case involved the Philadelphia Police Department preventing bystanders from recording officers at an anti-fracking protest attempting to make an arrest and/or retaliating for the recording.

"We ask much of our police," said the appeals court panel. "They can be our shelter from the storm. Yet 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, especially when that discussion benefits not only citizens but the officers themselves. We thus reverse and remand for further proceedings."

Not surprisingly, news outlets had weighed in in support of the plaintiff's appeal to the Third Circuit.

(Photo viaTori Rector's Flickr.Image taken on July 21, 2016and used perCreative Commons 2.0 license. The photo was cropped to fit 3x4 aspect ratio.)

Continued here:
Court: Recording Police Is Protected Speech | Broadcasting & Cable - Broadcasting & Cable