Mediaboss Marketing

With cries of fake news and violence against journalists, the First Amendment is under attack.

On Thursday, TheWrap presents The First Amendment in the Age of Trump, an evening devoted to addressing threats to free speech and freedom of the press under the Trump administration.

Following a screening of the Netflix original documentary Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press, there will be a panel discussion of recent threats to the First Amendment.

Watch the live stream below.

Also Read: Debating the Threat to Free Speech: Join TheWrap's Panel and Screening on Thursday

The film explores the invasion of privacy case brought by wrestler Terry Bollea, aka Hulk Hogan against Gawker.com for posting a sex tape of wrestler Bollea. The trial ended with the jury awarding Bollea $140 million, sending the snarky website into bankruptcy. It was later learned that Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hogans lawyers to get revenge on Gawker for a story it had done about the billionaire.

The panel will be moderated by University of Southern California media law professor and TheWraps First Amendment correspondent, Susan Seager. Panelists will includeBrian Knappenberger, director of Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press; Sharon Waxman, Editor-in-Chief of TheWrap; and others.

Subjects explored include:

Attorney Lisa Bloom, TheWrap founder Sharon Waxman, Emmy-winning actress Cynthia Nixon, actress Judith Light, and producer Paula Wagner attend the Power Women Breakfast NYC on June 29, 2017.

TheWrap founder Sharon Waxman and Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad attend Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Shelley Zalis, CEO of The Female Quotient and Founder, Girls Lounge; TheWrap Editor-In-Chief Sharon Waxman and film and theater producer Paula Wagner co-hosted the 2017 edition of Power Women Breakfast in NYC.

Shelley Zalis, CEO, The Female Quotient and Founder, Girls Lounge moderated a discussion at Power Women Breakfast.

Moj Mahdara, CEO of Beautycon Media, speaks at Power Women Breakfast NYC

Ibtihaj Muhammad, best known as the first U.S. Olympic athlete to wear a hijab during the games, speaks at the Power Women Breakfast in New York.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

"Friends From College" star Annie Parisse and "Sex and the City" alum Cynthia Nixon attend the Power Women Breakfast in New York.

Jenna Leigh Green, star of "Wicked," attends the Power Women Breakfast in NYC.

Letitia James, Public Advocate for New York City, speaks atthe Power Women Breakfast in NYC.

Actress Lois Robbinsattends the Power Women Breakfast in NYC.

Sharon Waxman, Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, attorney Lisa Bloom, and Oscar-Winning documentarian Laura Poitras pose on the red carpet of the Power Women Breakfast NYC.

"Orange Is the New Black" star Emma Myles attends the Power Women Breakfast in NYC.

Charity representatives Lisa Winjum and Sarah Haacke Byrd attend Power Women Breakfast benefitingJoyful Heart Foundation.

Rachel Bay Jones, a recent Tony winner for "Dear Evan Hansen," attends the Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Producer and Co-host of the Power Women Breakfast Paula Wagner stops for a photo on the step and repeat.

Muhammad at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

U.S. fencer and Olympian Ibtihaj Muhammad talks about being a Muslim woman in a post-Obama world.

Cynthia Nixon and others at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Moj Mahdara, CEO of Beautycon Media, talks why she doesn't need to wear make-up to run a beauty business.

Beautycon Media CEO Moj Mahdara chats about why Generation Z is so important to brands.

Shelley Zalis chats one on one with Moj Mahdara.

Beautycon Media CEO Moj Mahdara at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Cynthia Nixon, currently starring on Broadway in "The Little Foxes," compared her play with the Trump family.

Cynthia Nixon revealed she would "of course" be interested in another "Sex and the City" movie.

TheWrap founder ttSharon Waxman interviews Cynthia Nixon at the Power Women Breakfast NYC on Thursday.

Attendees at the Power Women Breakfast.

Women at the Power Women Breakfast NYC

A SAG-AFTRA board member attends Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Gail Becker reacts to Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attorney Lisa Bloom said she receives death threats for standing up for women's rights.

Oscar-winning documentarian Laura Poitras talks about being on the NSA watch list.

Activist and attorney Lisa Bloom joins the game-changers panel at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

"Citizenfour" filmmaker Laura Poitras talks fear and being on the right side of history.

New York City Public Advocate Letitia James hinted at a future mayoral run.

Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attorney Lisa Bloom and NYC Public Advocate Letitia James speak at Power Women Breakfast NYC on Thursday.

Lisa Bloom with daughter attorney Sarah Bloom at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Power Women Breakfast NYC, game-changers panelists: Sharon Waxman, Lisa Bloom, Letitia James, and Laura Poitras.

Sarah Haacke Byrd attends as representative of Joyful Heart Foundation, beneficiary of TheWrap's Power Women Breakfast.

Charity auction at Power Women Breakfast NYC with designer Rachel Simone

Charity auction at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Charity auction at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendee at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Charity auction at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Documentarian Aviva Kempner gets a Blushington touch-up at Power Women

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

SCAD Film School Dean Andra Reeve-Rabb at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Sharon Waxman at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Judith Light at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Lisa Bloom and Cynthia Nixon at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

The scene at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Lisa Bloom and author and spiritual leader Marianne Williamson

Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Attendees at Power Women Breakfast NYC.

Women leaders in New Yorks entertainment, media and business communities converge at annual gathering

Attorney Lisa Bloom, TheWrap founder Sharon Waxman, Emmy-winning actress Cynthia Nixon, actress Judith Light, and producer Paula Wagner attend the Power Women Breakfast NYC on June 29, 2017.

Read the original here:
Watch First Amendment Panel Discussion Live Stream (Video) - TheWrap

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 citiziens, 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 both 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 perspective.

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.

The writer is executive director of the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute. Contact her via email at lnott@newseum.org. Follow her on Twitter at @LataNott.

Original post:
Our Love-Hate Relationship With The First Amendment - Greeneville Sun

There have been a number of First Amendment issues in the news recently. Some are rehashes of the same old battles, and others give us more to chew on.

Remember that one about the Christian baker and the gay wedding cake? Yep, thats one of the First Amendment issues coming around again. This fall, newly topped up with conservative darling Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court will hear an appeal of theColorado case. Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission concerns Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a cake for the wedding reception being held by David Mullins and Charlie Craig. Mullins and Craig were legally married in Massachusetts in 2012.

Phillips claims that baking the cake would violate his free exercise of religion and would also constitute coerced speech. Lower courts have consistently held that baking a cake would do neither of these, but is considered to be illegal discrimination due to the couples sexual orientation. This last bit is of key importance when only 22 states have anti-discrimination laws that extend protection to gay people. On one hand, the cake fight is bigger than it first appears: its a proxy in the culture war, and will have an outsized impact on the way some civil rights issues are decided in the future. On the other hand, if baking a cake means that the baker is actually endorsing or taking part in a same-sex union, perhaps gun shop owners will one day be considered to have participated in any crimes committed with the guns they sold. Hey, its possible, right?

Next in the series of First Amendment issues is the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer decision. The Supremes came down on the side of Trinity Lutheran, the church whose ministry involved running a daycare and playground for children. Amazingly, seven of nine justices agreed (for differing reasons) that public funds could not be denied to a church simply because it has a religious mission. Although some majority-opinion justices used language meant to limit the scope of their decision, theidea that governments must provide resources directly to a religious organization has implications for many future policy fights sure to arise, including funding of faith-based education. However, if funds provided to beef up a church playground are not considered fungible in the context of the Establishment clause, perhaps similarly non-fungible funds can be provided for Planned Parenthoods public health mission, free from any involvement with the Hyde Amendment.

Its not just the Supreme Court ruling on recent First Amendment issues. A Montana state court recently decided that the USDAs checkoff program constituted a form of coerced speech, paid for by the states independent cattle ranchers. Checkoff programs are tiny, mandatory taxes paid by producers of certain agricultural commodities. These funds go towards marketing efforts that supposedly benefit the producers of that commodity. This is where ad campaigns like Got Milk? or Beef: Its Whats For Dinner come from. In this case, the Montana Beef Council used checkoff money to partially fund a commercial claiming that Wendys fast food hamburgers are made using North American beef. American ranchers rankled at having to pay to promote Canadian and Mexican beef exports. As a result, the ranchers must still pay the dollar-per-head checkoff, but non-governmental organizations will only receive a portion of the proceeds from ranchers who opt in.

One of the First Amendment issues before Congress is whether or not churches should be able to back political candidates while also retaining their tax-exempt status. House Republicans amended a spending bill to de-fund IRS efforts at enforcing the Johnson Amendment, originally signed into law by Dwight Eisenhower in 1954. While priests and pastors have always been free, as private citizens, to endorse any political position they like, this would potentially turn the pulpit itself into your Facebook feed, minus the cat pictures. Interestingly, non-Christian houses of worship, such as mosques and synagogues, dont seem to be included in the conservative liberalization effort.

Finally, lest we mistake First Amendment issues as being about the rights of all Americans to express their sincerely held beliefs, we get to those whose free speech matters most: the wealthy. Since the landmark Citizens United decision in 2010, money has been even more equated with speech than ever before. Those with wallets full of words wasted no time making sure that their shouting could be heard over those who could afford only humble whispers. In this case, our loudest citizens are insisting that an agenda that benefits them at the cost of most of the rest of us be passed post haste, or the checkbooks would close and perhaps the Republicans would lose their majority in Congress in the next election. One can only hope.

Related: Fungibility Key in Trinity Lutheran Case

More:
First Amendment Issues in the News - Legal Reader (blog)

A gag order was recently issued by a U.S. court preventing Facebook from commenting about three government search warrants issued over a three-month period. The warrants were accompanied by a nondisclosure order from a District of Columbia Superior Court judge which barred the company from notifying its users about the warrants before Facebook agreed to comply. Facebook responded, challenging the order. The company cited the First Amendment and the right to freedom of speech.

Officials say that have a right to notify the three users about the warrants seeking their communication and information. They claim the users should have a fair opportunity to object to such searches. The company released the following statement, We believe there are important First Amendment concerns with this case, including the governments refusal to let us notify three people of broad requests for their account information in connection with public events.

The underlying premise of the governments investigation is still not clear. However, its been speculated that it is affiliated with protesting attempts at the Donald Trump inauguration in which 200 people were taken into custody. The warrants are tied to potential felony charges, and neither the governments investigation nor its interest in Facebook user information was secret, according to the social media king.

Facebook receives thousands of requests from the government for user date annually and complies without question. However, in this particular case, the company cited it has decided to challenge the order because it believes in the protection of the First Amendment. Those who agree with Facebooks stance say that the gag order relies on outdated laws. In April, a local judge in Washington denied Facebooks request to remove it, according to court records, but Facebook cited this was unconstitutional and has appealed the original judgment. In a June 14th order, a three-judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals ruled that an unsealed notice about the case could be provided to any groups that Facebook deems necessary and briefs in support of Facebook were due by June 30th. The government can only insulate its actions from public scrutiny in this way in the rarest circumstances, which likely do not apply here, said attorney Andrew Crocker.

The Constitution can offer adequate protection only if the targets of seemingly overbroad warrants, such as those at issue here, know their rights are under threat, American Civil Liberties Union attorneys and Public Citizen Litigation Group wrote. Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia added that the scope of the warrants served on Facebook is like a warrant telling officers to seize all the papers and photographs in someones home, so prosecutors can peruse them at leisure looking for evidence. This violates the Fourth Amendment, which requires that warrants must particularly describ[e] the things to be seized a requirement that was designed to prohibit just such general warrants.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals the highest court in Washington for local matters is scheduled to hear the case sometime in September.

Facebook challenges US gag order, claiming free speech

Facebook fights U.S. gag order that it says chills free speech

Read the original here:
Facebook Challenges Gag Order, Cited First Amendment Rights - Legal Reader (blog)

Crystal Sousa: Denham piles on the press during his telephone town hall Modesto Bee A constituent asked what he would do to dissuade the president from attacking journalists' First Amendment rights. Denham suggested that Trump, like himself, has a right to defend themselves from fake news. He went on to accuse our hometown paper of ...

Read more from the original source:
Crystal Sousa: Denham piles on the press during his telephone town hall - Modesto Bee