Mediaboss Marketing

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler speaks during a press conference on January 17, 2017 in Portland. Don Ryan / AP

"It may be tempting to shut down speech we disagree with, but once we allow the government to decide what we can say, see, or hear, or who we can gather with, history shows us that the most marginalized will be disproportionately censored and punished for unpopular speech," said the organization in a statement immediately following Wheeler's call to block the parades.

"The mayor is not just anyone on the street, he's a government official who has to uphold the Constitution," said Mathew dos Santos, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon. "And he's not doing that," he said.

"Portland has a proud history of protest. I am a firm supporter of the First Amendment, no matter the views expressed. I believe we had a case to make about the threats to public safety posed by this rally at this place and at this time. My job is to protect the safety of everyone... protesters, counter-protesters, and bystanders alike," said Wheeler in a

Alt-right groups have scheduled a "Trump Free Speech Rally," on June 4. A "March against Sharia" event was scheduled for June 10 but organizers decided to cancel the rally in Portland and move it to Seattle instead.

Organizers felt the city was no longer safe for them.

"Due to Mayor Wheeler's inflammatory comments and what we feel is an incitement of violence, he has shamefully endangered every scheduled participant. Consequently, in order to ensure the safety of those who had planned on attending, we have taken the decision to cancel the Portland March Against Sharia," wrote the organization planning the march in a

June 4th parade organizer Joey Gibson said the mayor "needs to sit down and take a minute and listen," and feels that he is trying to "pin" Jeremy Christian on his movement.

Christian, who was arraigned on

The City of Portland has already

Wheeler also urged the federal government to follow in his footsteps and revoke federal permits issued to the group.

But the U.S. General Services Administration, charged with issuing permits, announced on Wednesday that it would allow the parades.

"All rules and regulations were followed by the applicant for the permit, including the timeframe for review. Since the permit was lawfully obtained to assemble at this federal location, GSA has no basis to revoke the permit," the agency said in a statement.

Revoking permits amounts to government suppression of speech, which has always been illegal, dos Santos said. You cannot withhold permits based on people's viewpoints, he said.

The case is a mirror image of another First Amendment battle out near Chicago 40 years ago.

In 1977, a neo-Nazi organization chose to stage their parade in the suburban Chicago town of Skokie, which at the time was home to thousands of Holocaust survivors.

Parade goers were slated to wear Nazi uniforms and emulate salutes and anti-Jewish chants from Nazi Germany.

Outraged community members tried to put a stop to the parade by using the same arguments set forth by Wheeler. The group said the parade promotes hate speech that would inflict emotional distress upon survivors of the Holocaust.

A girl leaves a message at a makeshift memorial for two men on May 29, 2017 in Portland. The men were killed on a commuter train while trying to stop another man from harassing two young women who appeared to be Muslim. Terray Sylvester / Reuters

Ultimately the Nazi group, represented by the ACLU, won at the Supreme Court level and was legally allowed to march under the first amendment. The group ended up holding a rally downtown instead.

"Part of the problem with hate speech is that it's in the eye of the beholder," said Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. "There is no neutral way to decide what hate speech is and courts will not even attempt it," he said.

The alt-right group has not made any indication that they are planning to incite imminent danger or violence during the parade, which may be questionable under the law, he said. "The idea that you can ban speech because it's offensive or may cause anxiety is not consistent with the first amendment."

Thus far, the alt-right group has not brought suit against the city for revoking their permits, but if the situation does arise, it's an open and shut case, Stone said.

"It's inconceivable to me that a court would uphold the mayor's argument," he said. "This is long standing, well-settled law, and the mayor has it completely wrong," he said.

The rest is here:
Does the First Amendment Protect Alt-Right Parades in Portland? - NBCNews.com

Donald Trump calls the press 'the enemy.' If that's the case, there's a lot more people on that list, says columnist E.J. Montini.

Criticisms of Ducey and Trump are rooted in muddled thinking about the First Amendment's free speech protections.(Photo: Photo: Getty Images)

Gov. Doug Ducey was right to veto the legislation (Senate Bill 1384) limiting the ability of school administrators to regulate the content of student newspapers. Much of the criticism of the veto was rooted in muddled thinking about the First Amendments free speech protections.

The First Amendment is a negative injunction: Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...

That gives Americans the right to write or say what they want. But it doesnt guarantee an audience. Or a publisher.

At the high school level, the publisher of a student newspaper is clearly the school. The vetoed bill would have sharply curtailed the authority a publisher usually has over content. Administrators could only exercise oversight over material that is defamatory, violates privacy or law, or creates an imminent danger of inciting disorder or unlawful conduct.

Those are all nebulous standards, subject to judgment, disagreement and litigation. The bill stated that the school isnt liable for content published in the student media, but thats a doubtful immunity.

The Arizona Constitution is highly protective of the right to sue. Courts are likely to look askance at letting the adults in the equation, and the only deep pockets in the picture, off the hook.

Schools exercising the usual authority of a publisher isnt an infringement on the First Amendment rights of student journalists. If the publisher of this newspaper took the advice of some of you and discontinued this column, my First Amendment rights wouldnt have been violated.

MONTINI: Ducey praises 'free speech' law that could put you in jail

A school punishing a student for content published on a private blog or Facebook might implicate First Amendment rights. But not publishing something in a publication paid for by the school doesnt. Thats exercising the prerogatives of a publisher.

This is a minor point, but not an irrelevant one. One of the challenges our schools face is maintaining an orderly learning environment. Schools arent helped by the Legislature concocting another legal thicket for them to negotiate.

Its unfair to Ducey to bring Donald Trump into the conversation at this point. Ducey behaved responsibly with his veto. Trump is behaving irresponsibly in his war with certain media. Nevertheless, much of the commentary regarding Trumps war with the media is also rooted in muddled thinking about the First Amendment.

The New York Times has a First Amendment right to write what it wants about Trump. And Trump has a First Amendment right to say what he thinks about what The Times writes about him.

Trump exercising his First Amendment rights doesnt curtail or threaten The Times First Amendment rights.

Some commentators make a more subtle point. By attacking certain media, they assert, Trump is undermining the role of the press that the First Amendment was intended to protect.

This is a historical miscue. At the time the First Amendment was adopted, the press, mostly newspapers and pamphleteers, were fiercely and transparently partisan.

The notion of the media as neutral and objective transmitters of information is a modern-era pretense. And the American people have never bought it.

In 2013, Gallup asked how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media such as newspapers, TV, and radio when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all? Well before Trump twitter storms became an important element of public discourse, 55 percent of respondents answered not very much or none at all.

There have been reports that the Trump administration was mulling abandoning the daily White House briefing or even booting reporters out of the White House, and this has been decried as an attack on the First Amendment. This has been the most muddled thinking of all.

Nothing in the First Amendment guarantees self-selected media office space in the White House or an administration spokesman to play gotcha with on a daily basis. Getting rid of both might reduce the herd mentality and emphasis on gotcha journalism and produce more diverse and substantive reporting.

Trump is frequently reckless and irresponsible in his attacks on the media. But so long as we are free to write and say that, the First Amendment is not under siege.

Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com.

MORE FROM ROBB:

Attorneys fleece Target for $18.5 million

Tom Horne's case proves the system is broken

There's a better way to boost teacher pay

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2sdReli

Read this article:
Robb: No, your First Amendment rights aren't being attacked - AZCentral.com

Late last month Republican state Sen. Jim Honeyford, R-Yakima, introduced a bill that would make wearing masks, hoods, and bandanas around your face a gross misdemeanor. Wow.

The bill was written in response to the May Day protests that happened in Olympia this year which resulted in damage (perpetuated by rioters) to property downtown.

There are some exceptions included in the bill: Halloween costumes, religious garb, and people protecting themselves against cold weather would all be exempt from arrest.

Embolden violence?

Honeyford says that he believes anonymity emboldens protesters to commit violence under the guise of political speech, as their identities are protected. Protesters, he says, have become a threat to public safety.

First of all, lets all remember that the First Amendment of the Constitution the supreme law of the land protects the right of protesters to peaceably assemble. Of course, the bill is meant to target the not-so-peaceful participants, but Sen. Honeyford has failed to recognize that many other protesters (who are not rioters) also wear face-coverings during protests in order to protect themselves from potential retaliation.

Therefore, says the American Civil Liberties Union, this bill is a direct infringement upon First Amendment rights.

Encroaching upon constitutional rights isnt even the most annoying thing about Sen. Honeyfords absurd proposal. Like the vast majority of Republicans, Sen. Honeyford is an avid supporter of gun rights. As we all know, the Second Amendment protects gun ownership.

Glaring hypocrisy

Before I go any further, I want to ensure all of you who are now red in the face that I am personally in favor of the Second Amendment as well, regardless of how liberal I am on other issues. What I am not in favor of is hypocrites.

The bill reads that it is meant to target a small but dangerous group of individuals who conceal their identities while committing illegal acts and that it is common sense legislation. Sounds familiar, right? Pretty bold of him to use those arguments, unless he really hasnt made the connection which says a lot about the man.

Democrats dont even have to think of a response to this bill because they can just borrow from the other side. All people shouldnt be punished for the actions of a few, The majority of [these people] are peaceful citizens, Criminals are going to commit crimes regardless of the law, This right protected by the Constitution, you anti-American scumbags!

Like I said, Im not attacking your right to own guns Im just pointing out the glaring hypocrisy.

In addition to claiming that theyre dedicated to upholding the Constitution, Republicans also claim to want to stop overreach of the government. Scale it back, they say. Government needs to keep its nose out of our business! Does that only apply only to conservative business though? Or will Republicans fight for the rights of all Americans? Shouldnt that be their platform if they truly want to make America great again?

I am relieved to see, however, that no other Republicans have (yet) signed on to the bill as a sponsor. This is somewhat uplifting and gives me a tiny, tiny bit of hope. Sen. Honeyford is facing an uphill battle in order to even get a hearing at this point. Regardless, if I have learned anything in the last six months its to never dismiss anything, no matter how ridiculous.

I am personally in favor of the Second Amendment as well, regardless of how liberal I am on other issues. What I am not in favor of is hypocrites.

Stay on topic - This helps keep the thread focused on the discussion at hand. If you would like to discuss another topic, look for a relevant article.

Share with Us - We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article, and smart, constructive criticism.

Be Civil - It's OK to have a difference in opinion but there's no need to be a jerk. We reserve the right to delete any comments that we feel are spammy, off-topic, or reckless to the community.

Be proactive - Use the 'Flag as Inappropriate' link at the upper right corner of each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Read more:
Don't sacrifice 1st Amendment rights for ridiculous proposal - Chinook Observer

The First Amendment Foundation wants Republican Gov. Rick Scott to now also veto a third part of the 2017-18 budget over concerns of a lack of transparency: a priority bill of Senate President Joe Negron's that includes sweeping reforms affecting Florida's 12 public universities and 28 state colleges.

The formal veto request from the non-profit foundation -- of which the Miami Herald and the Tampa Bay Times are members -- comes after similar requests by the organization, which called on Scott toreject the main budget act (SB 2500) and a controversial $419 million K-12 schools bill (HB 7069).

The higher ed bill (SB 374), like the public schools legislation, was among a dozen or so budget-related policy bills that lawmakers negotiated and finalizedbehind closed doorsin the final days of session.

One aspect, though, drew particular criticism: A previously undiscussed change to benchmarks that make the state's top-tier, research-focuseduniversities eligible for millions of dollars in additional funding.Several lawmakers in the Tampa Bay area said they were blindsided when they learned the change would preventthe University of South Florida from reaching "pre-eminent" status -- and earn the bonus dollars -- as it had been on track to do.

In a letter to Scott, First Amendment Foundation president Barbara Petersen blasted the fact that SB 374was "decided in secrecyand seemingly in direct violation of the right of access to legislative meetings."

"The secretive process precluded any opportunity for public oversight or input on major changes to Floridas to (sic) post-secondary education policy," Petersen wrote. "We are extremely concerned that not only were university and higher education officials shut out, but also legislators from key committees were unaware of changes made to this critically important bill.

Read the foundation's full letter here.

After this post was published, Negron's office offered a statement to the Herald/Times in response to the foundation's criticism of the bill.

Over the 18 months that we have been discussing elements of higher education reform, I am not aware of the First Amendment Foundation ever contacting me personally, any other Senator, or any member of the Senate professional staff to express any concern with this legislation whatsoever," Negron, R-Stuart, said in the statement. " As a result, todays critique is completely ill-informed and inaccurate."

Negron said he has "been discussing many of the reforms contained in Senate Bill 374 since my designation in 2015" and that other ideas in the bill resulted from feedback he received while touring all state universities last year. He argued "every component of the bill was vetted by three Senate committees and amendments by senators were offered and incorporated at every step of the process."

"The only significant change to the legislation that occurred during the conference process was to delay the implementation of a four-year graduation metric for one year so that universities have extra time to plan," he said.

However, several lawmakers on the final day of session complained that they were not consulted and were actually left completely unaware of the change in graduation metrics that would cost USF millions of dollars -- that is, until those lawmakers received urgent callsfrom USF trustees and administrators the weekend before the Legislature voted on the budget package.

I was flat embarrassed, Sen. Tom Lee, R-Thonotosassa, said on the Senate floor on May 8. We should never learn about the impact of what we did from the people were impacting.

Scott on Wednesday received the main budget act (SB 2500), but none of the "conforming" bills -- such as SB 374 or HB 7069 -- have been officially sent to him yet.

Read the original:
First Amendment Foundation also wants veto of higher education bill - Tampabay.com (blog)

Here is reality pregnancy is a choice, other than for the most tragic, horrible (and criminal) of circumstances.

Reality, however, is not always a consideration in this age of American entitlement.

Disease and illness sometimes have nothing to do with choice or responsibility. For example, lung cancer can strike those who have never smoked.

However, other than in the most extreme of circumstances, pregnancy is a choice. And there are those who deem actions surrounding this choice at odds with their religious beliefs.

That is why the Trump administrations decision to consider rolling back a federal mandate for free birth control (part of the boondoggle of Obamacare) is welcome.

The free birth control debate boils down to this the constitutional rights of Americans to remain true to their religious beliefs versus the perceived right of women to have free contraception to prevent the consequences of a personal choice.

Logically, there is little debate as to which side holds up from a constitutional perspective.

And speaking of reality, contrary to what entitlement-supporters like Nancy Pelosi think, no one is denying women access to birth control. This is what Pelosi had to say (from http://www.huffingtonpost.com): The draft rule attempts to tear away womens control over their own private health decisions and put that control in the hands of employers and politicians.

Women can still obtain birth control; they should just pay for it themselves. This may be a foreign concept to some liberals people using their own money to pay for products and services but the concept works.

And we are not implying that employers should not be allowed to include contraception coverage in their health care plans for female employees. If businesses want to provide this benefit, that is fine. The problem is when the federal government forces employers and/or businesses to include this benefit with little to no regard for religious beliefs.

According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that states the federal government can force a private employer to provide insurance coverage for free birth control pills and prohibit someone from the free exercise of their religion.

See more here:
Editorial: Don't erase First Amendment - Amarillo.com