Mediaboss Marketing

Protesters against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Washington on May 16, 2017.(Photo: Shawn Thew, epa)

The contrast between despotism and liberty wason stark display last week in the nation's capital, when bodyguards of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan set upon protesters exercising free-speech rights in front of the Turkish ambassador's residence.

Video capturedimagesof the Turkish strongman emerging from a car to watch his beefy sentinels pummel and kick dissidents until the violence was quelled by baton-wieldingD.C. police. Eleven people were injured, including a police officer.

The May 16 melee, largely overshadowed by last week's bombshell newsinvolving President Trumpand the Russians, was behavior that might have passed for state-sanctioned oppression in Ankara. But this took place along Washington's Embassy Row,and demonstrators acted with the First Amendment's blessing to peaceably assemble.

Imagine the outcry if Israeli protesters gatheringoutside the King David Hotel in Jerusalem during President Trump's visit this week hadbeensuddenly attacked by members of the U.S. Secret Service.Nor was this the first time Erdogan's security team fought with demonstrators in downtown Washington. A clash broke out in front of the Brookings Institutionlast year.

Suchbrutality is sadly what Americans have come to expect from a leader who once held promise as a much needed reformer for a leadingdemocracy in the Islamic world, only to turn increasing autocratic. Last year, Erdogan barely won areferendum, marred by allegations of fraud,that substantially increased the powers of his presidency. After a coup attempt in July, he launched a widespread purge, jailing thousands of opponents, journalists and educators.

OPPOSING VIEW:

Turkish ambassador: Protesters posed a threat

When the United States and other Western nations called for restraint, Erdogan dismissed them. That's why it was so galling to see his imperiousness on display in the U.S. capital. One video of the event last week showsa henchman leaning inside Erdogan's car,as if seeking direction. The man thenturns and signals another, who plunges into the demonstrators with his fists swinging. Some protesters also threw punches.

Two Erdogan guards were detained by policebut later released;all have since left the country. An investigation continues, but diplomatic immunity would make it toughto bring Erdogan's guards to justice.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called the Turkish conduct "outrageous," and his department issued a condemnation, summoning Turkey's ambassador to the U.S., Serdar Kl, for a dressing down. Days later, theTurkish Foreign Ministry in Ankara playing tit for tat similarly called in the U.S. ambassador to complain of how police treated those guards.

But the White House has remainedsilent on the violence that occurred shortly after Trump heaped praised on Erdogan during a meeting between the pair.Increasingly and disturbingly, the presidenthas been drawn to strongmen who trample onhuman rights, among them Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, PhilippinePresident Eduardo Duterte and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Doesn't Trump care about Erdogan's thugs beating up protesters just blocks from the White House? The president has, after all, sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and its First Amendment.

Instead, it's left to others like Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.,to exorcise the bitter taste this episode has left. "That's not America," McCain said.No, it is not.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by itsEditorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view a unique USA TODAY feature.

To read more editorials, go to theOpinion front pageor sign up for thedaily Opinion email newsletter.To respond to this editorial, submit a comment toletters@usatoday.com.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2rW6bHM

Read the original:
Turkey henchmen kick First Amendment - USA TODAY

It's impossible to view Montana Republican Greg Gianforte's assault on journalist Ben Jacobs in isolation. As many outlets are now pointing out, the number of threatening incidents this month alone is startling. The AP writes:

The editor of Alaskas largest newspaper said a state senator slapped one of his reporters when the reporter sought the lawmakers opinion on a recently published article.

A Washington-based reporter from CQ Roll Call said he was pinned against the wall by security guards and forced to leave the Federal Communications Commission headquarters after he tried to question an FCC commissioner after a news conference.

A West Virginia journalist was arrested after yelling questions about the opioid epidemic at U.S. Health Secretary Tom Price.

We've all watched Donald Trump stoke this fire among his base for monthscasting reporters as the enemy of the American people and news outlets as "evil" and hellbent on treating him unfairly.

On the campaign trail, Trump's ire had a trickle-down effect.

At one rally, a man was photographed in a shirt that read, Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some Assembly Required.

It should be little wonder now that $100,000 worth of donations poured into Gianforte's coffers as news of his attack and unrepentant statement following it spread across the country.

Read more here:
Trump's attack on First Amendment press freedoms puts reporters at the tip of the spear - Daily Kos

Buck's Racks and Ribs was cited by the Greenville County Sheriff's Office Wednesday.(Photo: Provided)

A Greenville restaurant that has opened in the location of a former strip clubhas filed a lawsuitagainst the county and the Sheriff's Office, alleging thebusiness's rights to freedom of expression are being violated, according to court documents.

In a suit filed on May 23, Greenville Bistro and Frontage Road Associates, operator and lesseeof BucksRacks & Ribs, nameGreenville County and Sheriff Will Lewis and allegethe county violated an agreement reached by prior business, Platinum Plus, in 2002 and again in 2015, after owners, Elephant, Inc., filed a suit against the county.

The parties say in the suit that entertainment provided by Greenville Bistro constitutes free expression protected by the First Amendment.

The suit statesthat while the restaurant on 805 Frontage Road,hasno affiliation to Elephant, Inc.,itdoespractice a "similar business" as the former occupant,and that the county treats the business as a sexual adult establishment. The county is attempting to prevent, "any form of entertainment or expression at the property" by issuing citations and violation notices, according to the suit.

No employee of the current establishment"appears in a state of nudity,engages in any specified sexual activities, or displays any specified anatomical areas, according to the plaintiffs.

On Wednesday, the restaurant received three citations from Greenville County deputies after deputies performing a compliance check witnessed someone exposing an unlawfulamount of flesh, said Sgt. Ryan Flood, Sheriff's Officespokesman.

It was the second time this year, the restauranthas beenissued citations by the Sheriff's Office.

The plaintiffs are seekinga jury trial and repaymentof attorney fees.

Bannister, Wyatt & Stalvey, LLC in Greenville,representing the plaintiffscould not be reached for comment. Luke Charles Lirot, out ofClearwater, Florida, is also listed as a co-counsel for the plaintiffs.

More: Once a strip club, now a restaurant

Related: Greenville County paid law firm $79K for Platinum Plus litigation

More: Platinum Plus Greenville ordered to close again

Read or Share this story: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/crime/2017/05/25/owners-bucks-racks-ribs-file-1st-amendment-suit-against-county-sheriffs-office/345573001/

See more here:
Owners of Bucks Racks & Ribs file 1st Amendment suit against County, Sheriff's Office - Greenville News

Gov. Brian Sandoval signed into law this past week a legislatively passed bill that makes it illegal for any psychotherapist in Nevada to provide conversion therapy to anyone under the age of 18.

Senate Bill 201 defines conversion therapy as any practice or treatment that seeks to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of a person.

It states this therapy is barred regardless of the willingness of the person or his or her parent or legal guardian to authorize such therapy. The bill description justifies this usurpation of individual and parental rights by claiming the practice is ineffective and potentially harmful.

In a statement released to the press, the bills chief sponsor, state Sen. David Parks of Las Vegas, said, Banning conversion therapy makes Nevada a safer place for children who are at a higher risk of anxiety, depression, substance abuse and even suicide.

But what is therapy? These days it is not torture, electric shock or some emersion in aversion straight out of A Clockwork Orange. It is talk. You know, free speech.

But SB201 dictates that some speech is permissible while other speech is not. While it prohibits speech that might prompt a person to reconsider his or her sexual orientation or gender identity, it specifically allows support or confirmation for a person undergoing gender transition or provides acceptance, support and understanding of a person or facilitates a persons ability to cope, social support and identity exploration and development

It is a one-way street. The courts have repeatedly ruled that laws that limit speech based solely on its content violates the First Amendment.

Presumably, if a professional merely talked to a minor about the results of years of research and studies and that talk resulted in a change of attitude about sexual orientation, that would be illegal under the law. Facts matter for naught.

Drs. Paul McHugh and Lawrence Mayer of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine have written that 80 to 95 percent of all children who express feelings of gender dysphoria abandon those feelings upon maturity and that more than 80 percent of youth claiming to experience same-sex attractions in late childhood and adolescence identified themselves as exclusively heterosexual upon becoming adults. Would telling a minor to let nature take its course violate the law?

A late amendment to the law makes a ham-fisted attempt to protect religious counselors from being punished under the law, but it is so convoluted as to be indecipherable and totally useless. It tries to tiptoe around the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, but instead does a Mexican hat dance.

It states there is nothing in this bill that regulates or prohibits licensed health care professionals from engaging in expressive speech or religious counseling with such children if the licensed health care professionals: (1) are acting in their pastoral or religious capacity as members of the clergy or as religious counselors; and (2) do not hold themselves out as operating pursuant to their professional licenses when so acting in their pastoral or religious capacity.

They have to take off their professional licensee hat and put on their clerical hat.

A group called the Alliance Defending Freedom points out the Catch-22 in that.

Nevada law states that it is unlawful for any person to engage in the practice of marriage and family therapy unless the person is licensed the Alliance points out. Telling licensed professionals that they can only engage in certain speech and activities if they do so outside of the umbrella of their license exposes them to ethical and legal liability. It places them between a rock and a hard place. If they do the counseling under their license, they violate SB 201; if they do it outside the scope of their license, they violate another law.

What a tangled web lawmakers weave when they decide they know whats best for young people, and they and their parents dont.

The Latin phrase is in loco parentis, meaning in the place of a parent. The emphasis should be on the loco. Someone should challenge the constitutionality of this law in court.

Link:
Conversion therapy ban violates First Amendment - Mesquite Local News

Washington has mistakenly joined a handful of other states in what appears to be a coordinated effort to battle the First Amendment.

A proposal to prohibit protesters from wearing masks or hoods during demonstrations is so obviously unconstitutional, its a wonder state Sen. Jim Honeyford, R-Sunnyside, thought it was a good idea.

The Legislature already decided to not even give a hearing to a related proposal from Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, earlier in the session. That one would have made it a crime for protesters to cause economic disruption, such as blocking railroad tracks.

The First Amendment is a powerful protection of the right to free speech and all manner of peaceful protest, masked or unmasked. But the people of Washington state already know that.

Lawmakers have much bigger problems to solve right now, such as passing a state budget and answering the Supreme Courts 2012 McCleary decision on school funding.

So why are these bills popping up in our state this year? According to the National Lawyers Guild, anti-protesting legislation is a national trend, partially tied to protests after the presidential election.

Lawmakers in at least 19 states have proposed bills that would criminalize or penalize protesting in various ways. A handful focus on tampering with infrastructure or trespassing. Missouri also proposed a mask law. Among the most alarming bills is one that would remove liability from drivers who accidentally hit and kill protesters.

Washington is used too often as a proving ground for ideas from out-of-state hyperpartisan groups from protest bills on the right to Democracy vouchers on the left, which were embraced by Seattle but rejected by statewide voters.

The mask bill would make it illegal for someone to stand on a sidewalk, road, alley or any public area with his face covered, but it grants religious and holiday exemptions.

Would the bill exempt people who wear heavy makeup because they are making a choice to alter their appearance? What if someone decides to cover her face for modesty or health reasons, but is not associated with any religion?

Just like Sen. Ericksens bill, Honeyfords bill should not get a hearing in any legislative committee. Lets cut the marionette strings and prevent coordinated attacks on the First Amendment from gaining a foothold in Washington state.

Continued here:
Attacking the First Amendment with mask bill is wrong and a waste of legislators' time - The Seattle Times