Mediaboss Marketing

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler took several positions on the First Amendment during the past two weeks.

On May 29, Wheeler asked the federal government to block a downtown Portland rally organized by right-wing protesters, saying visiting extremists had no legal right to hate speech. That request was denied by the feds, decried by civil liberties watchdogs, and sneered at by "alt-right" leaders.

Worse, he was wrong: The protections of the U.S. Constitution are designed to forbid the government, including Portland mayors, from deciding what citizens can and cannot say, even when it is deeply offensive.

By this week, Wheeler's office reversed itself again, saying the mayor had misspoken.

Wednesday, May 24 In a WW story on the street brawls that had already occurred between alt-right and antifascist groups, Wheeler's spokesman Michael Cox said: "Portland is going to continue with our strategy: honoring First Amendment rights while not tolerating acts of violence, vandalism or blocking transit."

Monday, May 29 Three days after a double murder on a MAX train, Wheeler called for revoking federal permits for the alt-right rally:

"My main concern is that they are coming to peddle a message of hatred and of bigotry. And I am reminded constantly that they have a First Amendment right to speak, but my pushback on that is that hate speech is not protected."

Wednesday, May 31 Wheeler wrote an op-ed in USA Today, backing away from his interpretation of the Constitution from a day earlier:

"I am a firm supporter of the First Amendment. While this planned demonstration is constitutional, it is highly irresponsible."

Monday, June 5 Cox said Wheeler didn't really mean hate speech was unconstitutional:

"He was being a being a bit imprecise. He was really talking about words meant to incite violence."

View post:
Mayor Ted Wheeler Changed His Mind About the First Amendment ... - Willamette Week

By Win McNamee/Getty.

Even Donald Trump, who plans to stop tweeting approximately never and may even live-tweet during former F.B.I. director James Comeys testimony on Thursday like its an episode of The Bachelor, doesnt want everyone following him on Twitter. Like any half-sane person on the social-media platform, he has blocked a number of people from seeing or responding to his tweets. Unlike the rest of us, however, Trump is also president of the United States, and, as White House press secretary Sean Spicer said on Tuesday, Trump tweets should be considered official statements by the president. Which means that Trump may be violating the First Amendment rights of the people he has blocked.

Thats the argument being made by lawyers for two Twitter users who were blocked by the president, closing off access to what they say he is using as an official, public platform. This Twitter account operates as a designated public forum for First Amendment purposes, and accordingly the viewpoint-based blocking of our clients is unconstitutional, nonprofit organization Knight First Amendment Institute said in a letter to Trump on Tuesday. We ask that you unblock them and any others who have been blocked for similar reasons. Some legal experts are more dubious. Ken White, a First Amendment expert and former assistant U.S. attorney, says he finds the case ridiculous. Theres also an argument to be made that Trump is merely behaving within the terms of service of Twitter, a privately held company.

Whatever the merits of the case, it is undeniable that Twitter has become a central feature of the Trump presidency, and one of its greatest vulnerabilities. White House aides and allies have implored Trump to stop tweeting, to vet his posts with a lawyer first, or to at least limit what has become a deeply self-destructive habit. The tweeting makes everybody crazy, Trumps close friend Tom Barrack, the chairman of Colony Northstar, said at a Bloomberg conference this week. Theres just no gain in doing it.

In the past few days alone, he has attacked the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, after a terrorist attack that left seven dead, and appeared to undermine his own legal teams efforts to defend his immigration executive order before the Supreme Court, using a tweet to call it a TRAVEL BAN and drawing a remarkable rebuke from Kellyanne Conways husband, George, who noted on Twitter that the presidents online posts may have sabotaged his own case. Voters want Trump to stop tweeting, too: a new Politico poll says that 69 percent of voters say the president uses Twitter too much. Fifty-nine percent say his Twitter habit is a bad thing, and even 53 percent of G.O.P. voters say he should cut down on his use of the platform.

Excerpt from:
Is Trump Violating the First Amendment by Blocking People on Twitter? - Vanity Fair

NEW YORK President Donald Trump may be the nations tweeter-in-chief, but some Twitter users say hes violating the First Amendment by blocking people from his feed after they posted scornful comments.

Lawyers for two Twitter users sent the White House a letter Tuesday demanding they be un-blocked from the Republican presidents @realDonaldTrump account.

The viewpoint-based blocking of our clients is unconstitutional, wrote attorneys at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in New York.

The White House didnt immediately respond to a request for comment.

The tweeters one a liberal activist, the other a cyclist who says hes a registered Republican have posted and retweeted plenty of complaints and jokes about Trump.

They say they found themselves blocked after replying to a couple of his recent tweets.

The activist, Holly OReilly, posted a video of Pope Francis casting a sidelong look at Trump and suggested this was how the whole world sees you. The cyclist, Joe Papp, responded to the presidents weekly address by asking why he hadnt attended a rally by supporters and adding, with a hashtag, fakeleader.

Blocking people on Twitter means they cant easily see or reply to the blockers tweets.

Although Trump started @realDonaldTrump as a private citizen and Twitter isnt government-run, the Knight institute lawyers argue that hes made it a government-designated public forum by using it to discuss policies and engage with citizens. Indeed, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that Trumps tweets are considered official statements by the president.

The institutes executive director, Jameel Jaffer, compares Trumps Twitter account to a politician renting a privately-owned hall and inviting the public to a meeting.

The crucial question is whether a government official has opened up some space, whether public or private, for expressive activity, and theres no question that Trump has done that here, Jaffer said. The consequence of that is that he cant exclude people based solely on his disagreement with them.

The users werent told why they were blocked. Their lawyers maintain that the connection between their criticisms and the cutoff was plain.

Still, theres scant law on free speech and social media blocking, legal scholars note.

This is an emerging issue, says Helen Norton, a University of Colorado Law School professor who specializes in First Amendment law.

Morgan Weiland, an affiliate scholar with Stanford Law Schools Center for Internet and Society, says the blocked tweeters complaint could air key questions if it ends up in court. Does the public forum concept apply in privately run social media? Does it matter if an account is a politicians personal account, not an official one?

San Francisco-based Twitter Inc. declined to comment. The tweeters arent raising complaints about the company.

38.907192 -77.036871

Visit link:
Twitter users blocked by Trump say he's violating the First Amendment - New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV

Harvards recent decision to rescind the admittance of at least ten incoming freshmen has some rallying around the First Amendment.

The Harvard Crimson, Harvards main student newspaper, originally reported on the school denying admittance to a group of incoming freshmen because of their involvement in a private Facebook group. The group, a spin-off group message from an official Harvard College Class of 2021 Facebook page, was used to send memes and other messages mocking sexual assault and the Holocaust, as well as make racially charged jokes.

The messaging group was at one point titled Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens. Some of the jokes suggested abusing children was sexually arousing, and one called the hanging of a Mexican child piata time, according to The Crimson.

Harvards decision to deny the students admittance, however, has some decrying the action as a violation of the students free speech.Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi said there is something creepy about Harvards policing of the students discussion, especially in light of the schools 2017 commencement address centered around free speech.

What Vennochi is missing, however, is that consequences a private institution inflicts are not equal to government censorship.Shouts of But free speech! are often heard when a politically charged action receives public backlash. Comedian Kathy Griffin received a similar free speech defense when she was dropped from CNNs New Years Eve lineup after the photograph of her holding the severed head of President Trump garnered public denouncement.

The First Amendment, however, only protects ones right to say or do something absent government reprisal. It doesnt protect someone from any social consequences.Harvard, as part of the private sphere, may admit any students it chooses. It has the right to not admit students whose values do not align with the schools, and making racist and explicit jokes reflects the character of the students. Thats part of another First Amendment right, called free association. We have the right to choose with whom we will associate, free also of government coercion.

Although these jokes were sent over a private messaging group, many colleges check applicants social media, according to a Kaplan Test Prep survey. Social media presence can give colleges a good idea of a students character outside of the submitted essays and transcripts.Because the other members of this messaging group were also incoming Harvard freshmen, participants should have realized the chances of the contents leaking outside the group were high and behaved as it if were a public page.

Although these students have a right to share their jokes, Harvard has a right to not be associated with those jokes or people who make them. Waving the First Amendment flag only reflects the flag-bearers fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between government censorship and private consequences.So instead of hiding behind the First Amendment, call Harvards decision what it isnegative social consequences for bad behavior.

Read the original:
Harvard Rescinded Acceptances Over Private Facebook Posts, And That Doesn't Violate The First Amendment - The Federalist

Princeton op-ed says hate speech not protected by 1st Amendment because its an action

A Princeton University student believes that, the pesky First Amendment notwithstanding, offensive speech shouldbe restricted because it really is an action.

Comparative literature major Chang Che apparentlythinksjust because hes read J.L. Austins How To Do Things With Words it should magically apply to a couple of centuries of free speech jurisprudence.

Writing in The Daily Princetonian, Che says Americas constitutional interest in free speech has come in direct opposition to its reservations toward hate speech,' and that in a country with diverse religious, ethnic, and economic groups, some choice words can undermine our ideal of an accepting society.

How, then, can we reconcile this fundamental right as granted by our Founding Fathers with the increasingly pertinent need to question our choice of words?

Heres how: Just equate words with actions.

Before you gasp HUH?Che explains:

The modern discourse of political correctness has exposed a fundamental ambiguity in the language of our founding fathers, an ambiguity that philosophy has been attuned to since the Middle Ages such as in St. Augustines On Lying and formalized by J.L. Austin in his seminal work How To Do Things With Words. The ambiguity concerns the dualistic dimensions of speech: as a mode of expression and as a mode of action. While modern discourses surrounding the First Amendment equate freedom of speech with freedom of expression assuming that speech is primarily used as a mode of expressing ones ideas expression is but one function of speech. And in the context of harming others with language, it has overshadowed another equally important nature of language: the speech act.

Austin defines the speech act as speech that performs some sort of action in lieu of, or in addition to, its conventional meaning. For example, the utterance I promise not only refers to the act of promising but is, itself, the very condition by which that action is achieved I make a promise by merely uttering the words I promise.

Speech, therefore, is not only a mode of communication, but also one of action. And in the context of discriminatory language, these acts can be particularly invidious. The constitutional right to free speech, one that is generally understood as the right to articulate ones opinions and ideas, then, does not and should not encompass harmful speech acts. Since these types of speech primarily serve as actions, they should be evaluated as such, rather than under the First Amendment, which protects against freedom of speech as expression.

As an example, Che advises considering the words gay and faggot. Although both refer to the same type of individual, the latter does much more than the conventional use of language as expression it has a distinct act: the act of demonizing, abnormalizing, or stigmatizing that particular identity.

He also says theres something wrong when you can be punished for shoplifting, but not for characterizing Mexicans as rapists.'

Its time we abandon the assumption that actions speak louder than words because, more often than not, words do more than actions, Che concludes.

Lets just cut to the chase: This type of nonsense postmodern wordsmithing is no different from that of the Critical Race Theorists who, among other things, believe our basic freedoms should be subject to peoples feelings as well astheir past degree of marginalization and oppression.

Read the full piece.

MORE: Critical race theory and free speech limits based on feelings

MORE: Free speech sliding scale on display at UW Madison

MORE:College students views on free speech are rather worrisome

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Shutterstock

About the Author

Assistant Editor

Here is the original post:
Princeton op-ed says 'hate speech' not protected by 1st Amendment because it's an 'action' - The College Fix