Mediaboss Marketing

Last Wednesday, officials of the University of California Berkeley announced that they were canceling a speech to be given by conservative writer Ann Coulter scheduled for April 27. Then last Thursday, facing the prospect of a lawsuit, caught between the First Amendment and the fear of violence, university officials proposed that Coulters speech be moved to May 2 a move she and her supporters quickly rejected, pointing out that there would be no students on campus, as it coincided with a reading period before final exams.

This was a low point for the birthplace of the free-speech movement.

Ive known Ann Coulter for years, and Ive gone to great lengths truly great lengths to disagree with her. After she published a book called Godless, which accused liberalism of being a godless religion, I wrote a book called Soulless, which attacked the right-wing church of hate. I even donned her trademark sleeveless black dress, added about 10 inches of long blonde hair and posed for a cover that looked almost as sexy as hers.

We agree on almost nothing, except for the importance of free speech and public discourse. And we have always gotten along just fine.

Last summer, when a reporter went to her for comments about me, she could not have been more gracious. Thats how it should be in a democracy.

Our Founding Fathers understood something that seems to be getting lost in the ugly partisanship that has gripped our country. You dont deal with speech you dont like by shutting it down. You deal with it by speaking up yourself.Speech is powerful; it is protected not because it is harmless but because the alternative is even worse.And that alternative is what were facing now.

It is not just at Berkeley that this issue is rearing its ugly head. In response to the cancellation of a speech at Claremont-McKenna College by Heather Mac Donald, the president of Pomona College (part of the Claremont Colleges consortium) wrote an open letter defending the principle of free speech. To my shock, frankly, a group of African-American students went on the attack, claiming that white supremacists (Mac Donald is a fellow of the conservative Manhattan Institute, not the Klan) have no right to free speech. Come again? Who is supposed to decide who gets to speak? Do these students not understand that it is precisely oppressed minorities who have historically needed the protection of the First Amendment the most? Do they really think that if speech is regulated, they will be the beneficiaries? On which planet? Under which president?

For those who disagree with Coulter, shutting down her speech only elevates her position. Instead of speaking before a group of students two weeks before exams, the cancellation has brought her national attention and brought Berkeley the criticism it must surely have expected.

But blaming Berkeley is the easy way out. One way or another, the great majority of Americans who support the Constitution must stand up to the minority who think violence and censorship is the answer to speech they dont like. You cannot pick and choose which civil liberties to support, which opinions deserve protection.

As a writer myself, I get more than my share of ugly emails from people who disagree with me. No one enjoys reading those. And as a woman and a Jew, I have sharply felt the sting of hatred. But unless there is a threat of violence (the Constitution provides for shutting down speech if it poses an imminent threat of violence or an imminent threat to national security), the way to handle such ugly emails is simply hitting the Trash button, or better yet, responding with more speech.

Because if you shut down free speech this time, next time, the one who is shut down might be you.

See the original post:
Is the First Amendment dead? - Times-Enterprise

posted at 10:41 pm on April 27, 2017 by Allahpundit

Ah, big missed opportunity here by YouGov. They should have asked people to define abuse. Does the press abuse its freedom when it uses anonymous sources? When it publishes documents that werent supposed to be public? Even the obvious definitions (e.g., printing out-and-out falsehoods) could have made for interesting follow-up questions. Is it an abuse of press freedom to make an honest mistake in reporting or are only deliberate lies abusive? If the latter, should we change defamation law to make it easier for public figures like Trump to sue news outlets for good-faith mistakes?

Same question here as in the post about the Iran poll: How much of this result is driven by loyalty to Trump and how much is driven by extraneous circumstances? The White Houses war on fake news must be contributing to it but right-wing loathing of the press existed long before Trump and will exist long after his administration has passed into history.

This data comes from a different new poll, conducted online by UVAs Center for Politics, but it makes Republican disdain for the media more, shall we say, vivid:

Thats an interesting result because Trump has claimed more than once, including at CPAC this year, that his quote about the press has been distorted and misunderstood. He never said the media is the enemy of the American people, he reminds people. He said the fake news media is the enemy. It was just a few days ago that he reiterated the distinction between the media proper, which he loves loves loves almost as much as he loves things with his name emblazoned on them (which pretty well describes most of American media day to day), and the fake news subset. The Center for Politics didnt make that distinction, though, and neither did the Republicans they surveyed. To Republicans, either the entire media is fake news or even the non-fake stuff is enemy action. In fact, a separate question asked by CFP of Trump voters confirms that hes essentially immune from media criticism among his base. When you hear the media being critical of Donald Trump, the pollster asked, does their criticism make you question your support for him, or does it reinforce that hes on the right track in terms of shaking things up in Washington, D.C.? Result: 12/88.

Heres Jake Tapper nudging CNN viewers to remember that the media-critic-in-chief produces plenty of fake news himself. One last data point worth mentioning, this time from YouGov: When asked how important the media is in determining how well presidents do their jobs, Trump voters were much more likely to say not important (45 percent) than the population at large was (27 percent). Trump would probably say the same thing if asked knowing that thats what hes supposed to say, if only to deny the press any sense that they have leverage over him, but if ever there was a politician who really obviously views the media as crucial to his performance, its the tabloid mainstay turned reality-show star turned president Donald Trump, a.k.a. John Barron. This is a guy who boasts about Sean Spicers ratings and who has allegedly ruled out people for cabinet positions based on their appearance. In his heart of hearts, in an age of ubiquitous media, I bet he thinks media management is 90 percent of his job, which is of course insane. Its no more than 75 percent.

See original here:
Poll: 73% of Republicans say the media is abusing its First Amendment freedom of the press An error occurred. - Hot Air

Last Updated Apr 26, 2017 8:08 PM EDT

BERKELEY, Calif. -- Ann Coulter said in an email Wednesday that her speaking event planned for this week at the University of California, Berkeley, is "canceled" but implied she might still travel to the city or campus anyway.

Amid growing concerns of violence on campus whether Coulter turns up or not, the conservative pundit lost the backing of groups that had initially sponsored her appearance.

In an email to the Associated Press, Coulter wrote "Berkeley canceled" when asked to confirm if she would appear at the campus on Thursday.

She added, however, "I have my flights, so I thought I might stroll around the graveyard of the First Amendment."

In this April 21, 2017, photo, a leaflet is seen stapled to a message board near Sproul Hall on the University of California at Berkeley in Berkeley, Calif.

AP

Coulter was invited by campus Republicans to speak at Berkeley and her speaking fee was to be subsidized by a conservative group called the Young America's Foundation, which pulled its support Tuesday citing concerns of violence.

UC Berkeley officials say they are bracing for possible violence on campus whether Coulter comes to speak or not.

Campus spokesman Dan Mogulof said UC Berkeley officials had not heard directly from Coulter on Wednesday. But he said even if she cancels, some groups that support or oppose her could still turn out on campus.

"We have serious concerns and we're acting accordingly," Mogulof said. "We're taking the steps that our law enforcement officials believe to be necessary in order to provide safety for our students, members of the campus community and the public."

He said police were taking necessary steps to protect the campus.

Ann Coulter arrives at the 2016 TV Land Icon Awards at Barker Hangar on Sun., April 10, 2016, in Santa Monica, Calif.

AP

Police at UC Berkeley say they are preparing to deploy a "highly visible" presence of officers on campus, despite the cancellation of Ann Coulter's speech on Thursday.

Capt. Alex Yao of the University of California Police Department says authorities have received intelligence that protest groups could turn up throughout the day and into the night.

He said Wednesday that police would have a "very, very low tolerance for any violence."

The Berkeley College Republicans who had invited Ann Coulter to the University of California, Berkeley confirmed the group canceled her planned speech over safety concerns.

Troy Worden, the student group's president, says college Republicans "had to cancel the event out of concern for the safety of students."

Worden made the comments Wednesday in a news conference on UC Berkeley's campus.

Berkeley has been the scene of two violent clashes between alt-right and anti-fascist proponents in the last three months, reports CBS Sacramento. There have been numerous arrests, thousands of dollars in property damage and injuries.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Here is the original post:
Ann Coulter says speech is "canceled" but she may still visit Berkeley - CBS News

By Katie Tabeling | Apr 27, 2017

(April 28, 2017) Boardwalk performers who disagree with Ocean City governments registration system could have their day in court, as a U.S. District Court judge has denied the citys motion to dismiss their lawsuit.

The decision issued last Tuesday by Judge William M. Nickerson was that the plaintiffs argument that the regulations restrict their First Amendment rights have merit.

In 2015, several Boardwalk buskers and local activist Tony Christ filed suit seeking $1 million in punitive and compensatory damages as a result of the citys ordinance that established a first come, first serve sign-up system for roughly 30 spaces. The performers and Christ also sought injunctive relief.

Last year, Ocean City adjusted its regulations to a lottery drawing for spaces and officials worked with performers to hear their complaints this past summer. However, the lawsuit continued.

The suit was rejected twice by the court because of procedural missteps, but then attorney David Gray Wright took the case on behalf of the plaintiffs and filed a third suit last September.

While not reaching the merits of the motions to dismiss it is clear that Plaintiffs action arises under the First Amendment of the United States

Constitution, which can be enforced against municipalities through due process clause [in the 14th Amendment, Nickerson wrote in his opinion.

Last year, City Solicitor Guy Ayres filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the complaint was little more than legal conclusions that the ordinance violates the First Amendment.

Nickerson disagreed and said that the third complaint detailed exactly how performers were limited.

Significantly, in support of this portion of its motion [to dismiss], Ocean City cites no case law in any way related to free speech and expressions claims, he wrote. Upon review of the allegations in the third amended complaint and the relevant case law, the court concludes that the plaintiffs allegations are more than sufficient to state claims for relief.

Several examples Nickerson referenced included magician and ventriloquist Joseph Smith, whose act draws large crowds and would need a larger space than permitted by the ordinance.

Another example was Bob Peasley, a singer and guitar player who suffers from partial paralysis and uses a wheelchair. His physical restrictions make it difficult for him to be physically present for the weekly lottery, the complaint contends.

Considering that, Nickerson wrote that the complaint aptly demonstrates how the ordinance has limited buskers artistic endeavors.

They have further alleged that these restrictions are substantially broader than necessary to achieve Ocean Citys interest, he wrote. While Ocean City may be able to refute those allegations, at this stage in the proceedings, the court must accept them as true and draw all inferences in the plaintiffs favor.

More:
Buskers' First Amendment lawsuit allowed to proceed - Ocean City Today

NEWSEUM FACEBOOK The U.S. received a barely passing grade for its treatment of First Amendment protections.

The United States earned a C+ overall grade in the Newseum Institutes inaugural First Amendment Report Card, which analyzed the state of the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.

The freedoms of assembly and petition received the highest grades, each earning a B-, while the freedoms of religion and speech each obtained a mark of C+. The panelists gave the freedom of the press the lowest grade: a C-.

Newseum Institute Chief Operating Officer Gene Policinski said these grades may be the results of a citizenry that has taken its First Amendment freedoms for granted, or that has defined these freedoms in narrow ways, according to a piece published on the Newseums News and Commentary section.

With respect to the freedom of the press, Policinski specifically cites surveys dating back to the 1990s that show growing public apprehension about whether the media continues to play a watchdog role.

Policinski also cites the resource dearth that many journalists and media employees now face.

Ken Paulson, the president of the Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center, said the grades given in the First Amendment Report Card are likely related to the current administrations expressed views on the media and press.

President Donald Trump recently announced he will not attend the White House Correspondents Dinner, making him the first sitting president in 36 years to miss the dinner. He has repeatedly attacked news organizations that report unfavorably about his administration, including CNN and The New York Times.

Most notably, Trump called the press the enemy of the American people in a Feb. 17 tweet, while Press Secretary Sean Spicer prevented journalists from The Times and other news organizations from attending an informal briefing on Feb. 24. White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon labelled the news media as the opposition party in a Jan. 25 interview with The New York Times.

There are issues involving the presidents stance toward the news media that are of concern. When you single out a free press as being the enemy of the people, thats going to have an unfortunate effect on both the news media and the public perception of the news media, Paulson said in an interview with The Hoya.

Adjudicated by a panel of 15 First Amendment scholars, lawyers, journalists and activists, the rating, released April 20, reported a 2.39 average out of 5 after individually scoring the state of freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly and petition based on legislation, executive orders, judicial decisions and public opinion during the past year.

The Newseum Institute serves as a branch of Washington, D.C.s Newseum, a museum dedicated to documenting the history of the First Amendment in the United States, and works to promote, explain and defend individual liberties.

Georgetown School of Continuing Studies journalism professor Alan Bjerga said it is difficult to judge these ratings, due to the fact that this is the inaugural First Amendment Report Card.

Its tough to tell because its a first-time rating. You dont know what its relative to, Bjerga said in an interview with The Hoya. C, B, thats very subjective. I would say that being a journalist is not getting any easier.

Bjerga said reporters face unique challenges today, especially as so-called fake news and misinformation spread on the internet and on radio.

Journalists face the challenge of an environment where inaccurate information can be propagated very widely, while accurate, at times less sensational information may struggle to be heard or distributed as widely. At the same time, I think there is a rising appreciation of the necessity and the value of quality journalism, Bjerga said.

Bjerga said he was optimistic about the future for press freedoms, saying journalists are rising to the challenge and determined to thrive in response to the current political climate.

Lata Nott, the executive director of the Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center, reviewed the results, pointing out that while few As were awarded, no failing grades were given.

Nott said Americans need to be more conscious and watchful of problems related to the First Amendment.

Theres a sense that our freedoms need to be watched carefully, that theyre threatened. Theres concerns about what might happen in the future. But at the same time, there was also a sense that these freedoms are resilient. As Americans, we do think that theyre important, Nott said in an interview with The Hoya.

Nott said some problems, like the continuing lack of laws for protecting journalists and privacy, will persist during Trumps administration.

People are probably more worried about the First Amendment than they were before because the Trump administration has taken some action that have been contrary to the First Amendment, Nott said. Theres no federal shield law for reporters. They can be compelled to give up their sources or be jailed, when it comes to federal matters. The thing is, thats always been the case.

Nott emphasized the importance of tracking the quality of the First Amendment freedoms and the importance of dialogue regarding these freedoms. Paulson said he continues to hope the United States moves toward being a more free state.

As a nation, we really need to remember that our strength comes not just from the freedom to speak. Its also about the willingness to listen. Were not making the most of our core freedoms when we are so polarized that we cant benefit from each others ideas, Paulson said. That has to change, and that more than anything else would improve the report card for the First Amendment.

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.

View original post here:
United States Earns C+ in First Amendment Report Card - Georgetown University The Hoya