Mediaboss Marketing

Now that the courts have ruled that doctors have a First Amendment right to ask their patients if they own guns, I want to remind the patients that they also have the same First Amendment right.

To keep your gun ownership private, do not tell the doctors you own guns as it will become part of your medical records and every agency of our federal government will have a ready-made list of gun owners.

If I am asked I would say:

Doc, it is none of your business but if I owned a gun, and I am not saying that I do, I want you to know that I am aware of how to store and handle guns and I would ensure that they are kept safe from children and other unauthorized people for their safety and mine.

BRUCE MILLS, NORTH PALM BEACH

I was appalled by the letter Words mattertake care with drug use (Wednesday) by professor George Stoupas. Though I agree that addicts deserve our compassion, his comparison to people on the autism spectrum is fundamentally wrong and misleading.

People on the autism spectrum are born that way and cannot be cured. They, however, are taught to make the most of their strong points and live productive lives.

Drug abusers, as well as alcohol abusers, become users as a choice. Yes, addiction is a disease, but they can be cured if they choose to go through the extremely difficult and rigorous detox process. I personally know people who made that choice and live happy and productive lives.

JOSEPH WILLINGER, BOYNTON BEACH

Kudos to my mayor, Jeri Muoio, for joining the Compact of Mayors on Climate and Energy. Within three years, participating cities will endeavor to report their greenhouse gas emissions, set emission reduction targets and develop climate action plans.

By withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, President Donald Trump has done damage to our countrys standing with the rest of the world. The original U.S.-Paris agreement actually expires in 2020. Hopefully, by then, a wiser public will have voted him out of office. In the meantime, much can be done by local governments.

A National Geographic report asserts that Floridas coastline could be radically changed by as much as a 5-foot sea-level rise by 2100, putting Miami and other coastal cities under water. This would impact Floridas major industries as well as $390 billion worth of properties. In the wake of climate change, temperature swings are projected to be more volatile by centurys end.

It is therefore imperative that the mayors do everything within their powers to countervail this imprudent step by the president.

MARCIA DE FREN, WEST PALM BEACH

A recent letter suggested President Donald Trumps decision to leave the global warming agreement was another slap in the face of President Barack Obama and more evidence of hatred. After all, the entire agreement was voluntary.

It allows China to continue its increase of pollution at any rate until 2030. What is clearly not voluntary is the U.S. commitment to provide billions of taxpayer dollars to other countries.

So unless you believe that its all Americas fault, and we should be punished financially, you should support an agreement that commits all the largest polluters to make progress today, not 13 years from now.

Similar to NATO, everyone has to meet commitments, not just wink and expect America to do it all with our money.

JOHN GIGANTI, BOYNTON BEACH

Read the rest here:
Letters First Amendment not just for doctors; patients can opt out - Palm Beach Post

New York Times

Michelle Carter Didn't Kill With a Text New York Times Moreover, speech that is reckless, hateful and ill-willed nevertheless enjoys First Amendment protection. While the Supreme Court has carved out narrowly tailored exceptions for literal threats of violence and incitement to lawless action, telling ... Michelle Carter found guilty in landmark texting suicide caseBoston Herald Michelle Carter: What the texting suicide case tells usBBC News A Sad and Terrible Verdict in MassachusettsNational Review Hot Air -Ars Technica -New York Times -CNN all 401 news articles »

The rest is here:
Michelle Carter Didn't Kill With a Text - New York Times

Katherine Owens

St. Augustine

There are some who are offended by the Confederate monuments in our Plaza and/or in other cities. These monuments serve only as a reminder of that which has come before. If every generation destroyed what it found offensive, there would be nothing left. It is a guarantee that something we believe in today will be looked upon with disgust and horror by future generations.

I have family who fought on both sides of the Civil War. I am proud of the service of all my ancestors because they defended their values. My family has lived in Florida for the last 190 years, so I ask: Why are we discussing the taking down of monuments to men who fought for Florida?

Why are we not, instead, raising up more monuments and memorials to Floridians around the state not just in the Oldest City? Instead of tearing down the Confederate monuments, why not build a monument to Union Soldiers from northeast Florida? The Civil War was a war that divided families including the Northeast Florida branch of my own family.

Both Confederate monuments in the Plaza were erected when Florida was either occupied territory or a state within the Union, and hence are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment freedom of speech. They cannot, nor should they be taken down or removed. The builders of those monuments are no longer alive to defend their First Amendment rights. We, the succeeding generations, must do so. Additionally, the General William Loring Monument is under the protection of the Federal law against grave desecration, because he is buried under the memorial.

If in order to appease a few who are offended by the history of the United States, the State of Florida and the City of St. Augustine, an interpretive plaque must be erected, it will need to be worded very carefully. The wording needs to be such that we are neither putting words into the mouths of the erectors of the monuments, nor apologizing for what they believed.

For example: some people claim William Tecumseh Sherman was a hero and a liberator. However, many Southerners still think of him as a mass-murder of white and black Georgians and South Carolinians. It would be a violation of the Freedom of Speech of the erectors of those statues for me or anyone else to insist on a plaque that would cheapen his service to his country (as those who want an interpretive plaque for any Confederate monument or memorial are doing). We cannot know exactly what is in the minds of the men and women who erect and pay for monuments and memorials unless they write down their reasons.

We have been given a trust by proceeding generations to protect their memories. Are we up to that challenge? Or do we destroy the symbols of what they believed in just because we dont?

More here:
GUEST COLUMN: Confederate monuments protected by First Amendment - St. Augustine Record

Jim Little , jwlittle@pnj.com 6:32 p.m. CT June 16, 2017

Escambia County Area Transit held a "Try Transit Day" event in an effort to boost ridership Thursday June 15, 2017. County Commissioner Doug Underhill has questioned whether it is fiscally responsible to continue funding ECAT because of its low utilization rate. (Photo: Tony Giberson/tgiberson@pnj.com)Buy Photo

The union representingEscambia County Area Transit workers hasfiled a lawsuit in federal court against the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners.

The Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1395 filed a lawsuit Friday in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida alleging Commission Chairman Doug Underhill violated its members' free speech rights.

The union's complaint names all five members of the commission as defendants. The lawsuit claims that on June 6, Underhill instructed a manager with First Transit, the private company that runs ECAT, to "discipline or discharge" any workers distributing flyers supporting the transportation system and urging riders to fight against Underhill's proposal to eliminate ECAT.

Commissioners instructed county staff on May 30 to begin the process of negotiating with the union so the county could end its contract with First Transit and operate ECAT directly.

Underhill has urged his fellow commissioners and the public to take a closer look at county expenses to eliminate wasteful spending, and has pointed to ECAT as one of the examples of waste.

During the May 30 meeting, Underhill said he wants to call a referendum on whetherto continue funding a 4-cent gas tax that provides some of ECAT's funding.

Off-duty members of the union responded on June 5 with by distributing flyers at the ECAT transfer station that read in large, bold letters "FDU" and "Fight Doug Underhill." On-duty drivers also distributedbuttons that read "I need the BUS" to riders, but stopped after being told it was against county policy.

The lawsuit claims Mike Crittenden, ECAT general manager, wrote a memo to ECAT workers that said passing out flyers on ECAT property whether on-duty or off-duty was a violation of company policy.

Underhill told the News Journal on Friday he had not seen the lawsuit. But he said nothing in his conversation with the management of First Transit was directive.

"I asked a series of questions to which they provided answers to, and that was all," Underhill said. "Absolutely no order or directive was given at any time."

Mike Lowery, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1395, said he's worried about the First Amendment rights of ECAT workers and riders.

"The employees at ECAT currently feel intimidated by the county commission, and worried that they'll be disciplined, up to termination, for conducting their First Amendment rights,whether they're on-duty or off-duty on ECAT property," Lowery said.

Read or Share this story: http://www.pnj.com/story/news/2017/06/16/ecat-union-sues-escambia-county-over-first-amendment-rights/405205001/

Go here to see the original:
ECAT union sues Escambia County over First Amendment rights - Pensacola News Journal

Donald Trump memorably threatened to open up libel laws as president, yet such an attack on the First Amendment would need to happen in the courts. And given a recent ruling in his favor in a defamation suit aimed at him, Trump knows full well that most judges maintain a very high bar for libel cases.

Even so, a libel suit can provide powerful interests with a potent weapon against intrepid reporters. Such a conflict is currently playing out in Brooklyn, and the drama features a notable cast of characters.

In October 2015, ProPublica published an investigative report on nursing home licensing in New York, which focused on the states largest for-profit network of such facilities, SentosaCare. The story questioned why, despite a record of repeat fines, violations and complaints for deficient care, SentosaCare continued to receive state approval when purchasing new nursing homes.

In March 2016, Jennifer Lehman, one of the two freelance reporters who wrote the piece, sent a letter to SentosaCares attorney, Howard Fensterman, requesting information for a follow-up story focused on the companys Medicare billing. Six days later, Fensterman filed a defamation suit in response to the October 2015 story.

Rather than target ProPublica, the complaint names Lehman and her fellow freelancer, Allegra Abramo. If the suit was intended to win damages, it would have made sense to target an established publisher with a sizable libel-insurance policy. Instead, the goal here appears to be stopping the reporters in their tracks.

Fensterman, a leading player in Nassau County Democratic politics, gained notoriety in 2014 for his aggressive defense of a nursing home on the Island after it brought in a male stripper to entertain the seniors. He is also counsel for (and a business partner of) SentosaCare, which is owned by Brooklyn resident Benjamin Landa, a central figure in Clifford Levys Pulitzer Prize-winning 2002 series in the New York Times exposing the harsh conditions faced by mentally ill residents in New York nursing homes.

Fensterman has been assisted in the case by his law partner Frank Seddio, the Brooklyn Democratic boss and president of the boroughs Bar Association. In New York City, the county machine typically hand-picks most of the State Supreme Court judges, but the one presiding in this case, Paul Wooten, was transferred from Manhattan, and is not a Seddio ally. Moreover, he has a strong track record of ruling in favor of defendants in defamation cases.

Such a cast made for lively theater at a late April appearance in Wootens courtroom, with the two sides debating the defendants motion to dismiss the case. Other than enter his name into the record, Seddio said nothing during the proceeding. According to one spectator (whos not involved in the case), the party boss appeared to be leering at Judge Wooten.

The crux of Fenstermans complaint concerns not whats in Lehman and Abramos ProPublica story, but what they left out (or whats known as libel by omission). When the story mentions investigations by New York State agencies into incidents of neglect at SentosaCare facilities, it does not include the fact that those same facilities had self-reported the incidents to the relevant agencies.

In advance of the first story, Fensterman had provided that information to the reporters, so he contends that the omission shows that the reporters intended to create reputational harm for SentosaCare. To drive home the point, he mentioned self-reporting five times in his short presentation at the dismissal hearing.

Laura Handman, retained by ProPublica to defend Lehman and Abramo, stressed to Judge Wooten that the piece is not a cover-up story. Instead, she explained, the reporters examined how nursing homes with track records of harmful incidents continue to gain new licensing, thus negating the importance of the self-reporting. According to defamation case law, Handman argued, unless omitted information changes the gist, or the meaning, or makes it false, then the decision of what to include or not to include are left to the wisdom of the journalist and publisher.

Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation tells the Beast that in general, The First Amendment allows for broad editorial discretion on what is and isnt reported on stories of public importance. And if public figures and institutions were allowed to sue every time they thought one ancillary alleged fact or another was left out of an article, it would grind journalism on any subject to a halt.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

In order to deter such a flood of retaliatory lawsuits, many statesincluding New Yorkhave enacted anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) legislation, which allows for judges to award damages to defendants and force plaintiffs to pay for their legal costs. As Handman stated at the April hearing, This suit is a classic example of a well-financed company using a defamation suit to basically censor their critics. In short, a classic SLAPP action.

Wootens ruling on whether the case will go to trialor if not, whether he will impose anti-SLAPP penalties on the plaintiffsis expected sometime in the next few months. Rest assured that the stakes are high for everyone involved, from the lowly freelance investigative reporters to the mighty Brooklyn Democratic Party boss.

Go here to see the original:
The Brooklyn Machine vs. the First Amendment - Daily Beast