Mediaboss Marketing

In 2006, a human rights advocate, who is a friend, was prevented from boarding his flight from New York to California because of Arabic.

Yes, Arabic. The language spoken by more than 400 million people worldwide, making it one of the top five languages in the world and reportedly the fastest growing in the U.S., was the culprit.

My friend was wearing a T-shirt with the words We will not be silent in both Arabic and English. He was told he could not fly until the offending Arabic script was covered. And lest we think our issues with Arabic have resolved themselves in the last decade, remember that simply speaking Arabic on an airplane was grounds for removal from a flight just last year.

How we got to this point is a complicated matter, but the path forward doesnt have to be.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Arab-Americans and American Muslims have come to be viewed by some of our fellow citizens and our own government as either victims of hate or potential perpetrators of violence. The latter view dictates we should be seen through a securitized lens and has produced profiling and surveillance of our communities, watch lists, and special registry programs, to name but a few programs targeting us.

However, both oversimplifications fail to capture the experience of being Arab or Muslim in post-9/11 America, and last years presidential campaign demonstrated that with extraordinary clarity. We have heard condemnation of the surge in hate crimes but little discussion on how the rhetoric during the election contributed to that hate, particularly by leading policy makers and candidates. Instead of challenging bigoted misinformation, some candidates furthered it.

At a New Hampshire town hall, a voter declared to then-candidate Trump, We have a problem in this country. Its called Muslims. He concluded by asking, When can we get rid of them? Mr. Trumps answer: We are going to be looking at a lot of different things.

One could reasonably suggest President Trumps Muslim bans, in both incarnations, were the logical continuation of that conversation in New Hampshire. The Muslim ban is a candidate delivering on a campaign promise unlike any we have seen in our lifetime.

Thankfully, it is not that simple in our country.

Standing in the path between bigotry and policy is our Constitution. In this case, specifically the First Amendment.

Among the five freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment are freedom of speech and the right to religious freedom. Thus far, numerous judges have found the bans to be in violation of our First Amendment and their implementation has been stalled. In the guise of keeping us safe, Trump has proposed unnecessary, ineffective policies that sow fear. Americans know it, and responded by showing up at our nations airports with banners and legal pads to defend our Constitution and protect the people most impacted, including those who speak the feared language of Arabic.

In addition to winning the first stay of the ban, the ACLU has launched a We the People campaign that features the First Amendment translated into other languages, including Arabic, and is displaying it in ads and billboards. Seeing the First Amendment in Arabic is particularly satisfying at this moment as a fitting reminder that those words apply to all of us.

I worked on Capitol Hill on Sept. 11, and I was in the room when Attorney General John Ashcroft first presented the Patriot Act to congressional leadership. Many at the time asked: Are we striking the right balance between protecting our national security and our civil liberties? We should always remember that if we are told we must choose one or the other, we are being offered a false choice and a shortsighted remedy that will provide neither. The same goes for bigoted, undemocratic policies demanding that we choose between freedom or safety.

Like those who advance them, policy remedies can either move our country forward or take us back.

The slogan on my friends shirt belonged to a resistance campaign led by the White Rose, an extraordinary group of young people who were brutally executed for distributing leaflets in opposition to Nazi policies in Germany during World War II. The phrase We will not be silent is how they concluded their fourth resistance flyer.

Our fear of Arabic or more specifically, of Arabs and Muslims remains a problem for some, including those who currently hold some important positions in our government. It is driving an increase in incidents of hate and bad policies. We hope they will soon get over that irrational fear but until they do, we too will not be silent and are protected by the words of our Constitution and the judges sworn to uphold them.

After all, remember that my friend who was targeted for the two words of Arabic on his T-shirt is protected by the 34 words of Arabic or 45 in English appearing on a billboard near you.

If you want your own sticker copies of the First Amendment translated in Arabic, English and Spanish, they are available for pre-order here.

Read the original post:
The First Amendment Looks Especially Beautiful in Arabic ... - ACLU (blog)

The American Civil Liberties Union is sending a powerful, multilingual message to President Donald Trump about civil rights by postingthe First Amendment in English, Spanish and Arabic on billboards across the country.

The goal of its We the People campaign is to send a message to Trump that Americans rights particularly those of immigrants, Latinx and Muslims are protected by the Constitution.

Trump came to power on a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, and it was particularly bad when it came to Muslims, ACLU communications staffer Stacy Sullivan told The Huffington Post. We thought this would be a good time to remind the public and Trump that the First Amendment applies to Muslims and Latinos, and everyone else in this country, too.

The First Amendment protects peoples right to practice their religion without facing discrimination. It also protects free speech, a free press and the right to protest.

The signs simply write out the language of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The first signs went up last week in Times Square in New York, as well as at 30 bus stops in Washington, D.C. Another billboard went up in Los Angeles on Tuesday. The group is aiming to put up more signs in other cities and in other languages in the coming months, Sullivan said.

The ACLU chose to post the signs in Spanish and Arabic specifically because American and immigrant communities that speak those languages particularly the Muslim and Latinx communities are not only numerous in the U.S. but also are most under threat, said Sullivan.

The Trump administration has targeted Muslims with two executive orders barring travel from Muslim-majority countries which have both been blocked by the courts and Latinos with deportations and plans to build a wall on the Mexican border.

Its a way for us to state our solidarity with those communities under threat, Sullivan told HuffPost, and to say what [Trump is] doing is really un-American.

ACLU

While the signs are a pointed response to Trumps anti-immigrant policies, they are also a commentary on the presidents attacks on the other First Amendment freedoms: of the press, speech and protest.

Trump hascalled the media the enemy of the American people and attacked reputable media outlets, including The New York Times and CNN, bylabeling them fake news.

Trump has also criticized people who exercise their right to free speech and protest by suggesting that anyone who burns an American flag as a form of protestshould lose citizenship.

From his attempted Muslim ban to his calls for media suppression to his remarks endorsing the use of violence against those who protest against him, President Trump has shown disdain for the rights and freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a news release. We thought it was a good time to remind people of these rights.

ACLU

The We the People campaign, developed by ad agency Emergence Creative for the ACLU, is simply about sending a message to Trump that peoples rights need to be upheld and to all people in America that their rights are protected by law.

This campaign is intended to remind people that the Constitution is for all of us. It doesnt matter who you are or what language you speak, Romero said in the release. We the People means everyone.

For HuffPosts #LoveTakesAction series, were telling stories of how people are standing up to hate and supporting those most threatened. Know a story from your community? Send news tips to lovetips@huffingtonpost.com.

Go here to see the original:
ACLU Trolls Trump With First Amendment Billboards | The ... - Huffington Post

The American Civil Liberties Union has released giant billboards featuring the First Amendment, which provides the right to freedom of speech and press. Written in Arabic, Spanish and English, the ACLU's signs cover Times Square, as well as 30 bus stops in Washington, D.C. and a large spot in Los Angeles.

As part of their "We the People" campaign, the nationwide billboards spell out the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

ACLU's Stacy Sullivan spoke about the project with Huffington Post, saying, "Trump came to power on a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, and it was particularly bad when it came to Muslims.Its a way for us to state our solidarity with those communities under threat and to say what [Trump is] doing is really un-American."

The advocacy organization chose to run the signs in Spanish and Arabic, as well as English, because Muslim and Latinx groups are especially under threat in Trump's America. They also shared a video to accompany the signs with future plans to spread the campaign to more cities and in more languages.

Continued here:
ACLU Protests Trump with First Amendment Billboards Written in Arabic & Spanish - Out Magazine

Dan Shelley knows that responsible, honest journalists are under heavy fire, and he wants to enlist the public to draw some of it away.

Shelley, the former SVP of digital content strategy for iHeartMedia, who takes over from the retiring Mike Cavender as executive director of the Radio Television Digital News Association this September, is working with a new First Amendment Task Force inside the organization to help do that. It plans to meet with leaders of TV and radio station groups at the NAB Show April 22-27 to set priorities and public messaging.

Story continues after the ad

In this interview with TVNewsCheck's special projects editor, Michael Depp, he talks about the strong stand that the task force is looking to make against assaults on the First Amendment and press access to government. He says honing a public message to that end is among the top priorities, along with emphasizing the particularly important work being done by local journalists.

An edited transcript:

Generally speaking, how do you see the threat level facing the First Amendment and press freedom at this moment?

Were forming our Voice of the First Amendment Task Force because its clear over the last couple of years that there has been an unprecedented attack on responsible journalism from all over the political spectrum, from all parts of the country, because of the increasingly divisive environment that exists in our country today.

Because things have become so polarized, responsible journalism has really taken an unfair hit. And so thats why in conjunction with radio, television and digital news industry influencers and executives, were making what we believe will be a very strong stand in defense of responsible journalism and to help the public understand better why it matters in their lives.

Media companies are doing, by and large, an outstanding job of calling the balls and strikes, keeping their noses down and not backing down when confronted with resistance from government officials and folks who dont want the public to know the real story. In many cases [journalists are] risking persecution, prosecution and jail time to make sure the public has access to the truth and knows whats going on in their communities.

To what extent is President Trump a factor?

It depends on whom you ask. Every time he or one of his surrogates uses the term fake news to counter a responsible news story that they just dont like, it certainly doesnt help our reputation with people who tend to believe as they do.

Its certainly a significant portion of the issue, but that in and of itself is not a problem. For years, the news media have not been held in the highest esteem, probably since the days following Watergate.

What are the task force's priorities?

Priority one is to work with members of our industry to make sure that they help us hone our message so that when we go to the public we can highlight responsible journalism on the national and particularly the local level because so many times all of the news media gets wrapped up in the same package with the same bow on it. That includes local journalists, who are exposing issues and problems that otherwise would not see the light of day. That exposure leads to solutions in many cases.

Sunlight always is the best antiseptic for corruption. RTDNA pledges to do a much better job of highlighting examples of where that works. We have always been a very strong voice and fierce advocate of the First Amendment and FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] issues.

With public mistrust of the media at an all-time high, how can the public be better enlisted to stand with the news media? What can media companies be doing more aggressively there?

We are fairly deep into the process of formulating plans to make sure that members of the public understand that when the local TV, radio or digital journalist is asking hard questions, its not because they want to be difficult or belligerent in any way, its because they want members of the community to know whats going on around them and shed more light.

Whats the message that the public needs to hear vis--vis press freedom?

The message they need to hear is that all journalists are doing their jobs, sometimes at great risk to themselves, to make sure that members of the public are part of a more informed and educated society that will help them make even better decisions and tangible improvements in their communities.

President Trump has flirted with revising libel laws in his tweets. Whats the appropriate response to those threats for now?

Theres only so much in reality that a president can do. There is no federal libel law. So its got to be a state-by-state basis. So wherever there is a movement in any state to change libel laws, thats a big First Amendment problem for us, and we, along with other journalism organizations and leaders and influencers in our industry, are willing and prepared to fight those efforts as best we possibly can. Thats an extreme danger to the First Amendment.

More:
RTDNA Ramping Up First Amendment Efforts - TV News Check

AWellesley student has been criticized for creating a database of professors accused of ableist microaggressions,but the criticismsmiss the point.

By Alli Guaman, Marymount Manhattan College

There has been plenty debate about whether or not the First Amendment protects false and misleading speech, specifically pertaining to the vague concept of what exactly should be considered misleading speech.

Currently, educational institutions are trying to determine where misgendering falls into the scheme of things; is misgendering an act of hate speech, or is it protected by the First Amendment?

Elizabeth Engel, a junior at Wellesley College, considers misgendering to be hate speech.

According to CampusReform, Engel, to combat what she says are ableist microagressions and to expose professors failure to respect student pronoun preferences, has created a public database of the professors in question.

The project, Wellesley Professors and Students Mental Health, which is no longer accepting responses at thistime, was launched the week of March 10th. Students who wished to send in reports of misgendering were able to fill out a questionnaire that consisted of questions such as, Does this professor respect student pronouns?

Naming the professors in the reported incidents of microaggression, says Engel, is a good way of addressing the issue. Yet, some argue that there isnt an issue to begin with, and that Engel is creating one by attacking speech that is protected by the Constitution.

However, according to an articlefrom theCongressional Research ServiceentitledFreedom of Speech and Press,The prohibition on abridgement of the freedom of speech is not absolute.

While the Courts decision to provide no protection for obscenity, child pornography and violent threats is obvious, many people overlook that the Court also provides minimal protection (if any) for cases of defamation, such as libel and slander.

Image via The Kansas City Star

Laws, a website that explainslegislation, saysthat the difference between slander and libel is in the publication of the speech; slander is an oral defamatory remark, while libel is a written one. Either way, both damage the reputation of the person involved and have the power to injure their character.

Based on its definition, misgendering clearly falls under the exceptions of the First Amendments freedom of speech. An individual has an entitlement to their preferred gender, much the same way everyone has the option to go by their real name or a nickname. When misgendering, the individual, obviously offended, is ridiculed, and whether there is a crowd to witness the incident or not, the individuals reputation and character is hurt.

Now, imagine a college student, someone who is well underway to becoming a productive member of society, being misgendered by a professor, someone a college student should look up to. The circumstances are much more painstaking. There is a clear audience: the classroom, peers and friends, and the perpetrator is supposed to be considered a role model.

In Professors: ask preferred pronouns, Jenny Roberts asked various college students how they feel about being misgendered in a school environment. Each students response mirrored the other; they had to struggle with huge bouts of anxiety and humiliation.

Its no wonder as to why.

The First Amendment Handbook, written by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, claims that a defamatory communication is one that exposes hatred, ridicule or contempt, lowers him in the esteem of his fellows, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his business and calling.

A misgendered student is exposed to all the things described above, and, since the humiliationoccurs inan environment that they have to frequent, which can be considered their business and calling, creating a safe space on school grounds should be any educational administrators priority.

Elizabeth Engel was right in exposing the professors who didnt consider their students mental well-being, which, Engel also points out, can worsen with the amount of daily disrespect misgendered students face. Millennials often have a better grasp on the complexities of gender, and, although college faculty may attempt to include measures to ensure the proper preferred pronouns are used, the younger generation must speak out when misgendering is committed.

There are other measures, however, that can be taken that do not immediately shame faculty members. The key is to prevent what is (hopefully) a gender misunderstanding before it escalates into something more vicious.

Asking for someones preferred pronouns isnt an interaction society is used to, so the younger generation must ensure that it becomes one.

Students, especially on the first day of classes, may introduce their preferred pronouns while introducing themselves. Of course, Ill admit this is scary. No one knows how accepting the professor will be, but this step is necessary to decide on further courses of action, such as creating a website that exposes misgendering like Engel, and to establish a gender-accepting atmosphere to begin with.

Communication is the younger generations tool. If an introduction isnt enough, students may want to speak with their professors after class. If youre blatantly being discriminated against and think its due to your preferred gender identity, speak up and make sure youre heard. Its a critical step to get the administration involved if it comes down to it.

Among the ideas you can suggest is the inclusion of a Preferred Gender Pronouns informative packet for faculty, such as this one implemented in Hampshire College, which can be distributed among administration upon entering or whenever they need a refresher on how to be considerate of students.

Teaching Tolerance promotes the best practices when it comes to creating an LGBTQ+ inclusive school climate. Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) Clubs are effective in encouraging students to be supportive of one another and bring the educational community, peers and faculty closer. Together, the GSA club can then find a way to promote the message of equality through the school newspaper, posters and pamphlets, and can even suggest queer literature (if its lacking) in the literature department.

From there, the inclusion of No-Bullying policies as well as other policies, which protect the LGBTQ+ community, destroy the misgendering of students in colleges.

Freedom of Speechgenderhate speechmisgendermisgendering

Read the original:
Does Misgendering a Student Violate the First Amendment? - Study Breaks