Mediaboss Marketing

Regarding the letter to the editor in Amarillo Globe-News (Letter: AGN needs to serve its conservative readers, Feb. 23, amarillo.com), I am astonished that a conservative (as the letter writer appears to be) would assault the First Amendment rights of the press or anyone else.

Once elected to public office, you are fair game for criticism.

Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush were caricatured as big-eared monkeys or elfin creatures, and most public figures have drawn criticism in print and editorial cartoons.

I hope AGN will continue to furnish their readers with timely and entertaining news and commentary, including the brilliant observations of (syndicated editorial) cartoonist Jeff Stahler and others.

The First Amendment was first for a reason.

When an individual in this society can tell someone else what to think, and tell the press what to print, we are in trouble.

Steve Close

Amarillo

Original post:
Letter: First Amendment was first for a reason - Amarillo.com

First Amendment, safety at issue with social media

In an article [Court may strike law barring sex offenders from social media, Feb. 27], the idea of rights given to sex offenders in the online world was discussed. The question Id like to raise is this: How far does freedom of speech stretch, and what rights do the courts have in taking this possible expression of free speech away?

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 Amendment reads.

Elsewhere in the legislative processes, though, we have concluded that one willing to act in deviant and criminal ways while in society is one willing to lose the rights granted to them by society. With the Constitution coming from an age where technology was minuscule, the judicial branch must use its discretion, through generally democratic processes, in deciding on topics outside of its realm.

My hope is that officials involved in deciding will hold true to constitutional values, while also keeping in mind the safety of the general public.

Read the rest here:
Letter: First Amendment, safety at issue with social media - Fredericksburg.com

The Amazon Echo, a voice-controlled virtual assistant, is seen at its product launch for Britain and Germany in London, in 2016. Photo by Peter Hobson/Reuters

After several months of pushback, Amazon has agreed to release user data from an Amazon Echo device involved in a high-profile Arkansas murder trial.

The device, a popular, hands-free artificial intelligence assistant named Alexa that responds to human directives, contains audio recordings that prosecutors say could could provide information in the murder of Victor Collins, 47, who was found dead in his hot tub on Nov. 22, 2015, in Bentonville, Arkansas.

James Bates, 31, was charged with first-degree murder and tampering with evidence in the case.

Benton County Prosecuting Attorney Nathan Smith wrote in an email that prosecutors were pleased with Amazons decision.

I am pleased that we will have access to the data from the Defendants Echo device since the Defendant consented to its release, Smith said. As with any case, our obligation is to investigate all of the available evidence, whether the evidence proves useful or not.

Smith said he could not provide details on the recordings or if they would be used in court because the case is still under investigation.

Amazon had argued against the datas release in February, saying the Echo recordings were protected under the First Amendment. According to a court order, Bates consented to the disclosure, which then prompted Amazon to agree to the release of the data March 3.

Amazon declined to comment for this story, but did provide the official court order to the NewsHour, acknowledging the defendants consent.

Kathleen Zellner, Bates legal counsel, said in a statement to the NewsHour: Because Mr. Bates is innocent of all charges in this matter, he has agreed to the release of any recordings on his Amazon Echo device to the prosecution.

This case depicts yet another legal battle over the use of technology-based evidence and privacy laws. Other similar cases include Apples toe-to-toe with the FBI over the hack of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farooks iPhone.

Carrie Leonetti, an associate law professor at the University of Oregon, said the Bates case highlights an important ongoing open issue in the field of constitutional criminal procedure.

In my mind, as well as the minds of a lot of other privacy experts, the Echo has been a ticking constitutional time bomb, along with a lot of other features of smart homes and the internet of things, Leonetti, who teaches criminal and constitutional law, said.

The same issue has arisen with the NSAs pattern analysis of Americans telephony metadata, cell-site location tracking of suspects via subpoenas to the phone company, and GPS cell-phone tracking, she added.

A hearing set for today on the Amazon Echo case is now canceled following the defendants consent.

READ MORE: How can I stop my TV from spying on me?

View post:
Amazon releases Echo data in murder case, dropping First Amendment argument - PBS NewsHour

Mannie Garcia sued the county after he was arrested while photographing police officers making an arrest in 2011

Published: 2017.03.08 03:30

Montgomery County announced Wednesday it has reached a settlement with photographer Mannie Garcia in a long-running First Amendment lawsuit in which Garcia claimed his civil rights were violated when county police officers detained him while he was taking photos of what he believed to be excessive force applied during an arrest.

The county agreed to pay Garcia $45,000 to settle the case, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt in 2012. However, the federal court still must consider how much the county should pay Garcias attorneys fees and costs in the case, according to the settlement agreement.

The parties believe it is in their best interests, and those of the citizens of Montgomery County, to bring finality to the case to achieve certainty as to its resolution, a joint statement from Garcia and the county said.

Garcia, 63, is an award-winning photographer with more than 30 years of experience who is based in Washington, D.C. and is known for taking the photo of Barack Obama that artist Shepard Fairey later used to create the Hope poster that became an iconic image of the 2008 presidential campaign. Garcia filed the lawsuit after he was arrested in Wheaton on June 16, 2011.

On that day, according to the complaint, Garcia was leaving a restaurant with his wife and a friend when he saw county police officers arresting two young Hispanic men near the corner of Hickerson Drive and Georgia Avenue. Garcia stopped because he was concerned the officers were using too much force.

He began taking photos of the ongoing arrest and when an officer approached him, Garcia identified himself as a member of the press. Despite having done so, according to the complaint, the officer tried to place Garcia under arrest and then placed him in a chokehold and reportedly dragged him across the street to a police cruiser. While he was standing next to the cruiser, an officer swept Garcias legs out from under him, causing the photographer to hit his head against the car before he was placed inside and taken to jail, according to the complaint.

Garcia was charged with disorderly conduct, but was later found not guilty in December 2011 by a Montgomery County District Court judge.

The settlement in the federal case eliminates the need for a trial, which was scheduled to take place this month.

The county had denied Garcias allegations in a response to the complaint. However, the countys police department updated its policies after the Garcia incident to specifically note that the public has a right to record and photograph police officers.

"I think this case helps clarify the law," Garcia's attorney Robert Corn-Revere, said Wednesday. "It makes clear the First Amendment does protect both photojournalists and normal citizens when they document the actions of police in public places."

He added, "Ultimately the county will pay our attorney fees, which underscores the lesson that violating First Amendment rights is not free."

He said the court will determine the amount the county must pay, but he expects it to exceed six figures.

Garcias case also affected national policy. In 2013, the Department of Justice urged the federal court not to dismiss his case after Montgomery County filed a motion to do so.

At the time, the department wrote to the court, The United States is concerned that discretionary charges, such as disorderly conduct, loitering, disturbing the peace and resisting arrest, are all too easily used to curtail expressive conduct or retaliate against individuals exercising their First Amendment rights . Core First Amendment conduct, such as recording a police officer performing duties on a public street, cannot be the sole basis for such charges.

Since Garcias case was filed, video recordings of police made by people using cell phones and other devices have become commonplace. Some videos showing what appears to be police officers using excessive forcein a few cases resulting in fatal shootingshave sparked a national conversation about police brutality and civil rights.

Garcia told the National Press Photographers Associationabout the settlement: Im extremely relieved that its come to fruition after five and a half years. I think this lawsuit has given attention to the fact that police departments need to pay attention in regards to individuals rights.

Incident happened Monday in Howard County, police said

Plus: Electronics and appliance retailer to close in Rockville; Bethesda financial firm celebrates 30th anniversary

Here is the original post:
Montgomery County Settles First Amendment Lawsuit with Photographer - BethesdaMagazine.com

For 250 years, the First Amendment has protected religious freedom in the United States. Its vital to protect these rights for every citizen of any religion, both in the majority and the minority, not just because of a bleeding heart philosophy or calls for empathy or compassion, but because of simple, un-partisan self-interest. To not do this, even when we feel most divided or most fearful, puts everyones rights at risk.

Sustaining our rights, we know, does not come without a price. There are inherent dangers tied to living in a free society, and in our dangerous and uncertain world, accommodating rights can sometimes seem almost too burdensome. Its tempting, especially when national security risks grow more prevalent, to hand the government greater control of these rights, including those enshrined in the First Amendment. Its more tempting still if its not your own religion or members of your own religion who are the targets of current suspicions, or whose rights to practice without government interference might be most affected.

But if its easier for the government to limit the practice of one religion, or treat its members as a separate class, or effectively, if not overtly, keep people out of the country based on their practice of that religion, it will be easier for it to do the same to members of any other religion in the future, given the right circumstances or excuses.

As a Catholic, Im well aware that members of my religion have also been the targets of discrimination and fear-mongering and active political campaigning against them. The Know-Nothing Party of the mid-1800s believed Catholics intended to take over the United States and gained power, in part, by campaigning for private sector business to only employ true Americans, not Catholics; the Ku Klux Klan largely based its resurgence in the 1920s on its opposition to Catholic and Jewish immigrants, calling for one hundred percent American as an antidote to what they saw as American decay.

For that reason, Im also aware of the importance that religious freedom rights be lifted above temporary societal conditions and public opinion. Even if the majority calls for government to reduce or these amend rights, the power of the majority cannot be absolute, because what happens if you find yourself in the minority? Or your children find themselves in the minority? Or your childrens children?

Weakening these protections subjects the rights of all people of all religions to the whims of majority rule and government favor, subject to change depending on demographic shifts and who comes into power, as it was in the Europe from which our nations founding ancestors fled. Of course, fear is a powerful motivator for making this trade: possible limits on rights in exchange for a greater feeling of safety.

And there are, at present, very serious conversations to be had about national security. But allowing fear, over reason and calm logic, to govern those conversations endangers both rights and security. In a nation governed by laws, those laws should neither be created by fears nor fuel them, otherwise its citizens are, in effect, governed by fear, leaving them vulnerable to a government or officials in that government to increase or stoke those fears for increased control or leeway over citizens rights.

Religious liberty, a fundamental American right and ideal, requires the highest level of scrutiny and must be handled with caution and nuance. If we want our rights preserved, its our job as citizens to demand this from our leaders in their treatment of all religions, not just our own.

In his farewell address, George Washington urged citizens to guard our nation and all its liberties with jealous anxiety, and reject the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

Dividing the nations citizens and limiting the rights of some weakens us all. A threat to one persons rights is a threat to everyones rights. The break might not be immediate, but still it will linger, like a small crack in a windshield, more vulnerable to any future blow. Its prudent to guard against those cracks.

Alyssa Morones was born and raised in Bakersfield. She holds a degree in political science.

Here is the original post:
Community Voices: Protecting our First Amendment rights - The Bakersfield Californian