Mediaboss Marketing

Join us for freshly brewed coffee and interesting conversation on April 13.

As the term alternative facts has entered our lexicon, its important you know what goes on in local and national government. And how to find information that belongs to you.

----

Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -William O. Douglas

We couldnt agree more.

On April 13 well share the tools and strategies we use to request public information both in Colorado and from federal agencies. Well open up our reporting processes, including how to obtain documents using the Colorado Open Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

Well let you know what you can expect and in what time frame. And well coach you on how to find data that others have already requested.

We believe our government should remain as close to the people as possible. Access to its meeting minutes, agendas, budgets or your school boards growth plan helps to provide accountability. And for you to provide feedback to elected officials about whats important to you.

It is not just the press that should seek to monitor government. You too can work for accountability and transparency, be it in sharing a tip or knowing where to go to find public data.

We are living at a critical time. Our access is being limited, whether its in data disappearing from federal websites or in agencies being curtailed on social media.

First Amendment rights are not given. They are inherent. Learn more about how to exercise them. Join us April 13.

Admission is free.We will collect donations forthe Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition.

Subscribers, log in to access the link for free tickets below.

WHAT:Brews & News: The First Amendment & You

WHEN:April 13 from 6:30-8:00 pm

WHERE:In the Community Room at the Coloradoan, 1300 Riverside in Fort Collins

If youre already a subscriber, youre all set! Simply log in or register to access.

Returning Members:

Already have a subscription, but don't have a login?

Not a subscriber yet? Subscribe now

Read more here:
Brews & News: First Amendment and You - The Coloradoan

The Los Angeles Loyolan has been working hard to put on their annual First Amendment week, but are still so often surprised that students don't know the five main elements that the First Amendment protects. To avoid looking foolish in front of your judgemental peers, here are the official rights that our forward-thinking forefathers granted us:

1. The right to be on your phone as long as you want.

The government knows that sometimes all your lazy ass wants to do is scroll through your phone from 3 p.m to 2 a.m. and has protected that right for you. It may harm all other aspects of your life but feel free to switch between all your apps for hours on end without the threat of prosecution.

2. The right to walk with your friends as slowly as you want, wherever you want.

Don't worry, those people who get annoyed at your fly AF squad can't do anything but passive-aggressively walk around you. Feel free to walk slowly down whatever path you are on, and be sure to walk right next to one another, no matter how many people, so no one feels left out or bitter.

3. The right to drink more than one coffee a day.

The great thing about this country is the easy accessibility to a variety of caffeine. Already had two cups today? Have two more! Have a cappuccino, an americano, a macchiato! Thanks to our government, you can drink as much as you can afford (caffeine, that is).

4. The right to watch cute animal videos.

Regardless of daunting homework and responsibilities, the First Amendment will fight to protect your right to watch that 20th video of a dog being rescued from the streets and placed into a good home. So enjoy that clip of a cat and duck becoming best friends because you know that no one can take that right away from you.

5. The right to ask for as many condiments as you want.

Feeling embarrassed about going to the counter at Chick-fil-A to ask for that fourth dipping sauce container of Polynesian, honey mustard or good old ketchup? Well, rest easy in the knowledge that you can go back as many times as you want for all the condiments your heart desires without the government judging your eating habits.

The Bluff is a humorous and satirical section published in the Loyolan. All quotes attributed to real figures are completely fabricated; persons otherwise mentioned are completely fictional.

Read the original here:
5 rights granted by the First Amendment - Los Angeles Loyolan (subscription)

Is atheism protected under the First Amendment?

Yes. The First Amendment prohibits the government from punishing citizens for professing and exercising their religious beliefsincluding a lack of religious belief. So how are atheists, who by definition do not have religious beliefs or exercise a religion, protected by the First Amendment?

First, atheists are protected by the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a government-sponsored house of worship or showing preference to one or all religions by passing laws to favor religion, or by forcing citizens to profess belief in religion or attend religious services.1This protects atheists from being forced to participate in government-sponsored religion and from government reprisal if atheists did not participate.

Second, the Supreme Court has held the Free Exercise Clause to mean that government may not express a preference for religion over irreligion.2In 2005, Justice OConnor, concurring with the majoritys conclusions in McCreary County v. ACLU, was more explicit:

The Religion Clauses . . . protect adherents of all religions, as well as those who believe in no religion at all.3

The statements in McCreary County were not the first time the Supreme Court had noted the First Amendments protections extend to atheists. In 1961, the Court referred to Secular Humanism as a form of atheism that is nonetheless protected by the First Amendment.4In yet another decision, the Court unambiguously concluded that the First Amendment requires equal respect for the conscience of the infidel [and] the atheist as it does to those who profess belief in God.5

Atheism is not a religion, but it does take[] a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics.6For that reason, it qualifies as a religion for the purpose of First Amendment protection, despite the fact that in common usage atheism would be considered the absence, rejection, or opposite of religion. Put another way, discrimination on the basis of religious belief extends to all beliefs about religion.

The reach of courts characterization of atheism as a religion, or religion-like, is unclear. For instance, would atheists be able to utilize the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to seek exemption from generally applicable laws, as Hobby Lobby was able to do in the crushing Supreme Court decision Burwell v. Hobby Lobby?7At this time, the only court to have addressed this question is the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.8A group of atheists and secular humanists alleged the inclusion of In God We Trust on U.S. currency violated RFRA by requiring them to bear a statement that violated the central tenets of their beliefs.9The Second Circuit affirmed a lower courts dismissal of the case, finding that the appellants system of beliefs is not substantially burdened by the placement of the motto on currency.10

Though the Second Circuit ruled against the atheists RFRA claim, it is notable that the court was willing to entertain the challenge at all. Neither the Second Circuit nor the lower court which first dismissed the case questioned the ability of atheists to make a claim under RFRA.11If this posture is followed by other courts, it would appear that atheism/secularism may be treated as the equivalent of religion in most legal disputes.

1Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947). 2McCreary Cnty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 875 (2005). 3McCreary Cnty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 884 (2005). 4Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n.11 (1961). 5Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52-53 (1985). 6Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 682 (2005). 7Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014). 8Newdow v. Peterson, 753 F.3d 105 (2nd Cir. 2014). 9Newdow v. Peterson, 753 F.3d 105 (2nd Cir. 2014). 10Newdow v. Peterson, 753 F.3d 105 (2nd Cir. 2014). 11Newdow v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128367 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2013).

Read the rest here:
First Amendment | American Atheists

The television industry has always wrapped itself in the First Amendment to protect its right to entertain and report the news. But networks are also increasingly usingthe Constitution to argue that it can hire whomever they want.

When ABCs The Bachelor wrapped its twenty-first season this week, it also wrapped a long, much-criticized practice of not letting an African-American star in thefranchise: An African-American woman, Rachel Lindsay, will be front and center when the spin-off The Bachelorette airs in May. But that casting comes after a legal fight that is just one clash between the First Amendment and laws aimed at preventing race, age and genderdiscrimination in the workplace.

The latest lawsuit brought into question whether local newscasts have a right to hire attractive, young, female weather reporters instead of olderweathermen. No, seriously.

Also Read: Lawyer Posts Free Porn Online, Blackmails Viewers for $6 Million

Wherever you live, you may have noticed that your local weather reporter has become younger and better-looking, as ratings-hungry news shows have gone from onecliche the wacky weatherman to another:the youthful, pretty weather woman. (Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia has made fun of this phenomenonwith thecharacter of model-beautiful weather woman Jacki Denardo.)

Theres nothing funny about the trend to middle-aged Los Angeles weather forecaster Kyle Hunter, who last year accused Los Angeles CBS stations KCAL and KCBS of passing him over for weatherforecasters Evelyn Taft and Jackie Johnson young women his lawsuit described as cut from the same blond, attractive, buxom mold.

Hunter said he wanted to follow in the mold of now-retired KCBS weatherman Johnny Mountain, but was told by KCALs station manager that KCAL catered to maleviewers and Hunter wouldnt be the type [that] men would want to look at.

Also Read: Too Many Liberal Profs? Lawmakers Want Equal Split of Democratic and Republican Professors

CBS retorted that it had a First Amendment right to hire whomever it wanted, because the Constitution protects its right to choose the content of the news and how thenews is delivered.Besides, the network said, it was allowed to hire weather anchors who were local celebrities to boost ratings.

But Hunters case wont decide the question of whether networks have a Constitutional right to hire weather reporters in the blond, attractive, buxom mold because theCalifornia Court of Appeal dismissed Hunters discrimination case last year based on a separate argument from CBS.

Last year, the court agreed with the networks contentionthat itemployed other middle-aged male weather anchors, not just young women leaving open the question of whether CBS would have had a legal right to hire only young, attractive women.

Also Read: Middlebury Professor Speaks Out About Mob That 'Gave Me a Concussion'

Outside of the news and entertainment industry, employers arerarely successful when they argue that they need to hire attractive young women to please their male customers.

Southwest Airlines, Pan American and other airlines were laughed out of court when they tried to make the argument in the1970s and 80s. Southwest argued that it needed to hire only women as flight attendants and ticket agents and dress themin in high boots and hot pants to attract the airlines predominately male Texan passengers. A Texas federal judge shot thatargument down, saying that the primary functions of ticket agents and flight attendants are to book flights, sell tickets,maintain cabin safety, and serve food and drinks and that all of those tasks could be done by men.

Congress gave employers permission to discriminate based on sex but not on race but only when gender is essential to the primary function of the job. Playboy was allowed to hire only female Bunnies, for example, because their dominant function is to sexually entice heterosexual male customers. Hooters has been hit with class-action lawsuits for hiring only Hooters Girls as servers, and settled by agreeing to hire men asbartenders and hosts, but has stuck to its all-women server policy.As the Hooters website says of its idealized Hooters Girl:a waitress she is not.

ABC is no Hooters. But its Bachelor case also forced it to defend its decisions about who to hire. And itwon a resounding courtroom victory when it used the First Amendment to defend itself against a race discrimination lawsuit claiming it intentionally hired only white Bachelors and Bachelorettes.(Age and looks werent an issue in this case, given that everyone involved in the dating franchise is young and almost universally regarded asattractive.)

Nathaniel Claybrooks and Christopher Johnson, two African Americans, sued ABC after being rejected as applicants to be the Bachelor in 2011.They said in theirNashville, Tennessee lawsuit that the complete lack of people of color in the two shows is no accident.

ABC responded by saying that the network shares the mens goals of reducing racial bias and prejudice and fostering diversity, and that it never discriminated based onrace in connection with the casting process for the Bachelor and Bachelorette shows.

But ABC said that the First Amendment gives the network carte blanche to make casting decisions based on race,listing numerous shows where race-based castingdecisions were made and should be allowed to continue under the First Amendment. It cited programs including The Cosby Show and the Shahs of Beverly Hills.

A federal judge in Tennessee agreed with ABC, dismissing the lawsuit in 2012. The judge praised the lawsuit for its laudable goals, but ruled that the First Amendmentprevented Claybrooks and Johnson from forcing ABC to deviate from its all-white casting.

Eventually, diversity won the day as Lindsays casting as the next Bachelorette shows. But the ruling was based on ABCs decision that she would be the bestBachelorette, not a judges order.

ABC has made a bigger commitment to diversity in recent years, as the country evolves and networks increasingly recognize the value of courting non-white viewers.Two of televisions biggest recent hits are ABCs Black-ish and Foxs Empire, both of which have majority African-American casts.

The bottom line? The legal forecast isnt clear when it comes to who networks can hire. But the demographic patterns and business decisions point toward a greatercommitment to on-air diversity.

Never in the history of television has your local weather person been so unlikely to be a weatherman especially an older white man.

As the end of "The Bachelor" Season 21 nears, let's take a look back at the long-running ABC reality show'sinfamous troublemakers. Here is our ranking of both "Bachelor" and "Bachelorette" villains, from bad to worst:

Nick Viall, "The Bachelorette," Season 10, Season 11; "The Bachelor," Season 21

This season's current bachelor didhis time as a bad boy in two past seasons of "The Bachelorette." He isolated himself from all other contestantsand also madea surprise, unwelcomed appearanceon a season in which he wasn't even cast.

Tierra LiCausi, "The Bachelor," Season 17

From several meltdowns to a hospital trip, LiCausi (left) fit the bill of nemesisperfectly, complete with her own evil laughter.

Olivia Caridi, "The Bachelor," Season 20

Olivias mouth, toes and aggression left viewers both cringing and laughing. Her transition from fan favorite to villain was rapid, and her legacy on the internet will remain for years to come. (And if you don't know what we're talking about, look up the nowinfamous meme.)

Chad Johnson, "The Bachelorette," Season 12

Chads obsession with working out and threatening fellow contestants made him a foe to remember. While many disliked him for his brash nature, his insults were wittier than most villains before him.

Corrine Olympios, "The Bachelor," Season 21

In the short span of the last two months, Corinne has established her legacy as one of the most entertaining villains in "Bachelor" history. From her dependence on her nanny Raquel, to napping through several events, fans were both relieved and sad to see her ousted toward the end of the 2017 season.

Kelsey Poe, "The Bachelor," Season 19

Sheused her story of being a widow to garner sympathy and screen time, and openly admitted to manipulating her season'sBachelor with her husbands death. She is also remembered for having a panic attack before a rose ceremony, and then immediately joking about how host Chris Harrison couldnt eliminate her.

Bentley Williams, "The Bachelorette," Season 7

This contestant was dubbed one of Chris Harrisons least favorite suitors of all time. Williams purposely set out to make his Bachelorette cry and faked many of his interactions with her.

Courtney Robertson, "The Bachelor," Season 16

With her own book I Didnt Come Here To Make Friends, Robertson clearly prides herself on achieving supervillain status. Mocking other contestants, lying to the Bachelor and sabotaging dates, Robertson cemented herself as one of the most hated of the entire series.

Juan Pablo Galavis, "The Bachelorette," Season 9; "The Bachelor," Season 18

Between making crude comments to his contestants, to being openly homophobic, Galavis tops this list of ultimate villains from the reality series.

Also Read: The Bachelor': 9 Most Awkward Hometown Dates (Photos)

Here are the baddies who have kept viewers hooked over the years

As the end of "The Bachelor" Season 21 nears, let's take a look back at the long-running ABC reality show'sinfamous troublemakers. Here is our ranking of both "Bachelor" and "Bachelorette" villains, from bad to worst:

Read more from the original source:
Is There a First Amendment Right to Hire 'Buxom' Weather ...

San Francisco The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will urge an appeals court Wednesday to find that the FBI violates the First Amendment when it unilaterally gags recipients of national security letters (NSLs), and the law should therefore be found unconstitutional. The hearing is set for Wednesday, March 22, at 1:30pm in San Francisco.

EFF represents two communications service providersCREDO Mobile and Cloudflarethat were restrained for years from speaking about the NSLs they received, including even acknowledging that they had received any NSLs. Early Monday, just days before the hearing, the FBI finally conceded that EFF could reveal that these two companies were fighting a total of five NSLs.

CREDO and Cloudflare have fought for years to publicly disclose their roles in battling NSL gag orders. Both companies won the ability to talk about some of the NSLs they had received several months ago, but Mondays decision by the FBI allows them to acknowledge all the NSLs at issue in this case.

On Wednesday, EFF Staff Attorney Andrew Crocker will tell the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that these gags are unconstitutional restrictions on CREDO and Cloudflares free speech and that the FBIs belated decision to lift some of the gags only underscores why judicial oversight is needed in every case. The gag orders barred these companies from participating in discussion and debate about government use of NSLseven as Congress was debating changes to the NSL statute in 2015.

What: In re National Security Letters

Who: EFF Staff Attorney Andrew Crocker

Date: March 22 1:30 pm

Where: Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor Room 307 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103

For the FBI notice allowing the companies to identify themselves: https://www.eff.org/document/notice-regarding-public-identification-nsl-recipients

For more on this case: https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters

See the rest here:
Hearing Wednesday: National Security Letters Violate the First Amendment - EFF