Mediaboss Marketing

A bad review on Yelp is an anathema to a business. No one wants to get trashed online. But the First Amendment protects both the reviewers opinion and Yelps right to publish it. A California appeals court ran roughshod over the First Amendment when it ordered Yelp to comply with an injunction to take down speech without giving the website any opportunity to challenge the injunctions factual basis. The case is on appeal to the California Supreme Court, and EFF filed an amicus brief asking the court to overturn the lower courts dangerous holding.

The case, Hassell v. Bird, is procedurally complicated. A lawyer, Dawn Hassell, sued a former client, Ava Bird, for defamation in California state court over a negative Yelp review. Bird never responded to the lawsuit, so the trial court entered a default judgment against her. The courtat Hassells requestnot only ordered Bird to remove her own reviews, but also ordered Yelp to remove themeven though Yelp was never named as a party to the suit. (If this kind of abuse of a default judgment sounds familiar, thats not a coincidence; it seems to be increasingly commonand its a real threat to online speech.)

Yelp challenged the order, asserting that Hassell failed to prove that the post at issue was actually defamatory, that Yelp could not be held liable for the speech pursuant to the Communication Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. 230 (Section 230), and that Yelp could not be compelled to take down the post as a non-party to the suit. The trial court rejected Yelps arguments and refused to recognize Yelps free speech rights as a content provider. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial courts decision, holding that Yelp could be forced to remove the supposedly defamatory speech from its website without any opportunity to argue that the reviews were accurate or otherwise constitutionally protected.

This decision is frankly just wrongand for multiple reasons. Neither court seemed to understand that the First Amendment protects not only authors and speakers, but also those who publish or distribute their words. Both courts completely precluded Yelp, a publisher of online content, from challenging whether the speech it was being ordered to take down was defamatoryi.e., whether the injunction to take down the speech could be justified. And the court of appeals ignored its special obligation, pursuant to California law, to conduct an independent examination of the record in First Amendment cases.

Both courts also seemed to completely ignore the U.S. Supreme Courts clear holding that issuing an injunction against a non-party is a constitutionally-prohibited violation of due process.

EFFalong with the ACLU of Northern California and the Public Participation Projecturged the California Supreme Court to accept the case for review back in August 2016. The court agreed to review the case in September, and we just joined an amicus brief urging the court to overrule the problematic holding below.

Our briefdrafted by Jeremy Rosen of Horvitz & Levy and joined by a host of other organizations dedicated to free speechexplains to the California Supreme Court that the First Amendment places a very high bar on speech-restricting injunctions. A default judgment simply cannot provide a sufficient factual basis for meeting that bar, and the injunction issued against Yelp in this case was improper. We also explained that the injunction violated clear Supreme Court case law and Yelps due process rights, and that the injunction violates Section 230, which prohibits courts from holding websites liable for the speech of third parties.

As Santa Clara University law school professor Eric Goldman noted in a blog post about the case, the appeals courts decision opens up a host of opportunities for misuse and threatens to rip a hole in Section 230s protections for online speechprotections that already seem to be weakening. If not overturned, as the already pervasive misuse of default judgments teaches, this case will surely lead to similar injunctions that infringe on publishers free speech rights without giving them any notice or opportunity to be heard. The California Supreme Court cannot allow this.

See the original post here:
EFF to California Supreme Court: Website Owners Have a First Amendment Right to Defend Content on Their Platform - EFF

GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) East Carolina University has come under fire from some who feel as if their First Amendment rights are being violated.

The First Amendment discussion intensified in the Fall after some members of the ECU marching band knelt during the national anthem at a football game. Since then, some students have spoken out about free speech on campus.

On Monday, controversial figure Tomi Lahren spoke to a sold out crowd of 700 people in Hendrix Theatre. The university made the decision to exclude media during the event, prompting more concerns about First Amendment rights.

Later, ECU released a statement on the incident saying, Contracts for speakers do not allow for recordings which is why we asked to have the media availability. Not having media in some events is not unusual at ECU especially for events in Hendrix because its a smaller venue. We did tickets because the venue is small. Our larger venue, Wright was already booked for this date. This event was sold out and requires a valid student ID and ticket to enter.

Lahren was speaking about the importance of free speech to the crowd.

Free speech isnt just saying what you want to say, its also hearing things you dont want to hear, and thats okay, she said before the event.

But some students feel as if this may just be the latest example in their rights being infringed on.

Weve been working with ECU since the fall semester to change these policies, said Giovanni Triana, director of ECUs Turning Point USA.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is national group focusing on maintaining, and expanding, individual rights at universities. They rank universities using a red, yellow and green light based on policies relating to individual rights.

ECU was given a yellow light by FIRE, due in large part because students have to get prior permission to assemble, and once permission is granted, are limited in where they can gather.

This really infringes on students rights to free speech because protests and demonstrations are often spontaneous, said Samantha Harris, VP of Police Research for FIRE. You know something happens and part of the message is the immediacy.

Under new regulations set to be released by the university this week, freedoms would be expanded on campus. ECU Provost Ron Mitchelson said one of the changes would deal with prior permission being required to assemble.

Student groups can in fact express themselves at any time, and anywhere on this campus, he said.

Mitchelson said there would be exceptions, especially if the movement turned violent or disrupted classes.

Free speech at universities is also being debated by state lawmakers. A RepublicanHouse Bill would ensure rights of students werent being infringed on.

To read more about FIRE and see how other schools rank, click here.

Read the original post:
Steps being taken to improve First Amendment rights at ECU - WNCT

Sofia Vergara's ex Nick Loeb has officially taken thingsto new levels.

MORE: Sofia Vergara's Ex Nick Loeb Says He Didn't Like It When She Spoke Spanish

The Modern Family star's former fiance has now accused her of violating his first amendment rights by trying to get him to stop the lawsuit on their frozen embryos battle. Loeb will reportedly appear in court in May to fight this most recent development, claiming Vergara tried to "chill" and "punish" his attempts at becoming a father.

The two have been in an ongoing legal battle since 2014 regarding the actress's frozen embryos, which Loeb wants access to. In December, Loeb formed a trust in Louisana on behalf of the embryos, and named them Emma and Isabella. The former couple created the embryos together in 2013, just before ending their relationship.

PLUS: Sofia Vergara's Frozen Embryo Battle with Nick Loeb Isn't Going Away

In February, the actress filed documents attempting to permanently block Loeb's access to file any future lawsuits on the case. In the documents, she explains that she believes Loeb will continue to try to get access to her embryos and, therefore, she must take a "declaratory judgement" against him. More recently, Loeb gave an update on the case, saying, "We've been through the depositions and now we are waiting for a court date to be set, it should be sometime this summer." He also attempted to squash the rumors that he's simply trying to steal Vergara's baby, adding, "A lot of people think I'm trying to steal her eggs and they don't realize that an embryo is half mine - half my DNA and half her DNA. It's actually a human being."

Follow this link:
Sofia Vergara's Ex Nick Loeb Now Claims She Violated His First Amendment Rights - Latina

On a recent Friday night at Durham's Fullsteam Brewery, founder Sean Lilly Wilson is pointing to a color-coded menu, helping three customers on the opposite side of the bar decide what to order.

"I'm partial to this one," he says, recommending the Brumley Forest porter, "because we all went out and foraged these nuts to make this beer."

Fullsteam is packed with young couples, families, and dogs. And that's just how Wilson, who until recently was president of the N.C. Craft Brewers Guild, wants it. Before opening Fullsteam in 2010, he helped organize the Pop the Cap movement that in 2005 increased the limit on alcohol content in beers brewed and sold in North Carolina from 6 percent to 15 percent, part of a further-reaching effort to make the state's laws more brewery-friendly in order to foster the kind of community that has grown up around his Rigsbee Avenue business.

It's easy to tell here that North Carolina's craft beer scene is alive and well. Since Fullsteam opened, the number of breweries in the state has grown from 45 to 204, making North Carolina eleventh in the nation for beer production. Albeit with less clamor, the state's craft distilling industry has surged as well, from 13 establishments in 2013 to 46 now.

Some craft brewers and distillers, though, say the state's distribution laws are keeping their industries from reaching their full potential. Two bills currently in the General Assembly could change that by putting more leverage in the hands of alcohol producers. HB 500 would increase how much beer breweries can sell without bringing in an outside distributor; SB 155 would give distilleries more opportunities to directly sell liquor to customers. The debate over these bills pits North Carolina's Bible Belt roots against its more progressive metropolitan centers, entrenched political interests against the conservative cry for small government, and the way things were against the way things can be.

"It's economic development, it's innovation, it's tourismit's all the things that North Carolina loves to celebrate," Wilson says. "But at the same time, it comes down to yet another battle between red state, blue city."

In 1908, North Carolina became the first state in the South to ban the sale of alcohol, eleven years before the Eighteenth Amendment was ratified, and it didn't give counties the option to allow liquor sales until two years after Prohibition ended. In fact, when the Twenty-first Amendment came before the states in 1933, North Carolinaalong with South Carolinarefused to ratify it.

It was out of this post-Prohibition era that our current alcohol-control system originated. And like many octogenarians, it does not take kindly to change.

Like most states, North Carolina has a three-tier distribution system for beer sales. Producers and importers are the first tier, distributors the second, and retailers the third. North Carolina breweries that sell fewer than twenty-five thousand barrels of beer per year can get a wholesaler permit and distribute their own product. Once a brewery hits 25,001 barrels, though, it must sell all of its beer through a wholesaler and sign a distribution agreement giving that wholesaler exclusive rights to sell the product in a given territory. HB 500 seeks to raise the cap on self-distribution to two hundred thousand barrels per year, which state representative and bill sponsor Jon Hardister, R-Guilford, says is the middle ground among the fifteen states that allow limited self-distribution.

HB 500 marks the ninth attempt to raise the cap since it was set at twenty-five thousand in 2003. (Before that, it was ten thousand barrels.) With the support of a brewer-backed campaign called Craft Freedom and some suds-loving legislators, HB 500 appears to have momentum. The House Alcohol Beverage Control committee was expected to vote on the bill Wednesday morning.

When the cap was last raised, there were about twenty breweries and one hundred wholesalers to serve them, says Margo Metzger, executive director of the N.C. Craft Brewers Guild. Today, she estimates, there are about forty independent beer wholesalers that each markets about 980 products. For small breweries, this means competing with larger brands for a wholesaler's attention, and therefore tap and shelf space.

Wilson says the barrel cap is "always on my mind" as he projects his company's growth. Fullsteam, which is on track to brew about seven thousand barrels of beer this year, self-distributes and uses a wholesaler, both locally and in three other states.

"The more successful we are as a self-distribution brewery, the more we're actually going to need a wholesaler as well." Wilson says. "Even in our local market, we rely on a wholesaler to penetrate deep because we just don't have those relationships."

For those rallying to raise the cap, HB 500 is a free market issuebreweries should be allowed to decide if and when they want to hire a distributor, not be forced to retool successful business models to make sure the middle tier gets a cut. Indeed, the John Locke Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, and the Civitas Institute have all voiced support for raising the cap, if not eliminating it altogether.

Hardister, the House majority whip, argues that there should be no cap at all.

"Our laws are outdated," he says. "Obviously our laws are not completely terrible, because then there would be no growth in the industry. But there is potential to make these businesses more successful, and that involves getting the government out of the way."

Just three breweries in the stateNoDa Brewing Company, Olde Mecklenburg Brewery (both in Charlotte), and Red Oak Brewery in Whitsettare pushing the current barrel cap. But given the industry's growth, that likely won't be the case for long.

"All you have to do is look at the curvature and the time it takes to change these different complex laws with a lot of entrenched interests to know that you have to be thinking about the future," Wilson says.

Read the original:
Eighty-four Years After the Twenty-first Amendment, Are North Carolina's Liquor Laws Ready for the Twenty-first Century? - The Independent Weekly

In 2016, abillboard on a highway near Dearborn, Michigan mocked the then-presidential candidate. Using Arabic, the billboard addressed Trump, saying:

"Donald Trump, he cant read this, but he is scared of it anyway."

The location was chosen because of the large Arab-American population in the area.

Michigan is home to the second largest Arab-American population in the United States, and the largest mosque in North America is located in Dearborn.

Commenting on the billboard, Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told Detroit News:

"It is stating a feeling ... that Donald Trump has been a fear-monger about communities he really doesnt know. What Ive been hearing on the streets of Detroit and Dearborn ... I have not spoken to a person yet that theyre going to vote for (Trump) in this upcoming election.

The general statements are hes just a racist bigot and not just against people of the Islamic faith, but he made comments against Latinos and women."

Link:
The ACLU is trolling Trump with Arabic 'First Amendment' signs - StepFeed