Mediaboss Marketing

A Texas high school's on-site prayer room -- which serves as a spot where Muslim students can pray -- is stirring controversy.

Liberty High School in Frisco established the room in 2009, but Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is concerned that the room may be off-limits to students of other religious denominations.

He said in a letter Friday to the school district that any exclusion would be inconsistent with the First Amendments protection of religious liberty.

A school district spokesman responded that the classroom is available to students of all walks of life in the afternoon when it is vacant.

The leader of a large Baptist church in Dallas told "Fox & Friends" Sunday that he is okay with the practice.

I believe as long as students had equal access to the room its not a First Amendment issue, Pastor Robert Jeffress said. I believe we really as conservatives need to be careful that we dont pervert the First Amendment like liberals do to use it for their own agenda.

Muslim-American Mustafa Tameez, a Democratic political consultant, told "Fox & Friends" that Paxton is trying to create a controversy where one doesnt exist.

In airports we have a chapel where people can go pray, he said. So its not necessarily just for Muslim students. Its for anybody, anybody of faith that wants to use a room to communicate with their creator."

See the article here:
First Amendment controversy brews over Texas high school's prayer room - Fox News

We occasionally make the mistake in thinking that the First Amendments guarantee of free belongs to the press and journalists. And certainly, journalists invoke it, as they should, to protect and defend their work. But the First Amendment, along with the entire Bill of Rights, protects citizens, no matter their occupation.

A recent illustration of this point comes from the federal appeals court for the Eleventh Circuit. That court struck down a Florida statute that required Florida doctors to:

refrain from making a written inquiry or asking questions concerning the ownership of a firearm or ammunition by the patient or by a family member of the patient, or the presence of a firearm in a private home or other domicile of the patient or a family member of the patient.

Doctors who failed to follow the law were at risk of disciplinary proceedings.

To the best of my knowledge, no Florida law prohibited a doctor from asking whether patients kept medications in the reach of children. No law prohibited Florida doctors from asking if there were dangerous pesticides in the house. No Florida legislator apparently felt it necessary to prohibit a doctor from asking if a family kept flammable materials near a heat source. But curiously, a majority of Florida legislators decided to substitute their judgment for that of trained medical providers and pass a law telling them what they could and could not discuss with their patients.

Perhaps if Wayne LaPierre headed the National Pesticides Association rather than the National Rifle Association, the law would have been different. But the First Amendment cannot allow a law that regulates speech based on the content of that speech. And that is exactly what the Florida law did. Doctors could talk to patients about anything they deemed important except for the presence of guns in a house. That is what is known as a facial violation. Which is legalese for no brainer. Which is also an apt description of the legislators who passed this bill in the first place.

Follow this link:
The First Amendment - it's everywhere Blog Jack "Out of the Box" - Lexology (registration)

A clown resembling President Donald Trump stands in a parking lot surrounded by classic cars, Doberman Pinschers and gangsters. Rapper and hip-hop artist Snoop Dogg raises a black gun to the clowns head. He pulls the trigger and a flag with the word BANG unfurls from the barrel.

On March 12, rapper and hip-hop artist Snoop Dogg released a controversial music video for his new song Lavender in collaboration with fellow artists BADBADNOTGOOD and Kaytranada in which Snoop does this: He simulates the shooting of President Trump.

The video depicts a society wherein everyone, except Snoop himself, is a clown. The narrative follows a father who is pulled over by a donut-eating police officer smoking marijuana on the drive to work. The police officer proceeds to shoot the man in his car immediately after seeing a toy squirt gun, belonging to the mans son, in his possession. Meanwhile, a civilian observer films the whole encounter on his cell phone.

The song references the issue of police brutality, especially against African American men. Snoop warns that if the problem is not addressed, drastic measures must then be taken.

And the night will fall, this is death to you all The final call, see reparations will be tooken

It is not uncommon for music to hyperbolize violence to this degree. His figurative language is not to be taken literally. It is incredibly unlikely that Snoop is planning to kill every police officer, or even every officer who has committed an offense gilded in bias or bigotry. Yet the sequence in which Snoop pulls the trigger on clown president Ronald Klump has severely angered the president and stirred speculation into the legality of the reference.

Soon after the videos release, Trumps lawyer revealed that the president is expecting an apology, according to CNN. Trump later tweeted suggesting that Snoop would have experienced jail time during Obamas administration.

Snoop responded with an Instagram video in which he says, Ive got nothing to say, mate, in an Australian accent, possibly poking fun at the outrage over his implementation of his first amendment rights. Snoop can wipe his brow, however, because he is in the clear; his parody is protected under the Bill of Rights. Wouldnt you know?!

"When I be putting shit out, I dont ever expect or look for a reaction. I just put it out because I feel like its something thats missing, Snoop said in Billboard. Any time I drop something, Im trying to fill in a void."

Granted, Snoops criticism is a tad heavy-handed, but the message rings loud and clear: Trump is a clown, a person who has a hard time garnering respect. Snoop is allowed to believe that message and to share it with whomever he cares to.

The president of a democratic republic being seemingly unable to take criticism from the people he governs is incredibly problematic for his image. Furthermore, his previous attempts to refute the reporting and interpretations of the media and citizens have in fact made him look silly. Trying to discredit the media as the enemy of the people for spewing falsehoods when his administration is spewing their own alternative facts has promoted overwhelming notions of hypocrisy.

Negative opinions are a staple that come with the position of president, and they cannot be ceased if our rights remain intact. That being said, Trump should either learn to laugh at himself or change his ways. Jail time is not an option for Snoop not for the time being at least.

This is the opinion of Jennifer Lee, a freshman communication studies major from Los Angeles, California. Tweet comments to @LALoyolan, or email csontag@theloyolan.com.

Go here to read the rest:
Snoop Dogg's Lavender video exemplifies power of First Amendment - Los Angeles Loyolan (subscription)

HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer 12:57 p.m. ET March 17, 2017

In this Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2017 photo, reporters raise their hands as White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer takes questions during a daily briefing in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington. In 2017, journalism marks its annual Sunshine Week at an extraordinary moment in the relationship between the presidency and the press. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)(Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)

NEW YORK (AP) Whenever Donald Trump fumes about "fake news" or labels the press "the enemy of the people," First Amendment scholar David L. Hudson Jr. hears echoes of other presidents but a breadth and tone that are entirely new.

Trump may not know it, but it was Thomas Jefferson who once said, "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper," said Hudson, a law professor at Vanderbilt University.

"But what's unusual with Trump is the pattern of disparagement and condemnation of virtually the entire press corps. We've had presidents who were embittered and hated some of the press Richard Nixon comes to mind. ... But I can't think of a situation where you have this rat-a-tat attack on the press on virtually a daily basis, for the evident purpose of discrediting it."

Journalism marks its annual Sunshine Week, which draws attention to the media's role in advocating for government transparency, at an extraordinary moment in the relationship between the presidency and the press.

First Amendment advocates call the Trump administration the most hostile to the press and free expression in memory. In words and actions, they say, Trump and his administration have threatened democratic principles and the general spirit of a free society: The demonizing of the media and emphatic repetition of falsehoods. Fanciful scenarios of voter fraud and scorn for dissent. The refusal to show Trump's tax returns and the removal of information from government websites.

And in that battle with the Trump administration, the media do not have unqualified public support.

FILE - In this March 4, 1969 file photo, President Richard Nixon holds a televised news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, outlining his recent five-nation visit to Europe. First Amendment scholar David L. Hudson Jr. says, " what's unusual with Trump is the pattern of disparagement and condemnation of virtually the entire press corps. We've had presidents who were embittered and hated some of the press _ Richard Nixon comes to mind. Teddy Roosevelt had a reporter jailed for purportedly lying about the Panama Canal. But I can't think of a situation where you have this rat-a-tat attack on the press on virtually a daily basis, for the evident purpose of discrediting it." (AP Photo)(Photo: Anonymous, AP)

According to a recent Pew survey, nearly 90 percent of respondents favored fair and open elections while more than 80 percent value the system of government checks and balances. But around two-thirds called it vital for the media to have the right to criticize government leaders; only half of Republicans were in support. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that Americans by a margin of 53-37 trust the media over Trump to tell the truth about important issues; among Republicans, 78 percent favored Trump.

"We're clearly in a particularly polarizing moment, although this is something we've been building to for a very long time," says Kyle Pope, editor in chief and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review, a leading news and commentary source for journalism.

"I think one of the mistakes the press made is we became perceived as part of the establishment. And I think one of the silver linings of the moment we're in is that we have a renewed sense of what our mission is and where we stand in the pecking order, and that is on the outside, where we belong."

Hudson, ombudsman of the Newseum's First Amendment Center, says it's hard to guess whether Trump is serious or "bloviating" when he disparages free expression. He noted Trump's comments in November saying that flag burners should be jailed and wondered if the president knew such behavior was deemed protected by the Constitution (in a 1989 Supreme Court ruling supported by a justice Trump says he admires, the late Antonin Scalia).

Hudson also worries about a range of possible trends, notably the withholding of information and a general culture of secrecy that could "close a lot of doors." But he did have praise for Trump's pick to replace Scalia on the court, Neil Gorsuch, saying that he has "showed sensitivity" to First Amendment issues. And free speech advocates say the press, at least on legal issues, is well positioned to withstand Trump.

FILE - In this Sunday, Feb. 26, 2017 file photo, demonstrators stand with U.S. flags and signs in a show of solidarity with the press in front of The New York Times building in New York. The White House banned several major news outlets, including The New York Times and CNN, from an off-camera briefing, known as a "press gaggle," two days earlier. (AP Photo/Kathy Willens)(Photo: Kathy Willens, AP)

"We have a really robust First Amendment and have a lot of protections in place," says Kelly McBride, vice president of The Poynter Institute, a nonprofit journalism education center based in St. Petersburg, Florida. "That doesn't mean that attempts won't be made. But when you compare our country to what journalists face around the world, I still think the U.S. is one of the safest places for a journalist to criticize the government."

The First Amendment, which states in part that "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," is far broader and more uniquely American than when ratified in 1791.

At the time, free expression was based on the legal writings of Britain's Sir William Blackstone. The First Amendment protected against prior restraint, but not against lawsuits once something was spoken or published. Truth was not a defense against libel and the burden of proof was on the defendant, not the plaintiff. And the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government, but not to individual states, which could legislate as they pleased.

The most important breakthrough of recent times, and the foundation for many protections now, came with the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case of 1964.

Editorial:McNally, Harwell proposal makes Sunshine Week brighter

See Also:Texts are public records but access to them remains tricky

Column:Sunshine Week celebrates the public's right to know

Guest editorial:The government belongs to you

See also:McNally, Harwell seek review of Tennessee open records exemptions

Jack McElroy:Real news sometimes demands anonymity

The Times had printed an advertisement in 1960 by supporters of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that noted King had been arrested numerous times and condemned "Southern violators of the Constitution." The public safety commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, L. B. Sullivan sued for libel. He was not mentioned by name in the ad, but he claimed that allegations against the police also defamed him. After a state court awarded Sullivan $500,000, the Times appealed to the Supreme Court.

Some information in the ad was indeed wrong, such as the number of times King was arrested, but the Supreme Court decided unanimously for the Times. In words still widely quoted, Justice William Brennan wrote that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." He added that a libel plaintiff must prove "that the statement was made ... with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

"It was breathtakingly new," First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams said of Brennan's ruling. "It was an extraordinary step the court was taking."

Sunshine Week is March 12-18, 2017(Photo: American Society of News Editors)

But freedom of speech has long been championed more in theory than in reality. Abraham Lincoln's administration shut down hundreds of newspapers during the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson championed the people's "indisputable right to criticize their own public officials," but also signed legislation during World War I making it a crime to "utter, print, write, or publish" anything "disloyal" or "profane" about the federal government. During the administration of President Barack Obama, who had taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, the Wilson-era Espionage Act was used to obtain emails and phone records of reporters and threaten James Risen of The New York Times with jail.

Predicting what Trump might do is as difficult as following his views on many issues. He often changes his mind, and contradicts himself.

During the campaign last year, he spoke of changing the libel laws to make it easier to sue the media. But shortly after the election, he seemed to reverse himself. He has said he is a "tremendous believer of the freedom of the press," but has worried that "Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it."

Trump's disparagement of the media has been contradicted by high officials in his administration. Secretary of Defense James Mattis said recently that he did not have "any issues with the press." Vice President Mike Pence was an Indiana congressman when he helped sponsor legislation (which never passed) in 2005 that would protect reporters from being imprisoned by federal courts. In early March, he spoke at a prominent gathering of Washington journalists, the Gridiron Club and Foundation dinner.

"Be assured that while we will have our differences and I promise the members of the Fourth Estate that you will almost always know when we have them President Trump and I support the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment," he said, while adding that "too often stories make page one and drive news with just too little respect for the people who are affected or involved."

Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2maXM4M

See more here:
Advocates say First Amendment can withstand Trump attacks - Knoxville News Sentinel

NEW YORK (AP) Whenever Donald Trump fumes about fake news or labels the press the enemy of the people, First Amendment scholar David L. Hudson Jr. hears echoes of other presidents but a breadth and tone that are entirely new.

Trump may not know it, but it was Thomas Jefferson who once said, Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper, said Hudson, a law professor at Vanderbilt University.

But whats unusual with Trump is the pattern of disparagement and condemnation of virtually the entire press corps. Weve had presidents who were embittered and hated some of the press Richard Nixon comes to mind. But I cant think of a situation where you have this rat-a-tat attack on the press on virtually a daily basis, for the evident purpose of discrediting it.

Journalism marks its annual Sunshine Week, which draws attention to the medias role in advocating for government transparency, at an extraordinary moment in the relationship between the presidency and the press.

First Amendment advocates call the Trump administration the most hostile to the press and free expression in memory. In words and actions, they say, Trump and his administration have threatened democratic principles and the general spirit of a free society: The demonizing of the media and emphatic repetition of falsehoods. Fanciful scenarios of voter fraud and scorn for dissent. The refusal to show Trumps tax returns and the removal of information from government websites.

And in that battle with the Trump administration, the media do not have unqualified public support.

According to a recent Pew survey, nearly 90 percent of respondents favored fair and open elections while more than 80 percent value the system of government checks and balances. But around two-thirds called it vital for the media to have the right to criticize government leaders; only half of Republicans were in support. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that Americans by a margin of 53-37 trust the media over Trump to tell the truth about important issues; among Republicans, 78 percent favored Trump.

Were clearly in a particularly polarizing moment, although this is something weve been building to for a very long time, says Kyle Pope, editor in chief and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review, a leading news and commentary source for journalism.

I think one of the mistakes the press made is we became perceived as part of the establishment. And I think one of the silver linings of the moment were in is that we have a renewed sense of what our mission is and where we stand in the pecking order, and that is on the outside, where we belong.

Hudson, ombudsman of the Newseums First Amendment Center, says its hard to guess whether Trump is serious or bloviating when he disparages free expression. He noted Trumps comments in November saying that flag burners should be jailed and wondered if the president knew such behavior was deemed protected by the Constitution (in a 1989 Supreme Court ruling supported by a justice Trump says he admires, the late Antonin Scalia).

Hudson also worries about a range of possible trends, notably the withholding of information and a general culture of secrecy that could close a lot of doors. But he did have praise for Trumps pick to replace Scalia on the court, Neil Gorsuch, saying that he has showed sensitivity to First Amendment issues. And free speech advocates say the press, at least on legal issues, is well positioned to withstand Trump.

We have a really robust First Amendment and have a lot of protections in place, says Kelly McBride, vice president of The Poynter Institute, a nonprofit journalism education center based in St. Petersburg, Florida. That doesnt mean that attempts wont be made. But when you compare our country to what journalists face around the world, I still think the U.S. is one of the safest places for a journalist to criticize the government.

The First Amendment, which states in part that 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, is far broader and more uniquely American than when ratified in 1791.

At the time, free expression was based on the legal writings of Britains Sir William Blackstone. The First Amendment protected against prior restraint, but not against lawsuits once something was spoken or published. Truth was not a defense against libel and the burden of proof was on the defendant, not the plaintiff. And the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government, but not to individual states, which could legislate as they pleased.

The most important breakthrough of recent times, and the foundation for many protections now, came with the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case of 1964.

The Times had printed an advertisement in 1960 by supporters of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that noted King had been arrested numerous times and condemned Southern violators of the Constitution. The public safety commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, L. B. Sullivan sued for libel. He was not mentioned by name in the ad, but he claimed that allegations against the police also defamed him. After a state court awarded Sullivan $500,000, the Times appealed to the Supreme Court.

Some information in the ad was indeed wrong, such as the number of times King was arrested, but the Supreme Court decided unanimously for the Times. In words still widely quoted, Justice William Brennan wrote that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. He added that a libel plaintiff must prove that the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

It was breathtakingly new, First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams said of Brennans ruling. It was an extraordinary step the court was taking.

But freedom of speech has long been championed more in theory than in reality. Abraham Lincolns administration shut down hundreds of newspapers during the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson championed the peoples indisputable right to criticize their own public officials, but also signed legislation during World War I making it a crime to utter, print, write, or publish anything disloyal or profane about the federal government. During the administration of President Barack Obama, who had taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, the Wilson-era Espionage Act was used to obtain emails and phone records of reporters and threaten James Risen of The New York Times with jail.

Predicting what Trump might do is as difficult as following his views on many issues. He often changes his mind, and contradicts himself.

During the campaign last year, he spoke of changing the libel laws to make it easier to sue the media. But shortly after the election, he seemed to reverse himself. He has said he is a tremendous believer of the freedom of the press, but has worried that Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it.

Trumps disparagement of the media has been contradicted by high officials in his administration. Secretary of Defense James Mattis said recently that he did not have any issues with the press. Vice President Mike Pence was an Indiana congressman when he helped sponsor legislation (which never passed) in 2005 that would protect reporters from being imprisoned by federal courts. In early March, he spoke at a prominent gathering of Washington journalists, the Gridiron Club and Foundation dinner.

Be assured that while we will have our differences and I promise the members of the Fourth Estate that you will almost always know when we have them President Trump and I support the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment, he said, while adding that too often stories make page one and drive news with just too little respect for the people who are affected or involved.

Go here to read the rest:
NATIONAL: Advocates say First Amendment can withstand Trump attacks - Stanly News & Press