Mediaboss Marketing

Donald Trump attacked the news media during his campaign through tweets and speeches, and did so again Saturday during a visit to the CIA. He has implied that the First Amendment might be too protective of the press, and that he would open up our libel laws. There are those who would have agreed with him with respect to the liberties taken by the press, including the very Founding Fathers who enacted the First Amendment.

President John Adams had such an intense dislike of the press that he sponsored legislation that criminalized false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government, the president or members of Congress. (The seemingly anomaly of not including the vice president as one of the protected people can be explained by the fact that the sitting vice president was the Federalists archenemy Thomas Jefferson.)

The First Amendment, ratified in 1791, prohibits Congress from making any law that abridges freedom of speech or the press. Yet, just seven years after the First Amendment was enacted, in the midst of the threat of war with France, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts supported by Adams and Alexander Hamilton. These founders who were responsible for the enactment of the First Amendment felt that criminalizing false and malicious criticism of the government or the president or members of the Congress did not run afoul of the First Amendment.

The great irony here is that conservative talk show hosts today believe as did the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that the original intent of the founders should be used in the interpretation of the Constitution and its provisions. In that case, it is apparent that the founders did not intend to allow the vilification of the president or certain members of Congress to be considered protected speech. If we lived back in that day, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would have been in serious violation of the law when they harshly criticized President Barack Obama.

The first of many prosecutions under the Sedition Act was that of Rep. Matthew Lyon of Vermont. He was a veteran of the Revolutionary War, having fought with patriot Ethan Allen at the battle of Fort Ticonderoga in New York. His crime was to write in a letter to a journal that criticized Adams unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation and self-avarice. In 1798, Lyon served four months in jail after publishing that affront. Benjamin Franklins grandson was arrested for leveling too scandalous a criticism at Adams.

The Sedition Act was later rendered meaningless by justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who interpreted the First Amendment, not as intended by our founders, but by contemporary standards comporting with our notion of freedom and press protection.

As Justice William Brennan noted in the 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan: Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history.

Those who want to revert to the original intent of our founders with respect to the First Amendment may not feel comfortable with laws that would hobble their ability to speak freely in criticizing our public officials. However, now that he is president, Trump might just agree with Adams and Hamilton that press criticism of him should have its limits.

Sol Wachtler, a former chief judge of New York State, is professor of Constitutional Law at Touro Law School.

Excerpt from:
Is the First Amendment back on trial? - Newsday

In general, shouting matches are reserved for fights between moody teenagers and their parents, or between contestants on reality shows. They should not be between the leader of the free world and the press tasked with reporting on him. Unfortunately, we elected a reality star into the highest office of the land and hes bringing some of his ratings-boosting tactics with him.

At his Jan. 11 press conference, then-President-elect Donald Trump got into a shouting match with Jim Acosta, a senior White House correspondent for CNN. President Trump called CNN fake news and refused to take Acostas question.

Lets first recognize the unbelievable irony of this. The man who fueled the birther movement, and fixated on alleged wrongdoing in crooked Hillary Clintons emails, called a world-renowned news agency fake news.

Done chuckling? Today, President-elect became President. Its not a joke anymore, or a what-if scenario floated around by political pundits.

Its time to examine the scary reality President Trumps actions could mean for the future of the First Amendment. The fact of the matter is one cannot outright silence a reporter just because they do not like the question that is being asked. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, and thus their commitment to carrying out their job.

Even student journalists here at the Daily Bruin work to make it a watchdog to higher authorities. Every year, we publish reviews of our very own USAC elected officials and the events they put on. We often act as a watchdog for USAC slates. The Daily Bruin also serves as a forum in which we can criticize and make suggestions for our campus administration.

The fact that Daily Bruin gave me the green light to write a whole series on free speech shows that our commitment to the First Amendment is steadfast. If college students can uphold and protect the First Amendment, shouldnt the leader of our country have the capacity to do the same?

The media has also played an important role as a watchdog for Congress and the President. If you have no idea what I am talking about, I have a single word for you: Watergate.

Unfortunately, his past actions lead me to believe he is either incapable or unwilling to respect the amendment that journalists and other elected officials have upheld for centuries. Jan. 11s fiasco hardly marked the first time the President has sparred with the media or otherwise indicated a desire to upheave tradition. As I have mentioned in earlier columns, President Trump has expressed his desire to open up libel laws, which, in theory, would make it easier for him to sue reporters for publishing articles that portray him in a negative light: however, as President, he has no power to do that.

Furthermore, the Trump administration indicated Sunday that they may be looking to move the press corps outside of the West Wing, a move that sent shockwaves through D.C.s journalist community and raised questions about the administrations transparency and accessibility. Journalists currently have offices in the West Wing and have direct access to the offices of press aides and the press secretary. Its unclear whether or not President Trump will give these reporters the boot as well, but moving the press corps away from the White House signals a physical move away from transparency and accountability.

American media and the West Wing go together like, well, America and apple pie. So important did the Founding Fathers find the freedom of the press that they included it in the very first amendment in our Constitution. Woodrow Wilson started the tradition of regular presidential press conferences with the media in 1913. While solo press conferences are less frequent, today press briefings with the White House press secretary happen most weekdays. When President Obama was President-elect, he formally fielded questions from the press 18 times. President George W. Bush held 11 during his time as President-elect. President Trump only fielded questions once. The fact that we hear from him more on Twitter, where he often berates and belittles his opponents, than in a formal press conference setting shows he is not concerned with answering the medias questions.

Today, President Trump swore to uphold all of the fine print of the Constitution, even and especially the parts of the First Amendment that he may find allow the public and press to attack his character. He must uphold free speech with the same voracity he is required to uphold the due-process clause and the emoluments clause with. I fear, based on his actions so far, that he will not hold good on this oath.

Many opponents of President Trump fear what will happen if his presidential powers run unchecked by Congress and if his rhetoric is normalized by the public. The media and their right to freedom of speech are a powerful tool to combat these very fears. If our President continues to alter the relationship between the West Wing and the press, or otherwise manipulate the presss free speech protection under the First Amendment, I fear that our country will be walking a thin line between democracy and fascism .

How will President Trumps bullying presence, the same one he unleashed upon Jim Acosta, alter the ways in which reporters cover facts? On a larger scale, how will his distaste for press conferences affect the way the American public receives news? Could we be moving towards a 1984 or North Korean-esque state, in which censorship runs rampant and allows dictators to advance their agendas? It is too soon to say for sure. However, it is of the utmost importance that journalists, students and civilians remain vigilant in protecting the First Amendment.

Great Cheeto Overlord, if you are reading this, I implore you: Respect and protect the First Amendment in all forms. Even if it means having to hear you have small hands from reporters you dont like.

Original post:
Freeze Peach Friday: President Trump must respect, uphold First ... - Daily Bruin

In general, shouting matches are reserved for fights between moody teenagers and their parents, or between contestants on reality shows. They should not be between the leader of the free world and the press tasked with reporting on him. Unfortunately, we elected a reality star into the highest office of the land and hes bringing some of his ratings-boosting tactics with him.

At his Jan. 11 press conference, then-President-elect Donald Trump got into a shouting match with Jim Acosta, a senior White House correspondent for CNN. President Trump called CNN fake news and refused to take Acostas question.

Lets first recognize the unbelievable irony of this. The man who fueled the birther movement, and fixated on alleged wrongdoing in crooked Hillary Clintons emails, called a world-renowned news agency fake news.

Done chuckling? Today, President-elect became President. Its not a joke anymore, or a what-if scenario floated around by political pundits.

Its time to examine the scary reality President Trumps actions could mean for the future of the First Amendment. The fact of the matter is one cannot outright silence a reporter just because they do not like the question that is being asked. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, and thus their commitment to carrying out their job.

Even student journalists here at the Daily Bruin work to make it a watchdog to higher authorities. Every year, we publish reviews of our very own USAC elected officials and the events they put on. We often act as a watchdog for USAC slates. The Daily Bruin also serves as a forum in which we can criticize and make suggestions for our campus administration.

The fact that Daily Bruin gave me the green light to write a whole series on free speech shows that our commitment to the First Amendment is steadfast. If college students can uphold and protect the First Amendment, shouldnt the leader of our country have the capacity to do the same?

The media has also played an important role as a watchdog for Congress and the President. If you have no idea what I am talking about, I have a single word for you: Watergate.

Unfortunately, his past actions lead me to believe he is either incapable or unwilling to respect the amendment that journalists and other elected officials have upheld for centuries. Jan. 11s fiasco hardly marked the first time the President has sparred with the media or otherwise indicated a desire to upheave tradition. As I have mentioned in earlier columns, President Trump has expressed his desire to open up libel laws, which, in theory, would make it easier for him to sue reporters for publishing articles that portray him in a negative light: however, as President, he has no power to do that.

Furthermore, the Trump administration indicated Sunday that they may be looking to move the press corps outside of the West Wing, a move that sent shockwaves through D.C.s journalist community and raised questions about the administrations transparency and accessibility. Journalists currently have offices in the West Wing and have direct access to the offices of press aides and the press secretary. Its unclear whether or not President Trump will give these reporters the boot as well, but moving the press corps away from the White House signals a physical move away from transparency and accountability.

American media and the West Wing go together like, well, America and apple pie. So important did the Founding Fathers find the freedom of the press that they included it in the very first amendment in our Constitution. Woodrow Wilson started the tradition of regular presidential press conferences with the media in 1913. While solo press conferences are less frequent, today press briefings with the White House press secretary happen most weekdays. When President Obama was President-elect, he formally fielded questions from the press 18 times. President George W. Bush held 11 during his time as President-elect. President Trump only fielded questions once. The fact that we hear from him more on Twitter, where he often berates and belittles his opponents, than in a formal press conference setting shows he is not concerned with answering the medias questions.

Today, President Trump swore to uphold all of the fine print of the Constitution, even and especially the parts of the First Amendment that he may find allow the public and press to attack his character. He must uphold free speech with the same voracity he is required to uphold the due-process clause and the emoluments clause with. I fear, based on his actions so far, that he will not hold good on this oath.

Many opponents of President Trump fear what will happen if his presidential powers run unchecked by Congress and if his rhetoric is normalized by the public. The media and their right to freedom of speech are a powerful tool to combat these very fears. If our President continues to alter the relationship between the West Wing and the press, or otherwise manipulate the presss free speech protection under the First Amendment, I fear that our country will be walking a thin line between democracy and fascism .

How will President Trumps bullying presence, the same one he unleashed upon Jim Acosta, alter the ways in which reporters cover facts? On a larger scale, how will his distaste for press conferences affect the way the American public receives news? Could we be moving towards a 1984 or North Korean-esque state, in which censorship runs rampant and allows dictators to advance their agendas? It is too soon to say for sure. However, it is of the utmost importance that journalists, students and civilians remain vigilant in protecting the First Amendment.

Great Cheeto Overlord, if you are reading this, I implore you: Respect and protect the First Amendment in all forms. Even if it means having to hear you have small hands from reporters you dont like.

See the article here:
Freeze Peach Friday: President Trump must respect, uphold First Amendment - Daily Bruin

Charlotte Observer

Pro First Amendment Flash Mob Charlotte Observer At just about the time Donald Trump was taking the oath of office about 50 people gathered in a flash mob to sing "This Land is Your Land" at Thompson Park at Trade and Tryon Streets in Charlotte. Hardin Minor, who called for the flash mob on social ...

Link:
Pro First Amendment Flash Mob - Charlotte Observer

*The following is an opinion column by R Muse*

It is no exaggeration whatsoever to say there isnt much about the U.S. Constitution Republicans respect or support except for the 2nd Amendment; at least as long as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and gun industry continues funding their despotism. Obviously, they detest everything about the 14th Amendment because it guarantees that every American enjoys exactly the same civil and equal rights regardless of their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Some folks may say Republicans have an affinity for the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment, but that is patently false simply because they either perpetually violate or use the clauses to force their evangelical mandates down every other Americans throat.

Now, it is clear that as this column has warned ad nauseam; if religious Republicans ever get the opportunity, they will wipe out the Founding Fathers intent that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Of course, this author is not a prophet, but as someone who is intimately aware of the evangelical rights mindset and intent to create a Christian theocracy to rule Americans, that warning was prophetic. It is bad enough that the incoming vice-president tapped to run domestic and foreign policy for the CEO of make America great is a rabid evangelical extremist, but the nations incoming top enforcer is of the same mindset as Mike Pence and will have the full weight of the Department of Justice empowering his religious intent.

It is a sad state of affairs that the man Trump wants to lead the Justice Department, Jeff Sessions, sincerely believes, and had no qualms saying out loud that the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution is unconstitutional. Sessions, an evangelical extremist, also said that the separation of church and state is an extra-constitutional doctrine and a recent thing that is unhistorical and unconstitutional. (Author bold)

However, the real historical figure, Founding Father and third President of the United States Thomas Jefferson plainly explained in writing that:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Sessions, as Michael Stone over at Patheos rightly labeled a moral monster subscribes to fake historian David Bartons teaching that what Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Fathers, and Constitutions Framers really meant in writing the Constitutions Establishment Clause was that Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of Christianity. The evangelical revisionists also claim that the idea of the Constitutions prohibition on the Congress legislating any religion was a devious machination of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to evict god, the Christian bible, the Ten Commandments and Jesus Christ out of the constitutionally created government.

As an aside and for real historical context, the ACLU was founded in 1920, the Constitution was adopted as the law of the land in 1791, and Thomas Jefferson explained the meaning of the Establishment Clause in 1802. Obviously there is nothing unhistorical or unconstitutional about the separation of church and state except that it prevents religious tyranny by Christian theocrats in Republican ranks that now have a stellar opportunity to legislate their evangelical version of Sharia Law.

What Sessions belief means for America is that going forward when religious Republican legislatures start mandating that all citizens strictly adhere to some bastardized Christian edict, the Department of Justice will not support and defend the Constitution or religious freedom. In fact, it is safe to say that the DOJ under theocratic leadership will take punitive action against non-compliance based on the religious Republican belief that any American who does not comply with evangelical edicts is violating evangelical extremists religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment. They have been doing it for the past eight years and now they are a Senate confirmation away from having the nations Justice Department ready to come to their defense.

The dangerous implications of a theocratic Department of Justice cannot possibly be understated because there are no lines the evangelical right is unwilling to cross to enforce their religious fanaticism. It is true they may not mirror the actions of the religious fanatics in ISIS right away, but they will demand universal compliance to their particularly bizarre version of Jesus without the love, tolerance and, charity the real Jesus preached. And along with that demand of compliance by legislative edict, Americans will no longer have a Justice Department to protect them from forced adherence to a legislatively established religion.

Of all the damage the incoming administration is going to wreak on this nation and its citizens, and it is going to be deadly damage, the danger from Dominionists who want a Christian theocracy as the government and the Christian bible as law of the land is inestimable. They will not be content with just punishing gays and women, they will first tyrannize, and then severely punish Old Testament style every American alive who fails to conform to their religious edicts. And, they will have authority and backing from a Department of Justice head who believes that the Founding Fathers and Constitutions Framers created an unconstitutional religious clause in the U.S. Constitutions First Amendment. The only Americans who arent terrified at the prospect of an evangelical zealot running the DOJ are religious fanatics and evangelical extremists like Jeff Sessions and Mike Pence.

h/t Patheos

Christian Reconstructionists, Danbury Baptists, dominionists, Establishment Clause, evangelical fanatics, jeff sessions, religious clauses, religious Republicans, separation of church and state, sessions attorney general, Theocracy, thomas jefferson

Go here to read the rest:
Jeff Sessions Believes the First Amendment Separation Clause Is Unconstitutional - PoliticusUSA