Mediaboss Marketing

Contrary to Peggy Bellows' insinuation that the Trump administration does not respect the First Amendment, the Trump administration has stated just the opposite. What Ms. Bellows does not understand and appreciate is how reviled the mainstream media is by the general public. The Trump administration is only reflecting the attitude the majority of Americans feel.

Fact. From a recent Gallup poll they state "Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year." Ms. Bellows' profession barely ranks higher than Congress, congratulations.

Instead of shedding tears for the media I suggest Ms. Bellow take some constructive criticism and perhaps get her colleagues to "listen."

Bring some diversity of thought to the newsroom. It gets very tiresome to hear the repeated narrative the liberal establishment repeats to itself. Find facts and report on them, don't regurgitate Democrat talking points.

Do an in-depth analysis of the revelations in Wilileaks that showed collusion between the Clinton camp and reporters in DC. John Harwood, CNN, Politico to just to name a few.

Do an in-depth analysis of how the primary election was stolen from Bernie Sanders.

Use professional development time to get reporters to actually study and understand how the real world of business operates. Appreciate what a profit and loss statement is and how hard it is for businesses to operate in an environment that is anti-business.

Do professional development in the lost art of critical thinking.

When reporters use the word "could," require them to show that just as realistic an outcome can be "could not."

The media is reviled and Trump is pointing that out to an oblivious press. First Amendment rights come with First Amendment responsibilities

Lou Hrkman

James City County

Read this article:
First Amendment rights, responsibilities - Virginia Gazette

President Trumps immigration executive order has dominated the spotlight this week. Meanwhile, Washingtons so-called influence industry and those seeking to influence the regulation of that industry focused on another executive order prohibiting certain incoming administration officials from lobbying the administration after they leave government.

While the directives immediate effects are limited in scope, commentary on the order inevitably also has extended to demands for greater regulation of lobbying generally, and specifically so-called shadow lobbying. Putting aside the mellifluous rhetoric, cracking down on shadow lobbyists will have no meaningful impact on preventing corruption, and will merely impose more administrative burdens on citizens First Amendment activities.

At a high level, this grievance is as absurd as claiming that a citizen is exploiting a loophole in the tax code by not earning enough to trigger the threshold for paying taxes. For both policy and administrative reasons, most laws must set thresholds below which they do not apply. If every time someone acting below a regulated threshold prompts someone else to advocate lowering the threshold, the laws scope will constantly expand until everything is regulated. This is both socially undesirable and practically untenable.

Indeed, we see this ill-advised trend in proposals to expand the federal and state lobbying laws, and many of which states have implemented. Last year the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics decided to regulate certain public relations consultants as lobbyists. After a wave of protest and litigation, brought in part by the Center for Competitive Politics on behalf of PR firms, the state legislature acted to reign in JCOPEs overreach. Yet the agency still maintains its ruling covers PR firms if they contact bloggers, volunteer journalists, and social media personalities.

Still, the push to regulate these broader activities as lobbying continues. Last week, the National Institute for Lobbying, a lobbyist trade group, proposed regulating as lobbyists public relations firms, political strategists, pollsters, advertising and media consultants, grassroots and coalition specialists, Internet and digital media experts and others who work to influence public policy decisions on behalf of their clients. As policy advocacy increasingly shifts to these avenues, we should recognize this proposal for what it is: a few traditional lobbyists attempting to impose the same regulatory burdens that apply to them on other policy professionals.

Many state and municipal lobbying laws and regulatory agencies also purport to impose no minimum threshold for lobbyist registration. In Missouri, the Center for Competitive Politics is representing Ronald Calzone, a concerned citizen who merely shared his views on proposed legislation with state legislators, against the Missouri Ethics Commissions charges that he failed to register as a lobbyist. This, despite the fact that Mr. Calzone was not paid or designated by anyone to act as a lobbyist, and merely referenced his affiliation with a non-profit organization with no financial resources in his discussions with legislators.

It is unclear exactly what the anti-corruption rationale is for forcing more individuals to register and report as lobbyists. In U.S. v. Harriss, a seminal case addressing the federal lobbying registration and reporting requirements, the Supreme Court identified a mere informational interest in enabling members of Congress to properly evaluate the myriad pressures to which they are regularly subjected. The majority opinion never discussed an interest in curbing corruption, and one justice who voted to invalidate the law even noted that this [law] does not deal with corruption.

Curiously, the majority also cited vaguely Congresss interest in self-protection in regulating lobbying. Protection against what? The voices of constituents? Democratic accountability?

At the same time, the court also acknowledged the concern that the lobbying law may act as a deterrent to the[] exercise of First Amendment rights. This deterrent should not be understated. The lobbying laws are not easy to understand. Take, for example, the reporting last week comparing Trumps lobbying executive order with his predecessors corresponding directive. Much of this coverage was inaccurate, due to journalists failure to grasp subtle legal distinctions between President Obamas order defining lobbying in reference to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, versus Trumps order incorporating by reference the LDAs definition of lobbying activities.

These are the types of legal complexities that large corporations and well-funded advocacy groups pay fortunes for attorneys to navigate. Meanwhile, grassroots organizations are left at risk of running afoul of the law. To expand these lobbying laws to cover even more activities that are attenuated from direct lobbying would merely broaden the regulatory burdens without achieving any public benefit.

Eric Wang is a political law attorney in Washington, D.C. and a senior fellow with the Center for Competitive Politics.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read more here:
Possible expansion of lobbying restrictions threaten First Amendment - The Hill (blog)

Jack Greiner 7:17 p.m. ET Feb. 2, 2017

John C. Greiner, attorney for Graydon Head Legal Counsel. He's a commercial litigator with an emphasis on communications and media law. He serves on the firm's Appellate Practice Group.(Photo: Provided)

Firma Helget, an administrative assistant with the Hays, Kansas Police Department, discovered recently that not all speech by a public employee receives First Amendment protection. As a result, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the dismissal of her wrongful termination suit against the department.

The case arose when Helget provided an affidavit to assist officer Blaine Dryden in his own wrongful termination suit against the department. The department claimed it fired Dryden based on his unprofessional and inappropriate conduct at a court hearing in December 2010. But Dryden alleged that was a pretext, to cover up the fact that he was fired for his union activities. Part of Drydens proof that that the department had decided to terminate him before the court incident was the fact that the department had decided, before the December court incident, not to issue him a ballistic vest.

At Drydens request, Helget provided an affidavit asserting that she had been instructed to remove Dryden from the ballistic vest ordering list in early December 2010. In May, 2011, the department fired Helget stating four reasons, one of which was her disclosing confidential information in the Dryden litigation.

In her wrongful termination suit, Helget contended the firing violated her First Amendment right of free speech. The trial court, and ultimately the appellate court, disagreed.

Public employees, unlike private sector employees, are protected by the First Amendment. The reason is simple. The First Amendment prohibits certain conduct by the government, not private conduct.

But courts recognize in the employment setting, the issues are a little different. It would be a pretty tough place to work if a public employee could march into the managers office every morning and tell the manager exactly how inept the manager was. An absolute view of the First Amendment, however, would not allow that employee to be disciplined.

Courts have accordingly, adopted a balancing approach. Public employees may speak out on matters of public concern, but a public employer may protect the efficient operation of the workplace. The daily tongue lashing would no doubt disturb the operation of the office, so in that case, the employee could be disciplined.

Helgets case was not as clear cut. She provided an affidavit in a case that alleged a police officer lost his job for engaging in protected conduct union activity. The affidavit did not immediately affect the operation of the office, in the same manner as the hypothetical.

But in the courts view, Helgets speech was related more to an employment dispute than a matter of public concern, and her voluntary disclosure of confidential information caused her superiors to lose confidence in their ability to trust her with information going forward. Based on this finding, the court had little difficulty rejecting her First Amendment claim.

Given our divisive political climate, it is likely employees public and private will be tempted to air their views. That may result in a lot of tests of the First Amendment over the next four years.

Jack Greiner is a lawyer with the Graydon Head law firm in Cincinnati and represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues.

Read or Share this story: http://cin.ci/2k6w4nc

Read the original here:
Public worker's speech not protected by 1st Amendment - Cincinnati.com

News By Spartan Newsroom | 14 hours ago

Come back in the weeks ahead, when this site will looking at three new First Amendment issues that broke out today:

* The Nation reports that a four-page draft of an executive order is circulating among federal employees and advocacy groups. The draft would extend religious exemptions for hiring and providing goods and services to non-religious private companies, state and local governments and others. Religious organizations such as churches, schools and hospitals have used the exemptions over same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, gender identity, contraception and abortion.

Twitter

The night before, a speech by right-wing writer and self-described supervillain of the Internet Milo Yiannopoulos was canceled at the University of Californias Berkeley campus after demonstrators set fires, broke windows and threw objects. Yiannopoulos is an editor at Breitbart News. Trump adviser Steve Bannon was a founding board member of the site. A December appearance by Yiannopoulos at Michigan State University led to less-violent protests.

* At the National Prayer Breakfast, Trump promised to totally destroy a 1954 U.S. law that means churches and religious institutions jeopardize their tax-exempt status if they get involved in politics.

This Michigan State journalism class was working on about 20 stories surrounding developments un the First Amendment when these events happened. Bookmark us to follow these and other stories.

This Michigan State journalism project looks at how First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition are exercised and tested during the first 100 days of the Trump administration.

See the original post:
Follow us on 3 new First Amendment issues - Spartan Newsroom

Five years ago, the Florida Department of Agriculture turned its regulatory power on a small third-generation dairy farm in the Panhandles Calhoun County, population 14,462.

The Ocheesee Creamery, as its known, was caught being a little too honest.

Mary Lou Wesselhoeft, owner, was selling all-natural pasteurized skim milk whole milk with the cream skimmed off and labeling it exactly what it was: skim milk.

But in a strange twist with First Amendment implications, the state said Wesselhoeft was misrepresenting her product. After a decade without complaints or confusion, newly enforced regulations required artificially injected additives something Ocheese Creamery had never done andwasnt about to start doing.

As a result, the department issued an ultimatum: either stop selling skim milk or label it imitation milk.

Wesselhoeft, whose website header includes the Bible verse, The hills shall flow with milk, Joel 3:18, opted to stop selling her locally popular item rather than comply with a condition she believes is dishonest.

But not without a fight.

In March 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida ruled in favor of the Department of Agriculture.

The First Amendments protection of free speech extends to commercial speech, the court said, adding that while Wesselhoefts label is literally true, the department has the authority to establish a standard of identity.

On Jan. 24, the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm, argued her case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Court in Jacksonville. The firm has represented Wesselhoeft since 2014.

The state has turned the dictionary on its head, managing attorney Justin Pearson told Watchdog.org.

The state admits that Ocheesee Creamery skim milk consists entirely of pure all-natural skim milk. But because it doesnt add any other ingredients, the state has ordered the dairy not call it what it is. That violates the First Amendment, Pearson said.

According to the department, skim milk can only legally bear the name skim milk in Florida if it contains the same amount of vitamin A as whole milk. If it doesnt, vitamin A must be artificially added.

That puts Wesselhoeft in a bind.

Ocheesee Creamerys milk is separated so the cream rises to the top. But because vitamin A is fat soluble, its largely removed when the cream is skimmed.

The thing thats different about our creamery is that its pasteurized, not homogenized, and our milk goes in glass bottles and is all-natural, Wesselhoeft said in a video produced by the Institute for Justice.

Commercial milk is typically homogenized a mechanical process that breaks down fat globules from the cream and suspends them, along with vitamin A, throughout the milk.

The dairys all-natural products are produced from grazing grass-fed cows. Many of its customers frequent the small business precisely because its products dont contain additives.

Many older people enjoy our items because it reminds them of their growing-up days when milk in glass bottles was the norm,the dairys website says.

The three-employee farm also includes a storefront where guests can watch how the family operation bottles its milk.

According to the lawsuit, department regulators routinely tested and approved the farms skim milk prior to October 2012, when the state issued a stop-sale order and demanded that Wesselhoeft refrain from listing any nutrient or health claims on its labels.

But not because its unsafe.

The state doesnt dispute that the creamerys skim milk is safe to drink without the full amount of vitamin A, explained Pearson. The state also agrees that the creamerys skim milk is legal to sell without any additives, he said. It just wont allow them to call it skim milk.

In 2013, Wesselhoeft proposed alternative labels, including Pasteurized Skim Milk: No Vitamin A Added, Pasteurized Skim Milk: No Lost Vitamin A Replaced, and Pasteurized Skim Milk: Most Vitamin A Removed by Skimming Cream from Milk.

The suggestions were denied.

If we would have ignored the Department of Agriculture, they couldve come and pulled our permit and shut us down completely, and we could not have sold any of our products anywhere, Wesselhoeft said.

According to the lawsuit, in addition to canceling permits and issuing fines, selling pasteurized skim milk without complying with Floridas labeling laws could result in incarceration for the Creamerys owners.

The farm has managed to continue operating, but not without losing money. It sells dairy items containing cream, but since the leftover skim milk cannot be sold, itsdiscarded.

Every day we cant sell it, it hurts our livelihood and we lose customers. We cannot continue on. It hurts us in a big way, Wesselhoeft said.

The Agriculture Department refuses to back-off its labeling prohibition despite the lack of public safety concerns. Court documents show the states interest is in establishing a standard of identity and nutritional standards for milk for the purpose of interstate commerce.

Ocheesee Creamery sells its products exclusively within the state of Florida.

Pearson said that amicus briefs were filed by large farm organizations, including the International Dairy Foods Association, on behalf of the state governments position.

Its clear that giant international dairy farmers dont like the idea that small, authentic creameries could offer alternative choices. I dont think thats a coincidence, he told Watchdog.org.

The Eleventh Circuit is expected to decide the case before summer. The lawsuit doesnt seek monetary damages, only the ability to call the product skim milk.

We think the judges understood what we were saying, Pearson said.

For Wesselhoeft, the challenge is a simple matter of right and wrong. We should win this case because we want to tell the truth, she said.Someone has to stand up.

comments

Visit link:
Small dairy farmer seeks First Amendment protection from state ... - SaintPetersBlog (blog)