Mediaboss Marketing

After one week, a tough question already is being asked: Just how "JeSuisCharlie" (I am Charlie) should we be?

At the outset, First Amendment advocates need to recognize the many layers of such a question -- which originates not in reconsideration of recognition of those killed Jan. 7, but in the subsequent worldwide examination of the content of Charlie Hebdo magazine and other publications like it.

Does being critical of the magazine's biting satire, or suggesting it went beyond free speech into bigotry and deliberate provocation, offer any moral ground or comfort to the criminals who killed 12 people on at the Paris-based weekly magazine?

In many ways, the answer in the U.S. is easier -- at least at the start. The 45 words of the First Amendment says the government "shall make no law" restraining our freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. No mention of political correctness, politeness or subjects or styles that legally are out of bounds.

Of course, in the U.S., we daily debate the application of our First Amendment freedoms, in a myriad of detailed ways -- from Christmas carols in public schools, to words we can use on the Web, to how much and what we can donate to political candidates, and more. But we're so sanguine about our core rights that almost none of us can even name them. Since 1997, no more than 6 percent could name all five in the annual State of the First Amendment survey done by the Newseum Institute's First Amendment Center.

Only in the extremes, such as North Korea's objections to the silly movie "The Interview," do we seem to recognize how basic, how important and even how fragile those freedoms are. And with the gut-punch of the terror killings in France, we're suddenly viewing free expression through a worldwide looking glass -- examining its values, deep impact and perhaps its limits.

Should publications show those controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad? Nothing in U.S. law prevents news outlets from doing so. So here, the issue is not "can" but "should." Most news outlets have chosen not to do so, by reports. In the last week, the controversy reached even to the pages (and offices) of The New York Times, which chose not to publish the images.

Times editor Dean Baquet was so angered by what he considered a particularly "nasty and arrogant" comment by a California university professor (Baquet's words) that he included an earthy obscenity in a Facebook post that also said mockingly: "Appreciate the self-righteous second guessing without even considering there might be another point of view. Hope your students are more open minded."

Let's ask the "JeSuisCharlie" question in terms closer to home: Would we have the stomach for a "I am Uncle Sam" style campaign if the catalyst were deaths at a U.S. magazine with a cover story of the week showing a racial caricature of African Americans with the N-word in large type overhead? Or at a Neo-Nazi publication mocking the Holocaust with a cartoon based on the death camps?

Some would say the response has to be "yes." In for a free speech penny, in for a dollar. Others may counter that there is nothing in the First Amendment that mandates -- and at times, even shields -- language that is deliberately intended simply to provoke and insult in a manner more akin to unprotected "fighting words" than the First Amendment ideal of dueling ideas.

Excerpt from:
Legacy of Charlie Hebdo deaths

Judicial Elections and the First Amendment: Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar
On January 20, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in Lanell Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar. At issue is whether a ban on solicitation of campaign donations by judicial...

By: The Heritage Foundation

More:
Judicial Elections and the First Amendment: Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar - Video

HARTFORD The state Supreme Court will not weigh in on a dispute over whether the Connecticut Law Tribune should have been barred from publishing a story about a child protection case.

The state's highest court was asked for its opinion after Judge Stephen Frazzini on Nov. 24 granted a motion filed in New Britain Superior Court by the mother of the three children involved in the child protection case that sought to stop the Law Tribune from running the story. Frazzini later lifted the ruling in December, saying the order no longer made sense because information about the case had already been published by other media outlets. Thursday, the court dismissed an appeal of the ruling, saying the case has become moot.

Daniel J. Klau, the lawyer representing the Law Tribune, objected to the mother's motion, saying a prior restraint on the publication was a violation of the First Amendment. The information for the story, he said, was lawfully obtained by the Law Tribune. Klau appealed the ruling, asking the state's appellate court to stay the lower court's injunction. The state Supreme Court then transferred the appeal to itself.

Free-speech advocates slammed Frazzini's initial ruling as unconstitutional and said they were not surprised when he reversed it. They still wanted the issue, however, to go before the state Supreme Court so it could clarify the state and federal rules on prior restraint. Those who argue that privacy issues in child protection cases trump First Amendment rights, however, praised Frazzini's initial ruling.

Klau said Thursday that while he was disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear his appeal, he said it was "important to recognize why" the court reached its decision.

"The trial court vacated its own injunction after the Law Tribune and over 100 amici [including legal experts, individuals and organizations] filed appellate briefs that explained why the trial court's prior restraint order was blatantly unconstitutional," Klau said. The Law Tribune's appeal was supported by a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, two open-government organizations, three media organizations and more than a dozen media outlets, including the Hartford Courant.

"Moreover, the Supreme Court acknowledged in its decision that the First Amendment issue presented was one of 'significant public importance,' and it described the trial court's original decision as 'devoid of precedential value.'"

Originally posted here:
Justices Dismiss Law Tribune's Appeal Of Ruling That Barred News Story

By ZOE FERGUSON

The New York Times columnist Adam Liptak, who covers the SupremeCourt in his biweekly column Sidebar, spoke on controversies surrounding the First Amendment in a lecture Thursday.

Liptak who was named a Pulitzer Prize finalist in exploratory journalism in 2009 framed his discussion on the 1905 court case Joseph Lochner v. New York, which struck down labor laws and allowed greater First Amendment freedoms to companies.

Liptak called the case an anti-canon Supreme Court decision, one that most judges do not refer to as precedent or even give credit. In its landmark ruling, Liptak said the Supreme Court decided that liberty of contract was implicit in the Constitutions promise of due process and allowed companies greater freedom over their employees. It also implied that free speech of commercial entities is equal to that of individuals, he added.

According to Liptak, commercial speech has only been recognized as a protected form of speech under the First Amendment since the 1970s.

Liptak said there are two primary preconditions for Lochnerism: the regulation being opposed must be an ordinary regulatory rule and the speech being violated must be commercial speech.

Liptak said in recent years, some believe that the Roberts Supreme Court has proven itself the most First Amendment court in American history.

He cited recent cases in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church could protest at veterans funerals and abortion opponents may protest outside abortion clinics.

We have to tolerate quite a lot of ugly speech, he said.

According to Liptak, the American position on free speech is an example of what he calls American exceptionalism.

View original post here:
Pulitzer Finalist: United States Free Speech in Flux

Published: Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 11:08 p.m. Last Modified: Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 11:08 p.m.

Hoggard junior wins oratorical contest

WILMINGTON | American Legion Post 543 recently hosted the 9th District Constitutional Speech Oratorical Contest, and Caroline Bunting a junior at Hoggard High School was honored at St. James Community Center as winner.

Buntings topic was Utilizing Our First Amendment Rights. Her speech outlined the lives of famous Americans as they exercised what they saw as their duty to seek constitutional changes, and the civil rights changes that resulted. A central focus of her oratory was the right to vote.

The contest was open to American Legion Post contest winners from Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus, New Hanover, and Pender counties. Bunting represented Post 10 in Wilmington.

WILMINGTON | The second annual First 2,000 Days Summit is 10 a.m.-noon, Monday, Feb. 16, at First Baptist Activity Center, 1939 Independence Blvd.

The free event organized by local faith leaders highlights the effects that toxic stress has on the developing brain especially during the first 2,000 days of life. The Cape Fear Memorial Foundation provides support for this event, which includes a light breakfast for attendees.

Pediatrician Dr. David Tayloe is the keynote speaker. Following his address, he is joined in a panel discussion by a therapist who works with young children who have experienced toxic stress, a pastor of a church that has made significant investments in early childhood, child-care providers, District Attorney Ben David and others.

There are only 2,000 days between the time a baby is born and when that child shows up for the first day of kindergarten. Experiences during these 2,000 days have a lasting impact on later learning, health and success.

The public is welcome to attend.

Read the original post:
News & Notes - Student wins contest; summit planned