Mediaboss Marketing

Jack Greiner 7:04 a.m. ET March 10, 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, Provided)

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument recentlyon a case that poses the question whether the First Amendment prevents a state from prohibiting a person from using certain designated social media sites. On its face, that question may elicit a question in response, e.g. why would the state prevent anyone from using social media?

And the answer is that North Carolina has a statute that prohibits registered sex offenders from accessing: a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site.

The statute defines commercial social networking site as one that:

That definition, of course, sweeps a lot of sites under its reach, including LinkedIn. And that poses a problem for people affected by the law. People use social networking for any number of reasons some trivial, some not. Job seekers no doubt use LinkedIn to search for opportunities and otherwise network. A law that shuts off that resource makes it tough to find work.

The law may or may not be good policy. But that isnt the issue for the Supreme Court. The question there is whether the Constitution permits it. And that decision may depend on a determination about what the statute actually prohibits. In upholding the law, the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that the law did not restrict expressive conduct. And for that reason, the First Amendment did not invalidate the law, so long as the statute advanced an important government interest and wasnt substantially broader than it needed to be to achieve the interest. Applying this test, the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that the governments interest in protecting children from sexual predators was important, and the statutes limited application (it didnt bar all internet usage) wasn't overly broad.

But the U.S. Supreme Court may conclude the statute in fact limits expressive conduct. If so, North Carolina would need to prove the ban is the least restrictive means to achieve the interest. That is a tougher test. And the Supreme Court may apply it. Justice Ruth Ginsburg, for example, noted that the First Amendment protects the right not only to speak but the right to receive information. A law barring access to a broad swath of social media sites would bar the receipt of information. If thats the case, and North Carolina has to prove the statute is the least restrictive means it will be in for an uphill fight. That standard allows the opposing party to effectively brainstorm all of the ways the law could be restricted. And if the court agrees with any of the ideas, it can invalidate the law.

We'll see how the Supreme Court resolves this one. There is still the prospect of a 4-4 tie (until Neil Gorsuch is confirmed). That would allow the law to stand. But if the Supreme Court applies the more strict standard, the odds are long for North Carolina.

It goes to show that we never know when the First Amendment will pop up. But it protects people we like as well as people who creep us out.

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/2msX0OZ

Continue reading here:
Is there a First Amendment right to LinkedIn? - Cincinnati.com

Vice President Mike Pence vow to go after WikiLeaks for "one of the most significant compromises of national security in recent memory" could run smack into a First Amendment wall, according to one legal expert.

Pence, in an interview with Fox News' Bret Baier Thursday night, promised that those responsible for the 8,000-plus-file dump of CIA secrets, possibly including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, will pay a hefty price.

"Trafficking in national security information, as is alleged WikiLeaks has done, is a serious offense," Pence said in an exclusive "Special Report" appearance. "This president and this administration will take it very seriously and use the full force of the law, and the resources of the United States, to hold all of those to account that were involved."

"Assange is clearly a media entity, albeit an unorthodox one... so the thief, the person who hands it to WikiLeaks, is the criminal. Not WikiLeaks."

- Judge Andrew Napolitano

The idea of prosecuting Assange has been floating around since 2010, when WikiLeaks shared a massive trove of U.S. secrets leaked by Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning, then known as Bradley Manning. But to date, Assange has not been charged with any crime related to his website.

The Australian-born Assange remains holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London where he was granted asylum in 2012, because of a European arrest warrant stemming from sexual assault allegations made by two women in 2010. Assange denies the claims, but risks deportation the moment he steps foot outside of that embassy.

Prosecuting Assange for the document dump would be an uphill battle for the U.S., according to Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano. In the modern, increasingly broad definition of press, WikiLeaks fits the bill, he said.

"If a stolen document containing state secrets gets into the hands of the press, which is loosely defined as any entity in the business of revealing things, and it is a matter of public interest then it can be exposed with impunity," Napolitano said. "Assange is clearly a media entity, albeit an unorthodox one... so the thief, the person who hands it to WikiLeaks, is the criminal. Not WikiLeaks."

Pence is not the only elected official who would like to see Assange behind bars.

"Assange should spend the rest of his life wearing an orange jumpsuit," Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said in a Thursday statement. "He's an enemy of the American people and an ally to Vladimir Putin."

Tuesday's leak of more than 8,000 documents touched off an international uproar, as some of the spy agency's most closely guarded cyber tools were allegedly revealed to the world. The CIA, according to the files, has the ability to spy on people through their smartphones and certain TVs and computers, expressed interest in hacking into the electrical systems of automobiles and operates a clandestine hacking sites in Germany.

While the First Amendment may protect Assange, it would not cover anyone who illegally leaked the material to his organization. The FBI has already mounted an investigation aimed at finding the mole who divulged the material or any external hacker who retrieved it from CIA servers.

But U.S. investigators will get no help from Assange on that score.

"We're specialists in source protection," Assange said.

Adding to the difficulty in tracing the source of this leak is the fact that many of the tools the government would have used may have just been shared with the public, at least according to WikiLeaks.

"How can you use your full resources when they were just radically depleted?" cybersecurity expert Gregory Keeley wondered. "This is analogous to the nuclear football codes being posted on Facebook."

See the rest here:
First Amendment could protect Assange despite Pence's vow, says legal expert - Fox News

Forbes

The First Amendment Red Herring In The Net Neutrality Debate Forbes Since the transition in January, progressive tech policy groups have worked overtime to shield the Obama Administration's net neutrality rules from President Trump's deregulatory scythe. These rules, adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in ...

Continue reading here:
The First Amendment Red Herring In The Net Neutrality Debate - Forbes

[EDITORS NOTE: The following is a Letter to the Editor, written by a Reader. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The B-Town Blog nor its staff:]

Honarable Mayor Lucy Krakowiak Councilman Austin Bell Burien City Council et al

Please present, for your consideration, at the next city council meeting.

In regards to; Minor Amendments to BMC Titles 9, 17 and 19,esp. 9.105.400 Noise.

(c) Yelling, shouting, whistling or singing on or near the public streets, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. or at any time and place as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property.

The text or at any time and place which negates the particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m is a clear violation of the freedom of speech amendment to the constitution of the United States and should be struck.

Also, the term unreasonably disturb has not been clearly defined to decibel level or is the issue content driven? Both The National Endowments of the Arts and The Washington State Arts Commission supports street music and busking. What would New Orleans be without its street music? New York, to San Francisco has its revered street musicians. Seattle has its famous Pike Marketplace musicians. The Burien ordinance had no restrictions on street music. The laws must take into account all the citizens of Burien. This amendment appears to be placating to the comfort of owners or possessors of real property who are not sentient citizens, but merely property owners.

Street music is a demonstration that a city has musical culture and refinement.This change appears to be more than it is and is clear violation of the First Amendment which protects freedom of speech, the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. and that includes music.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely, Joe Moldovan

[Have an opinion or concern youd like to share with our ~80,000+ monthly Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, please cite your sources, remain civil and pending our careful review well consider publishing it.]

Posted by Scott Schaefer on Friday, March 10, 2017 at 10:03 am Filed under Burien News, Headlines, Letters to the Editor, Opinion, Politics Tagged with Burien, burien city council, city of burien, first amendment, Law, Legal, letter to the editor, news, noise, Opinion, ordinance, Politics

Read the rest here:
LETTER: Resident claims Burien's Noise Ordinance violates First Amendment - The B-Town Blog (blog)

Protecting free speech can be challenging. Consider Bill S2493, passed last June and again last week by the New York state Senate.

The bill would withhold state university funding from any student group calling for a boycott of Israel or other "allied nations." Supporters say it's a way to show solidarity with Israel during a time of increasing anti-Semitism.

To be sure, that's a noble cause. The anti-Semitic acts being committed around the state and nation are reprehensible.

But Bill 2493 quite likely violates the First Amendment. It should be rejected by the Assembly, where it currently is in the Government Operations committee.

The bill specifically would bar state universities, city universities, and community colleges from funding any student organization that promotes, encourages, or permits boycotts against certain nations or permits intolerance or hate speech. Besides Israel, the anti-boycott bill would cover other NATO countries, South Korea, Japan, Ireland and several Pacific and Latin American treaty signatories.

The bill is unconstitutional.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a group founded in 1999 to defend and sustain individual rights at Americas colleges and universities, explains it this way: "The bills language is broad, encompassing both actual boycotts and merely encouraging others to boycott, and would compel New York universities to distribute their funding on a viewpoint-discriminatory basis. That is, New York universities could fund groups that discourage boycotts of Israel (or other allied nations), but not those that encourage it."

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth (2000), held that When a university requires its students to pay fees to support the extracurricular speech of other students, all in the interest of open discussion, it may not prefer some viewpoints to others.

State Sen. Joseph Griffo, R-Rome, voted for defunding student groups; Assemblyman Anthony Brindisi, D-Utica, is co-sponsor of a similar bill in the Assembly.

We condemn this pattern of deplorable threats that has spread fear within the Jewish communities across our state, and New York will not turn a blind eye to such intolerance, Griffo said. We reaffirm our commitment to work with our state and federal law enforcement agencies to hold accountable the people who perpetrate these acts of hate.

No argument. By all means, hold the criminals accountable. Anyone convicted of hate crimes should be punished to the fullest extent allowed by law.

But don't pass bills that violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

That's what this legislation does, and it should not become law.

See the article here:
OUR VIEW: State Bill S2493 means well but likely violates First Amendment - Utica Observer Dispatch