Mediaboss Marketing

A pair of University of Hawaii at Hilo students is claiming a victory for free speech after the school agreed Tuesday to settle a First Amendment lawsuit filed in April.

Merritt Burch and Anthony Vizzone sued the university after an administrator stopped Burch from passing out copies of the U.S. Constitution and another told them to restrict a protest of the National Security Agency to a free speech zone on campus.

In line with the settlement, the university revised its speech policies systemwide to allow free speech and the distribution of literature in all areas generally available to students and the community without requiring that students seek permission first. UH also agreed to pay $50,000 in attorneys fees and damages. It also creates a dispute resolution process for students who think their First Amendment rights have been violated.

The students filed the suit with the help of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) as part of its Stand Up For Speech Litigation Project.

Im so happy that the University of Hawaii has revised its policies, and Im grateful for the help from FIRE and our attorneys, Burch said. Now, students across the University of Hawaii system can exercise their First Amendment rights without fear that they will be disciplined.

Her co-plaintiff agreed.

It is great to see these changes and to know that we can express ourselves freely throughout campus, Vizzone said.

In a press release issued Tuesday morning, FIRE President Greg Lukianoff praised the students for standing up to the university system.

The lawsuit led to a constructive conversation with UH, and today President David Lassner has set an example by implementing policies that guarantee free speech to the 59,000 students enrolled in the UH system, he said.

In an emailed press release issued Tuesday afternoon, the UH system confirmed settling the federal lawsuit, saying it expects the case to be dismissed with prejudice in the next several weeks, meaning it cannot be re-filed.

More here:
UH settles First Amendment suit

Boy, the St. Louis police really know how to cool things down, don't they? They've taken a controversial protest by a handful of football players, and mixed it with a whiff of bullying authority and a profound misunderstanding of the First Amendment, to create a bigger and more heated argument than it had to be.

Sound familiar?

Five pass catchers for the St. Louis Rams raised their hands in a don't shoot gesture during their on-field introductions Sunday, in a sign of solidarity with protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, where a grand jury refused to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown.

An infuriated spokesman for the St. Louis Police Officers Association, Jeff Roorda, called the display unthinkable, and has demanded the NFL discipline Stedman Bailey, Tavon Austin, Chris Givens, Kenny Britt and Jared Cook for making their feelings known so publicly. But Roorda didn't stop there. He added a veiled suggestion that the only thing protecting the Rams and the NFL from mob violence at games is the cops.

And then he said:

I know that there are those who say that these players are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. Well, I've got news for people who think that way. Cops have First Amendment rights, too, and we plan to exercise ours.

Set aside for a moment the vaguely threatening tone of the I've got news for people who think that way statement. What's even more disturbing about Roorda's remarks is that he clearly doesn't know what the First Amendment says, though he is a former cop and member of the Missouri House of Representatives.

Whatever you may think about the Rams players, their gesture is a good excuse to sort out some First Amendment issues. What right did those players have to speak, and what right does the NFL or the police have to tell them to shut up?

The First Amendment protects free speech only against government action. That's all it does. It doesn't protect the St. Louis players from NFL owners, or league commissioners or talk-radio hosts who disagree with them. But it does protect them from the government. So the person in danger of abusing the First Amendment here is not the football player with the edgy gesture in a public stadium. Or the NFL owner who might want to tell them to shut up to protect advertising. It's the governmental agent like, say, a cop who seeks to punish someone for expressing certain views. Like it or not, private corporations or entities have the right to restrict speech of employees, and they do it all the time.

Typically an employer can, says Ken Paulson, president of the First Amendment Center. You have no guarantee of free speech rights in the workplace, and if you think otherwise, try marching on your boss's office and demanding a raise.

Read this article:
Note to police: Rams gesture was free speech

TEXAS CITIZENS PARTICIPATION ACT, ANTI-SLAPP LAWS, AND FREE SPEECH IN THE LONE STAR STATE
DEAR MR. MONITRONICS ATTORNEY - THIS VIDEO IS PROTECTED SPEECH. CHECK FIRST AMENDMENT. *** AFTER MUCH CONSIDERATION, I HAVE DECIDED NOT TO BEND AND FOLD ...

By: Vonve

More here:
TEXAS CITIZENS PARTICIPATION ACT, ANTI-SLAPP LAWS, AND FREE SPEECH IN THE LONE STAR STATE - Video

Ex-CBS Reporter: Spineless Media Bosses Eroding Our First Amendment
Former CBS investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson joins Larry with her personal story of harassment, intimidation spying by the federal government and about the media bosses who allow...

By: RT America

Read the original:
Ex-CBS Reporter: Spineless Media Bosses Eroding Our First Amendment - Video

When your parents told you to watch what you post on social media, did you roll your eyes thinking it was an overreaction? Anthony Elonis, a man who posted a threat to his ex-wife as a Facebook status, should have heeded that advice.

According to a CNN article, Elonis case regarding his posts will be heard by the United States Supreme Court, marking the first time an official ruling will take place regarding social media and freedom of speech. His ex-wife, Tara Elonis, moved for a protective order because of the posts.

While the First Amendment protects free speech, including harsh words and commentary, it never should be used to justify a threat. Elonis posted, Fold up your protection from abuse order and put it in your pocket. Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?" He posted several similar status updates that would make anyone consider him as a major threat to society, and especially to Tara.

Elonis attorney, John Elwood, told CNN that the posts were a way to blow off steam, defining them as therapeutic. However, Facebook is not a good place to let off steam. If Elonis had desires to murder his ex-wife, he should have consulted a licensed psychiatrist, not a social media website. When someone spreads panic in a public domain, it should not be protected under the First Amendment.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., who will lead the prosecution for the United States during the Supreme Court case, agreed with this assertion, comparing Elonis statements to a bomb threat.

Even if Elonis did not intend to carry out these threats, he should still be liable for the consequences of creating panic. A Pennsylvania jury found Elonis guilty earlier this year, and he was sentenced to 44 months in prison.

Elwood likened Elonis statements to a rap artist blowing off steam in a song, as an artistic and creative outlet. It does not matter how creatively a threat is written. A threat is a threat, no matter how one masks it.

Supporters of Elonis claim that the First Amendment protects the death threats he posted on Facebook. However, the First Amendment cannot protect Elonis ex-wife from a potential gunshot.

The underlying point is that everything we post on Facebook is public, and the author is responsible for what they post. Elonis could have used privacy settings or personal messages to keep his threatening feelings a secret; but the moment he posted them to his wall, he created a panic for his ex-wife.

In this case, Elonis deserved what he got.

Originally posted here:
First Amendment does not justify Facebook threats