Mediaboss Marketing

In a ruling that is drawing sharp criticism from free-speech advocates, a Superior Court judge has ordered the Connecticut Law Tribune not to publish a story about a child custody case.

Judge Stephen Frazzini on Monday granted a motion filed in New Britain Superior Court by the mother of the three children involved in the case that sought to stop the Law Tribune from running the story.

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 Tribune. He declined to elaborate about the information.

"Prohibiting the publication of a news story is the very essence of censorship," Klau said. On Tuesday, he filed a motion asking the state's appellate court to stay the lower court's injunction.

"We certainly hope that the judges review the motion immediately and overturn the order or, at a bare minimum, grant us an immediate hearing in the appellate court next week, if not earlier," Klau said.

Klau said the judge's ruling, which Frazzini made orally from the bench Monday, and a transcript of the proceedings were sealed from public view as of Tuesday. He said he was barred from speaking about specifics of the judge's ruling, even with his own client. The Connecticut Law Tribune is owned by American Lawyer Media.

In an email statement Tuesday, Sandra Staub, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, called the ruling "alarming" and an infringement on free speech.

"The courts are supposed to protect speech, not prohibit it," Staub said. "Prior restraint is forbidden under the U.S. Constitution, with extremely narrow exceptions that do not apply in this case, and in our view is absolutely prohibited by the Connecticut Constitution."

A widely recognized exception is in cases that involve national security.

In a story on the Law Tribune's website posted Tuesday, Thomas B. Scheffey wrote that Monday's proceedings were held in juvenile court where the hearings are not usually open to the public.

Read this article:
Judge Orders Law Tribune Not To Publish Story

Published November 26, 2014

PHOENIX An appeals court has thrown out a ruling that barred the public from watching the first witness called by Jodi Arias at the convicted murderer's sentencing retrial.

The decision Wednesday by the Arizona Court of Appeals overturns the Oct. 30 ruling by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sherry Stephens and suggests that the previously unidentified witness may have been Arias herself.

Stephens had said the ruling was necessary because Arias' first witness, whom the judge refused to publicly identify, wouldn't testify unless the hearing was closed to the public. Some of the testimony by Arias' first witness was conducted in private. The Arizona Republic and three Phoenix TV stations KPNX, KPHO and KTVK protested the closure of the courtroom, arguing the First Amendment allows reporters to attend the trial.

Arias was convicted of murder last year in the 2008 death of former boyfriend Travis Alexander, but jurors deadlocked on whether she should be sentenced to life in prison or death. A new jury has been picked to decide her sentence.

The appeals court didn't offer an explanation in its ruling Wednesday at how it arrived at that decision. A more detailed ruling is expected in the future.

But the court suggested an answer to a question that stumped trial watchers: Who was the skittish witness who was allowed to testify in private?

The appeals court said Stephens order closed the courtroom to the public during "any testimony by Jodi Arias," though it's unclear whether the testimony was made by Arias herself or someone else on Arias' behalf.

"It underscores the importance of the public's right to attend criminal trials, particularly the testimony of a defendant in the sentencing phase of a capital trial," David Bodney, an attorney representing the news organizations, said of the ruling.

A call to Arias attorney Jennifer Willmott wasn't immediately returned Wednesday afternoon.

Excerpt from:
Court throws out ruling that barred public from watching 1st witness called by Jodi Arias

Ted Cruz on amending the First Amendment
Ted Cruz on amending the First Amendment. Where #39;s the Democrats.

By: VMDweb.com

Link:
Ted Cruz on amending the First Amendment - Video

It has been almost 150 years since the tragedies of the Civil War, since the enraged Confederacy was quelled by prolonged Union force and since over 200,000 individuals lost their lives over political and social disagreement.

Recently, however, a Purdue student has reawakened the entrenched social memory of Americas bleak history of racism and inequality by the displaying of a Confederate flag in the upper window of his residence.

For some, the Confederate flag is a sign of southern pride and for others its a retired relic merely a piece of irrelevant history. However, most see it as a sign of oppression, servitude, segregation and savage brutality.

Yet, according to Rick Walker, code enforcement supervisor of West Lafayette Police Departments neighborhood resource team, There was no violation of ordinance or law, and while a sensitive issue, the resident was within his right to display it.

I was able to speak with one of the residents at the house, and he understood the concerns of some in the neighborhood and was sensitive to that. As a result, the flag is no longer visible, said Walker.

Regardless of constitutional right, many still find it offensive as a sign of white supremacy and racial oppression.

For many, Confederate symbolism represents a way to venerate ancestors who fought in the Civil War or admiration for the skills and bravery of the Confederate officers and soldiers, said Robert E. May, professor of American history at Purdue. But I would claim knowledge of what the Confederate flag represented in its day; it was the rallying symbol of a nation dedicated to the preservation of slavery in North America.

The south was fighting for a nation designed to perpetuate slavery forever in the United States and possibly extend it southward into Latin America, said May. Displaying their flag is an insult not only to African Americans but also to all Americans who believe in human equality.

Lets not start unraveling our Union memorabilia just yet. Although Union President Abraham Lincoln is often lionized as the champion of modern day racial equality, that is unfortunately not the case.

For instance, the Emancipation Proclamation wasnt a gesture of Lincolns compassion for those enslaved. As much as Lincoln hated the institution of slavery, he didnt see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nations four million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two.

See the original post:
First Amendment protects student's choice to display Confederate flag

TIME Tech legal The Supreme Court Is About to Make a Big Decision About Facebook Free Speech Till JacketGetty Images/Photononstop RM The case could have big implications for how we use social media

The Supreme Court on Monday will consider whether violent language posted on social media is covered by the First Amendments protection of free speech.

The case, Elonis v. United States, hinges around the question of whether a Facebook message can be considered a true threat, or a threat a reasonable person would determine to be real. That would be an important distinction, because true threats dont get First Amendment coverage. But it wont be an easy problem to solve: While it can be easy to call a threat true if its given verbally, making that call gets harder when threats are posted online, where they lack the context, tone and other indicators of intent present in verbal communication. Its also arguably easier to make threats online, especially if its done anonymously.

What happened?

A lower court had sentenced Pennsylvania man Anthony Elonis to about four years in federal prison over several Facebook posts threatening his estranged wife. The posts included, among other things, raps about slitting his wifes throat and about how her protection order against him wouldnt be enough to stop a bullet.

A sample:

Theres one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. Im not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.

But how is that not a true threat?

Elonis contends his posts werent a threat to his wife but rather a therapeutic form of expression. Its commonly accepted that violent images are often part of rap music and other media, and artistic expression is protected under the First Amendment, explaining Elonis legal strategy. Still, the issue of whether Elonis had the intent to threaten is not necessary for a threat to be deemed a true threat. That requires only for a reasonable person to believe a threat is authentic.

The dividing line here is whether were judging the threat based on the intent of the speaker, or on the reaction of the people who read it and wouldve felt threatened. Thats really the key question, said William McGeveran, a law professor at the University of Minnesota.

Read more:
The Supreme Court Is About to Make a Big Decision About Facebook Free Speech