Mediaboss Marketing

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

JUDY WOODRUFF: When writing in social media, like Facebook, what is defined as a threat and what is protected by free speech? That was the question at the center of a case before the Supreme Court today.

Jeffrey Brown has the story.

And a warning: This case contains some graphic language.

JEFFREY BROWN: In 2010, Anthony Elonis began writing Facebook posts about his ex-wife, angry rants filled with violent language. She filed a restraining order. And eventually Elonis was charged with threatening to injure another person and sentenced to four years in prison.

Now the Supreme Court must decide were indeed threats under the law or an exercise of his First Amendment rights.

And Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal was of course at the court today to hear the arguments.

Marcia, first, give us a little bit more details, a little bit more background on this case.

MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal: All right.

Mr. Elonis was obviously having difficulties after he separated from his wife and his children. He was unable to do his job at an amusement park outside of Allentown, Pennsylvania. He was sent home from work several times by his employers because he was crying at his desk.

And also he was accused of sexual harassment by a co-worker, at least one co-worker. Ultimately, he was fired by his job, and he did do a post involving his co-workers at the amusement park that wasnt a very good one, but he wasnt charged under that. It was the posts that he made involving violent statements against his wife, against law enforcement officials in particular, an FBI agent who visited his home after the FBI began monitoring his posts, and also against elementary schools, threatening possibly to go in and have a major mass shooting.

Follow this link:
Supreme Court tests limits of free speech online with case on social media threats