Mediaboss Marketing

MANCHESTER Three months after his death, New Hampshire-based journalist James Foleys efforts to help people in the most troubled areas of the world continued with a posthumous honor Wednesday night.

Foley was the recipient of the 12th annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment Award, given annually to New Hampshire organizations or residents who protect or exemplify the liberties listed in the First Amendment to the Constitution free speech and freedom of the press.

What James was doing at the risk and ultimate loss of his life was telling stories of innocent people caught up in terrible, terrible circumstances, said Donald Trump, the featured speaker during the banquet. He did this because he felt those stories needed to be told. And he was right.

Trump accepted the invitation to speak before Foley was selected as the honoree. Once he learned who was the recipient, Trump well-known for not easily being humbled said he learned more about the 40-year-old journalist beheaded by Islamic militants in Syria last August.

He was far more brave than Ill ever be, said Trump, who was interrupted by applause during his remarks about Foley.

Trump also presented a $25,000 check made out to the James W. Foley Legacy Fund to Foleys parents, Dr. John and Diane Foley of Rochester. The Foleys accepted the award on behalf of their son, who they said believed in his work and the protections established for him and all journalists in the First Amendment.

Jim was obviously passionate about freedom of the press. He laid down his life to get the word out about the suffering of people in Syria, Diane Foley said.

John Foley recalled how his son organized a group of colleagues to come up with $10,000 for an ambulance for a village they were covering. Foley said his son was also in Libya, where he was kidnapped and held for weeks. James Foley felt obliged to return to the region, despite the danger.

He was a humanitarian I think as much as a journalist, but I think he was able to meld all of his strengths and aspirations into a journalism career, John Foley said. Most of the time his goal was to humanize the subject of his writing.

The Foleys also brought a guest Nicolas Henin, a freelance journalist from France who was held with Foley during part of his time in captivity. Henin received a standing ovation when he was introduced during the banquet. He said the award was a fitting way to honor his former fellow captive and carry on his memory.

Read this article:
Trump leads tribute for slain journalist James Foley

The First Amendment gives Donald Trump the freedom to criticize President Obama and the countrys policies any way he pleases.

Last night was no exception. As the featured speaker at an event to honor slain New Hampshire journalist James Foley with a First Amendment award given by the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications in Manchester, Trump did not hold back.

A few months ago, I used the word incompetent to describe the president. Its a very strong word and I was met with a lot of anger and fury, Trump said. Now its a word thats commonly used.

I have very little respect for him because I like winners, he added later.

He said he is not afraid to criticize the countrys failures, which are many, including:

In China, the president is openly mocked by government-controlled newspapers, he said.

The country is poised to return to Iraq alone after spending $2 trillion to fight a war and then leave.

When the U.S. sends weapons to help its allies fight the Islamic State, those weapons end up in the hands of the enemy.

The government allows people to come here who have traveled to Africa and could be ill with the Ebola virus without quarantine.

The lauded 5 percent unemployment rate is a phony number. The real unemployment rate in this country is more like 16, 17 or 18 percent, he said.

Read this article:
Foley was far greater than I, says Trump

By William Bennett Turner

William Bennett Turner teaches First Amendment courses at UC Berkeley, and is the author of 'Figures of Speech: First Amendment Heroes and Villains' (2011).

The biggest vote-getter on the Nov. 4 ballot in Berkeley was not the tax on sugary soda, which got 75% of the vote and national attention. Nor was it a candidate for any office. It was Proposition P, which called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision. Prop P got 85% of the vote.

The proposition was, as California propositions go, remarkably simple. It asked if the United States Constitution should be amended to abolish the concept that corporations are persons that are entitled to constitutional rights, and the doctrine that the expenditure of money may be treated as speech. (Berkeleyans have rarely been bothered that their principled positions on national and international affairs have little effect; the proposition was placed on the ballot by the City Council.)

The official ballot argument in favor of Prop P (no opposing argument was submitted) overstated the Citizens United decision by claiming it gave corporations the same rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution as human persons. It mistakenly added that the decision specified that donating unlimited money on campaigns should be considered free speech, and asserted the court had endorsed the slogan money equals speech. The argument ended with a ringing call to abolish corporate personhood.

Citizens United is the most misunderstood decision in the 21st century. That is partly because the opinions in the case ran to 176 pages, and very few people have read them. I doubt anyone on the Berkeley City Council has read them.

As it happens, on election day I was teaching the decision in my First Amendment class at UC Berkeley. I felt obligated to tell the students some of the ways Citizens United has been mischaracterized.

First, it did not give corporations the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as natural persons. It didnt give them the right to vote, or the right to contribute directly to a candidate. Nor did it invent the concept of corporate personhood. That was done peremptorily by the court in a railroad case in 1886, without any argument, discussion or analysis. In 1978, the court ruled that political speech in an election did not lose First Amendment protection because of the corporate identity of the speaker, and that became the main theme of Citizens United. The court also protected corporate speech in at least 24 cases before Citizens United, including cases establishing bedrock free speech principles. Those included New York Times v. Sullivan (the right to criticize government without fear of being sued for libel), and the Pentagon Papers case (no prior restraints-type government censorship), both won by the Times corporation.

At this point in our history, abolishing corporate personhood would cause all kinds of mischief. The New York Times and all other media corporations would have no First Amendment rights and could be censored at will. (Relying on the Press Clause of the First Amendment is no answer, because the court has rejected the contention that it gives whoever claims to be the press a difficult definitional question in these days of Fox News, Twitter and bloggers special speech rights not enjoyed by ordinary citizens.) Some Berkeleyans might not be unhappy if government prohibited corporate advertising, thus wiping out the Super Bowl and most media, though few would be pleased if a corporation, not being a person, could not be sued for polluting the environment.

Second, the court did not say money is speech. It simply quoted from its 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo to the effect that restricting the amount of money that can be spent in a campaign restricts the quantity and nature of campaign speech. This is self-evident: it costs money to print and distribute flyers and yard signs, rent billboard space, and buy television and radio time; the less money you can spend, the less you can speak. In that sense, the court now treats money as speech, but it doesnt use the slogan simplistically equating the two.

Here is the original post:
Op-ed: Berkeley overrules Citizens United!

From our community

Late Tuesday afternoon, Houston City Council candidate Trebor Gordon filed a First Amendment lawsuit challenging a discriminatory Houston ordinance that prevents city candidates from fundraising until February.

Gordon is a conservative candidate for Houston City Council at large. Houston is a great city because of the entrepreneurial culture of its citizens, among other things, Gordon said. But our current leadership has been chipping away at that spirit, overregulating and fleecing the taxpayers with a runaway budget. Im running to restore responsible leadership and let Houstonians run their own lives.

Im also compelled to address the deeply offensive posture Mayor Parker has taken towards people of faith in this city, harassing pastors with abusive subpoenas, Gordon continued. I have to address these issues now, because they are happening now. I cant wait until February to start my campaign.

Gordon will be on the ballot in the citys next general election in November 2015. Currently, section 18-35(a) of the Houston code of ordinances states that candidates may only solicit or receive contributions beginning in February of the election year and ending on March 4 of the year after the election. This provision prohibits fundraising for a full ten months of every two-year cycle, and candidates have only nine months to raise funds before Election Day.

Gordon is represented by political law attorney Jerad Najvar. There is no blackout period banning bad decisions by city officials for a part of every election cycle, Najvar said, and the government has no authority to tell Gordonor any other candidateto wait until February to start campaigning. City officials have access to free media all day long, and my client certainly has the right to fund his campaign and speak to the public. This waiting period serves only to insulate the city from organized opposition.

Najvar continued: The blackout period is facially unconstitutional. But it gets even worse, because people who currently hold non-city office are raising money right now, and everybody knows it will be transferred to their city campaign in February. This whole system is an absurd charade encouraging candidates to act like theyre running for something theyre not. While these shadow campaigns are proceeding aggressively, nonincumbents like Gordon have to sit on their hands. The First Amendment does not permit such nonsense.

The case is Gordon v. City of Houston, No. 14-CV-3146, currently pending in federal court in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. Gordon has asked for an immediate injunction, and is awaiting a hearing date from the court.

Go here to read the rest:
Houston City Council candidate Trebor Gordon files First Amendment challenge to campaign blackout period

Irving, TX -- Nexstar CEO Perry Sook has been honored as a First Amendment Award winner by The Radio Television Digital News Foundation.

Perry Sook, president and CEO of Nexstar successfully built Nexstar Broadcasting from two dozen stations to more than 100, while building and improving news operations across the ever-expanding group. This award honors professionals in local or network news who work in an off-air, management, largely behind-the-scenes capacity.

Our honorees are true champions of press freedom," said Chris Carl, Chairman of RTDNF. "Each of them have demonstrated outstanding support of the First Amendment through their work and their commitment to excellence." "We are proud to recognize the tireless dedication of this year's recipients, added Mike Cavender, RTDNF Executive Director. From the board room to the courtroom and from the White House Press Room to our living rooms, they embody the values of a free press in our society."

The awards will be presented at a ceremony at the Grand Hyatt, 1000 H Street NW in Washington, DC on Wednesday, March 11, 2015.

Sook was recently inducted into the Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame.

Read the rest here:
Nexstar CEO Perry Sook Honored with First Amendment Service Award