Mediaboss Marketing

Over the past ten years, there have been numerous world events that have made headlines across multiple media outlets. There have been new presidents elected, votes concerning gay marriage and Ebola outbreaks, just to name a few. But there is something happening that has seized to catch the attention of the world: murderers are walking free.

According to a report issued by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 90 percent of murderers who have taken the life of journalists have faced no punishment. As many as 370 journalists have been murdered over the last ten years. Statistically, this means that, 9 out of 10 times, there is no conviction in journalist murders. This lack of justice brings light to governments failing to step up. Nov. 2 was deemed International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists as a way to call for justice.

According to The Guardian, UN and regional intergovernmental bodies are urged to take concrete steps to hold member states accountable to their commitments to combat impunity. And journalists are called on to monitor and report on whether these pledges are implemented.

But these attacks are not just simply attacks on human life, but attacks to what these journalists live to protect: press freedom. The Prairie recently held a Town Hall Meeting regarding First Amendment issues because most are confused as to what the First Amendment truly protects. It protects everyone.

The press is just an outlet to educate and inform citizens. Journalists hold this unacknowledged pact with society to serve them, to inform them, to provide them the truth. But its society as a whole that has these rights. Just because a person walks around with a press pass or owns the title of journalist does not mean they have extra rights, or extra protection under the First Amendment.

Read the original here:
Understanding the First Amendment is essential

Five Freedoms of the First Amendment
Assignment for EDUC-CI 5585.

By: Wendy Budetti

View original post here:
Five Freedoms of the First Amendment - Video

How the First Amendment applies to Jennifer Lawrence
How the First Amendment applies to Jennifer Lawrence.

By: retet

Link:
How the First Amendment applies to Jennifer Lawrence - Video

November 4, 2014 12:00 AM Share with others:

By P.J. DAnnunzio / The Legal Intelligencer

The Commonwealth Court has ruled in an apparent issue of first impression that reporting a convicted sex offenders Internet aliases under Megans Law IV would not violate his First Amendment rights.

The decision from a seven-judge Commonwealth Court panel came in response to Richard Coppolinos request to be removed from the sex offender registry. The en banc panel rejected his argument that being required to disclose his Internet identities infringes on his right to anonymous free speech.

Coppolino asserted that since he was convicted and completed his sentence before Megans Law IV was enacted, having to comply with certain provisions of the law constituted retroactive punishment.

Coppolino, convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, also argued that the provision of Megans Law requiring the reporting of Internet names designed to protect minors was overbroad in the context of his case because his crime did not involve a minor or the Internet, Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer wrote in the courts opinion.

Judge Jubelirer said under Megans Law, any of Coppolinos Internet identifiers must be included on a statewide sex-offender registry. She added that registry information is disseminated in four ways: among law enforcement agencies; for the purposes of notifying victims and communities; and on a public website.

Because none of the avenues of dissemination of registry information applicable in this case involve disclosure of registrants Internet identifiers, we conclude that the requirement that registrants disclose their Internet identifiers does not burden the right to anonymous speech. Because this provision does not burden a registrants First Amendment rights, it is not overbroad, Judge Jubelirer said.

(Copies of the 52-page opinion in Coppolino v. Noonan, PICS No. 14-1628, are available from The Legal Intelligencer. Please call the Pennsylvania Instant Case Service at 1-800-276-PICS to order or for information.)

P.J. DAnnunzio can be contacted at 1-215-557-2315 or pdannunzio@alm.com. Follow him on Twitter @PJDannunzioTLI.

Continue reading here:
Sex offender must register Web IDs under Megans Law

Trevor Brookins

*Based on ones perspective either the first or the second amendment is the most important part of the Constitution. Either it is more important to have something to protect or something to help you protect it.

I will save that debate for another day and skip ahead to which of the five freedoms included in the first amendment is most important. And why were assembly, petition, press, religion, and speech chosen to be the basis of freedom in our country.

Well simply put if you are trying to break away from an absolute monarchy in which the allegiance to the crown meant allegiance to the king as Gods emissary on earth, those five things would have been essential. Being able to speak against some religious action the king took, among others who are like minded, or being able to print your thoughts to gain a larger audience, and ask the king to change are all the things that would get you killed or put in prison if you were lucky.

But if I am to borrow from George Carlin some of these are a bit redundant. The freedom of speech is important as it is the basis of autonomy. But the freedom of assembly is basically the freedom to speak among others; the freedom of the press is the freedom to have your speech distributed; the freedom of petition is basically the freedom to speak to the government without repercussions. The freedom of religion is also a specific kind of autonomy but it is different in that it may or may not involve others.

Put another way: speech without an audience becomes less important while religion without an audience maintains its power. Thus we are left with speech versus religion.

While I just spent a paragraph arguing for the centrality of speech as the basis of a free society because of the many different forms it takes, I actually believe religion is an even more important freedom because of its history of empowering people and inspiring actions. Religion at its core is a belief system that gets groups of people on the same page and pulling in the same direction. This is not necessarily the case with speech. While it may not be true there is a reason for the thought that organized religion has been the source of more violence and death than anything else in history. The kernel of veracity is that throughout the history of Western civilization organized religion has often been the reason people are killing others.

Furthermore religion can inspire speech and all of its derivatives (press, assembly, and petition). Religion makes use of speech in a way that is not reciprocal enhancing the case for religion to be a more basic freedom than speech.

Lastly think back to your elementary Social Studies lessons. Why did the Pilgrims come to the New World freedom of speech or freedom of religion? Religion. The freedom to worship God in a manner of ones own choosing has always been at the center of the American experiment, first as colonies then as a country.

For these reasons religion stands out as the most essential freedom contained in the first amendment. Unfortunately many people misunderstand this freedom to exclude non-Christian forms of religion. My only response to people with that perspective is that while the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were certainly predominately Christian it is instructive that they left out any mention of their personal religious beliefs out of the countrys rule book. Basically the felt strongly enough about the freedom of religion that they left that issue open so that other denominations of Christian and even other religions not yet incorporated into the country could come and feel welcome.

See more here:
The Socialists Journal: Number One of Number One