Mediaboss Marketing

B. Scott arrives to the 25th Annual GLAAD in Los Angeles in April 2014.

FORTUNE -- In August 2013, transgender television personality B. Scott filed a suit against Black Entertainment Television and its parent company Viacom Inc., claiming that the network had discriminated against him based on his gender identity and sexual orientation.

The lawsuit stemmed from Scott's appearance as a style correspondent at the 2013 BET awards preshow. After his first segment of the night, in which he appeared with heavy makeup and heels, the network told him to tone down his look and change into masculine clothing that was "different from the androgynous style he's used to ... and comfortable with," according to the complaint.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge decided the case Wednesday, and it came down to theFirst Amendment; not Scott's freedom to speech and expression, but Viacom's (VIA).The court found that BET's decision as to how Scott would appear on camera was part of the network's creative process of developing and broadcasting the show, which is protected by the First Amendment.

MORE:Americans have fallen in love with real estate once again

The case is by no means the first in which a media company has used the First Amendment as a defenseagainst lawsuits alleging discrimination. The order on Thursday cites several other instances.

There was the racial discrimination case against ABC for its failure to feature non-white contestants on The Bachelorand The Bachelorette. A federal district court in Tennessee dismissed the matter after finding that "casting decisions are a necessary component of any entertainment show's creative content." The court said that "the plaintiffs seek to drive an artificial wedge between casting decisions and the end product, which itself is indisputably protected as speech by the First Amendment."

And there was the lawsuit filed against Warner Bros. by a former writers' assistant for the television show Friendswho asserted that the use of sexually coarse and vulgar language and conduct by the show's writers constituted sexual harassment. The Supreme Court of California in that case held that "the First Amendment protects creativity."

The case thatheld greatestprecedent is a matter in which a group of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Irish Americans sought to participate in Boston's St. Patrick's Day parade. The U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately heard the case, ruled that it would be a violation of the First Amendment for Massachusetts to require private citizens "who organize a parade to include among the marchers a group imparting a message the organizers do not wish to convey."

The defendants in these cases arguedthat they didn't care what their employees or participants are in reality -- gay, straight, male, female -- but rather how they appear. "They say, 'We are entitled to create a program that looks the way we want it to look,'" says Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law. And the courts have agreed with them.

Read more:
To kill bias suits, companies lean on the First Amendment

The Supreme Court often takes on difficult and controversial cases, ones over which reasonable people can and do disagree. But the case of an Ohio statute that bans campaign lies Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus is not a close call. The law is a direct affront to the First Amendment, and a matter that anyone who values free speech should be happy to see invalidated.

The case arose from a dispute between a one-time Ohio state representative, Steven Driehaus, and the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life group.

During Mr. Driehaus' re-election effort, the group planned a billboard campaign accusing Mr. Driehaus of supporting taxpayer-funded abortions because he was in favor of Obamacare.

Mr. Driehaus moved to block the group from putting up the ads. The Susan B. Anthony List challenged the law, but was rebuffed because it could not show it had suffered harm.

Although the billboard ads didn't go up, and Mr. Driehaus was not re-elected, the matter did not stop there.

The Susan B. Anthony List then sought to bring the matter before the Supreme Court, claiming its free-speech rights remain under threat because of the law.

The details of the dispute are interesting, but hardly matter. The simple fact is that laws restricting political speech are inconsistent with the First Amendment.

The Ohio statute see codes.ohio.gov/orc/3517.21 bars a range of election-related claims and speech, including false statements about a candidate's military or educational record, or what professional licenses a candidate holds.

Those are easy claims to investigate, but how does one evaluate whether a campaign ad, sound bite, or debate claim violates the provision barring "a false statement concerning the voting records of a candidate or public official"?

America's colorful political history contains many famous exaggerations and falsehoods, which usually haunt those who make them. But innumerable claims are grounded in political viewpoint, interpretation, and shades of meaning. It is impossible to gauge their truth or falsity.

Read the original:
First thing, First Amendment

Political Science: Const Law: Civil Liberties
Investigation of the Supreme Court #39;s interpretation of the First Amendment, rights of the accused, and the right to privacy. Prerequisite: POLS 021.

By: UVM Continuing Ed

Follow this link:
Political Science: Const Law: Civil Liberties - Video

First Amendment Foundation Wants First Veto

By: flanewscapitol

More:
First Amendment Foundation Wants First Veto - Video

Floyd Abrams: "On the Front Lines with the First Amendment"
Floyd Abrams, described as "the most significant First Amendment lawyer of our age," interviewed by Ron Collins at the 2014 Virginia Festival of the Book. Ho...

By: Thomas Jefferson Center

Go here to see the original:
Floyd Abrams: "On the Front Lines with the First Amendment" - Video