Mediaboss Marketing

Many religious traditions preach the need to care for strangers. But what happens when caring for the stranger comes into conflict with government policy?

After Title 42 restrictions at the U.S. border ended on May 11, 2023, debates about immigration have heated up again focused mostly on reform, border security or refugees needs.

But the treatment of immigrants is deeply intertwined with religious freedom as well. As a scholar of religious ethics who studies immigration, I am interested in recent cases that highlight growing tensions between immigration policies and religious groups commitments to pastoral and humanitarian care.

One high-profile example centers on Rev. Kaji Doua, senior pastor at Park Avenue Christian Church in New York City, who traveled to Tijuana, Mexico, in 2018 to provide pastoral care to asylum seekers.

Her work was flagged by Customs and Border Protection after a Honduran woman allegedly said that Doua told migrants that marrying each other would make it easier to receive legal papers in the U.S. As Doua later testified, she did perform religious ceremonies, but only for couples who were already in common-law marriages and without claiming to provide any legal status.

Douas name and photo were added to a Department of Homeland Security watch list that included lawyers, journalists and activists, and she was detained and questioned by CBP officers upon her return to the U.S. A CBP official also sent an email to Mexican authorities asking them to ban Doua from entering Mexico because she lacked proper documentation which the official later acknowledged had no basis in fact.

Doua filed a lawsuit accusing DHS of unjust surveillance and retaliation, and in March 2023 a federal judge ruled in her favor. Judge Todd Robinson agreed that DHS had violated Douas right to freedom of religious expression by instructing Mexican authorities to detain her.

Both Doua and the United Church of Christ, which ordained her, argued that her actions were based in her religious commitments. Doua previously stated, To reject a migrant is to cast away Gods angels, which I am unwilling to do.

Immigrants gather at a makeshift camp near the border between the U.S. and Mexico on May 13, 2023. Mario Tama/Getty Images

This is not the first time religious leaders or groups providing pastoral and humanitarian care to migrants have come under scrutiny.

One famous example is the Sanctuary Movement of the 1980s, an informal network of up to 500 churches whose members provided safe haven to undocumented asylum seekers fleeing violence in Central America.

Several members of the movement were convicted of conspiring to smuggle immigrants into the U.S. They appealed, arguing that their work was inspired by their religious convictions and that the government was violating their First Amendment rights. Yet their claims were largely unsuccessful.

Over the past few decades, however, religious freedom claims have often found more favor in U.S. courts.

In part, this is because of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has made it easier for people and institutions to claim religiously based exemptions from generally applicable laws. One of the best-known examples is the 2014 Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, in which the court, citing the owners religious convictions, exempted the national chain of crafts stores from providing employee health insurance that included contraception coverage.

This shift has opened new lines of defense for religious actors, including humanitarian groups.

No More Deaths is a nonprofit associated with a Unitarian Universalist church in Tucson, Arizona. Members leave supplies along desert routes traveled by migrants, provide first aid and occasionally offer services such as temporary shelter to migrants who are suffering from exposure.

In 2018, volunteers were charged with littering, driving on protected lands and, in one case, harboring undocumented immigrants.

A volunteer for No More Deaths delivers water along a trail used by undocumented immigrants in the desert near Ajo, Ariz., in 2019. John Moore/Getty Images

Four volunteers were initially convicted, but their charges were dismissed after they argued that they were compelled by religious convictions and that the government had violated their freedom of religious expression. The appeals court judge cited the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the Hobby Lobby case in holding that the volunteers were protected under U.S. law.

A more recent dustup between a religious humanitarian organization and government officials occurred in December 2022. A group of Republicans in Congress sent a letter to Catholic Charities, a humanitarian nonprofit affiliated with the church that provides food, shelter and bathing facilities on both sides of the border.

In U.S. border cities, the organization also provides transportation from shelters to bus stops and money exchanges. The representatives letter cited this work as a reason to suspect Catholic Charities of encouraging illegal border crossings and required staff to preserve records of their work.

The organization argued that the charges were both fallacious and factually inaccurate. Caring for people in need, including vulnerable people on the move, leaders wrote, is a part of the fabric of the global Catholic Church and is mandated by the gospel.

Yet another sticking point between religious groups and immigration law has emerged in Florida in recent weeks. A bill recently signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis was modified after religious groups protested against its proposed criminal penalties for knowingly transporting or concealing an undocumented immigrant. Religious leaders argued that this would violate their religious freedom by preventing them from providing rides to religious services or from finding aid for people in need.

It is not surprising that these conflicts keep happening, considering the U.S. governments and religious organizations different motivations around migration.

One main driver for politicians is simply that many voters are nervous about newcomers, especially if they have different cultural, religious or racial backgrounds. The nonprofit Public Religion Research Institute has found that while 55% of Americans think immigrants strengthen American society, 40% believe a growing number of newcomers threatens traditional American customs and values. In the past few years, multiple Republican politicians have even embraced some version of the great replacement conspiracy theory. Once limited to extremist and antisemitic groups, replacement theory alleges that immigrants are either replacing native-born American citizens or are intentionally being used to facilitate electoral and social change.

Political scientist Seyla Benhabib has argued that another reason some leaders focus on border policies is that national sovereignty has been weakened in a globalizing world. Multinational corporations, for example, are sometimes influential enough to shape government policies, such as lobbying for weaker labor laws and environmental protections.

But whereas sovereignty and citizens are priorities for governments, many religious traditions teach adherents to care for people regardless of what community they belong to. Religious thinkers do argue over whether their traditions encourage greater attention to people in their own communities. Still, when it comes to peoples most basic survival needs, most emphasize that care should know no borders.

For the foreseeable future, these priorities will continue to clash and some religious people may push back by claiming a First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression.

If so, youll be interested in our free daily newsletter. Its filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand whats going on in the world. With the latest scientific discoveries, thoughtful analysis on political issues and research-based life tips, each email is filled with articles that will inform you and often intrigue you.

Get our newsletters

Editor and General Manager

Get news thats free, independent and based on evidence.

Get newsletter

Editor

Find peace of mind, and the facts, with experts. Add evidence-based articles to your news digest. No uninformed commentariat. Just experts. 90,000 of them have written for us. They trust us. Give it a go.

Get our newsletter

If you found the article you just read to be insightful, youll be interested in our free daily newsletter. Its filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand whats going on in the world. Each newsletter has articles that will inform and intrigue you.

Subscribe now

CEO | Editor-in-Chief

It helps you go deeper into key political issues and also introduces you to the diversity of research coming out of the continent. It's not about breaking news. It's not about unfounded opinions. The Europe newsletter is evidence-based expertise from European scholars, presented by myself in France, and two of my colleagues in Spain and the UK.

Get our newsletter

Head of English section, France edition

Read more here:
When faith says to help migrants and the law says don't - The Conversation

What is a misconception people have about the movie theater business that youve tried to correct but didnt succeed?

Ticket prices. Even through all the innovations and improvements in the technology, and the sound systems and the premium screens all the ways that weve improved the cinema experience over the last decade or two, its still the case that the average price of a ticket today on a cost-of-living basis is less than it was in the 1970s. And yet people always say movie tickets are too expensive.

What are the biggest challenges facing the theatrical exhibition business going forward?

I think the existential challenges the pandemic, the streaming wars are gone. Im really the most optimistic Ive been in 30 years about the future of the business. The biggest immediate challenge is its going to take a while to fix the balance sheets.

Long term, its still about two things: the creation and distribution of really good movies that appeal to all demographics in all different genres, with diverse casts and diverse themes, and really good operational experiences at theaters that also offer diversity and different value-based judgments. If the studio partners keep making really good movies that appeal to diverse audiences, and we keep innovating and upgrading cinema experiences, Im very bullish on the long-term health of the industry.

Were you a movie lover before you took this job?

I like movies. But I was principally a First Amendment lover, and a First Amendment lawyer in Washington. Our members will play everything: the most radical, left-wing anarchist film, the most conservative religious film, and we get protests on both sides. To me it was always like, Bring it on. Movie theaters are the town halls of modern society. Its where people go to experience something collectively, and then debate the issues of the day.

What is the thing you are going to miss the least?

I dont know who Im going to miss the least, the really aggressive know-it-alls in Hollywood or the really aggressive know-it-alls in Washington, D.C. A lot of these people are my really good friends, and Ill have some lasting relationships with both creatives and studio executives, but, you know, sometimes just because you run a big studio or youre a United States senator doesnt mean you know everything. I will not miss that.

See the article here:
'Movie Theaters Are the Marketplace of Free Ideas' - The New York Times

In a victory for academic freedom, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill announced its decision to not implement recommendations made by the School of Medicines Task Force to Integrate Social Justice into the Curriculum that would condition tenure and promotion on faculty commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

FIRE wrote UNC in April expressing concerns about the task forces report. We explained that its recommendations would create subjective standards that would compel faculty to voice or demonstrate commitments to prescribed views on contested questions of politics or morality to avoid adverse employment action. Senior University Counsel Kirsten Stevenson responded to our letter last week acknowledging our concerns and stating the task force has concluded its work, with no plan to implement the Task Forces recommendations now or in the future.

FIRE surveys speech codes at Americas top colleges and universities, providing readers with key data on individual schools and national trends.

Read More

Stevenson explained that even if the recommendations were revisited, further review and revision would be required:

A particular area of concern would be compliance with the recent amendments to the UNC systemwide policy on Political Activities of Employees . . . [which] prohibits the University from requiring an employee or applicant for academic admission or employment from having to affirmatively ascribe to or opine about beliefs, affiliations, ideals, or principles regarding matters of contemporary political debate or social action as a condition to admission, employment, or professional advancement.

Of the nearly 500 colleges and universities rated in FIREs Spotlight database, UNC is one of only 61 schools to have earned a prestigious green light rating. Its latest statement demonstrates why. In rejecting the task forces recommendations and their potential to condition faculty employment on ideological conformity, UNC protected faculty First Amendment rights, testifying to the importance of safeguarding academic freedom.

Far too many universities double down on rights abuses rather than admit their actions stifle expressive freedom. UNCs principled response is a shining example of how universities can successfully address rights violations when brought to their attention.

FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members no matter their views at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If youre a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533).

Read more from the original source:
VICTORY: UNC Chapel Hill rejects task force recommendation ... - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

By James Reinl, Social Affairs Correspondent, For Dailymail.Com 17:25 03 May 2023, updated 20:27 03 May 2023

The US has dropped three places on an index of global press freedom and now ranks alongside Tonga and Gambia, as local news outlets shutter and major networks turn increasingly partisan.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF), a global media watchdog, ranked the US 45th out of 180 countries, trailing far behind many of its European allies and barely keeping its 'satisfactory' rating.

Meanwhile, a Pew Research Center survey of US-based journalists found that six-in-ten were extremely or very concerned about declining press freedoms, regardless of whether they worked for left or right-wing outlets.

These startling indictments of US journalism follow the sackings of hosts Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon, and Fox News settling a defamation suit over its presenters misleading viewers about the 2020 election results.

'Freedom of the press violations have fallen significantly in the US,' RSF said in itsonline report, which was released on World Press Freedom on Wednesday.

'Major structural barriers to press freedom persist in this country once considered a model for freedom of expression.'

RSF said US media outlets operated free from government interference, but were increasingly owned by a handful of billionaires as ever-more local newspapers shuttered as the switch to online news hit advertising revenues.

More than 360 newspapers have closed since 2019, major national newspapers continue to lose subscriptions, and such outlets as CNN, NBC, Buzzfeed, Vox and The Washington Post have carried out waves of layoffs this past year, the study said.

At the same time, US consumers have increasingly turned to partisan media, deepening the country's political divides, as the public trust in new outlets and journalists has 'fallen dangerously,' researchers said.

Journalists faced ever more harassment and difficulty doing their job, including reporters covering the massacre in Uvalde, Texas, last May, who said they were threatened with arrest by police and hassled by vigilante bikers.

RSF researchers highlighted the Las Vegas Review-Journal investigative reporter Jeff German, who was stabbed to death in September. Robert Telles a local elected official who German had reported on was arrested and charged with his murder.

Meanwhile, Pew's survey of 12,000 working US journalists found alarming levels of concern about the country's declining media freedoms, with 57 percent of respondents saying they were extremely or very concerned about press restrictions.

Older journalists and those who have worked in the industry longer were especially vexed. The concern stretches across political divides to those working at both liberal and conservative outlets.

The situation is bleak beyond America's borders, RSF said.

Journalism is being battered by propaganda and increasingly sophisticated fakes, aided by AI software and a failure of oversight from tech companies.

Overall, the environment for journalists was rated as 'bad' in 70 percent of the 180 countries in the group's annual scoreboard, and 'good' in just eight nations.

Norway and North Korea remain best and worst, respectively, for press freedom.

RSF warned of myriad forms of misinformation were 'drowning out' trustworthy news a problem compounded by the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence.

'It is the tech industry that allows disinformation to be produced, distributed and amplified,' RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire told AFP.

'Reliable information is drowned in a deluge of disinformation,' Deloire added.

'We are less and less able to perceive the differences between the real and the artificial, the true and the false.'

He said a prime example was Elon Musk, who took over Twitter in late 2022. The report criticizes his new paid-for verification system, saying Musk was pushing 'an arbitrary, payment-based approach to information to the extreme'.

The report used the example of Midjourney, an AI program that generates high-quality images that are 'feeding social media with increasingly plausible and undetectable fake 'photos''

Among the software's best-known images werethose of Donald Trump being manhandled by police and a comatose Julian Assange in a straitjacket, which recently went viral.

Traditional forms of political interference are also gaining ground in many countries, RSF said.

Some two-thirds of countries have political actors who are 'often or systematically involved in massive disinformation or propaganda campaigns', it said, highlighting the cases of Russia, India, and China.

They are assisted by a vast disinformation industry.

RSF recently supported a consortium of investigative journalists working on 'Forbidden Stories', a project which uncovered the activities of Israeli firm 'Team Jorge' which specializes in producing disinformation.

The worst countries in the new ranking, apart from North Korea, were Vietnam, 'which has almost completed its hunt of independent reporters and commentators,' and China, 'the world's biggest jailer of journalists'.

India fell from 'problematic' to 'very bad', thanks to 'media takeovers by oligarchs close to' Prime Minister Narendra Modi

In Turkey, the government 'has stepped up its persecution of journalists in the run-up to elections scheduled for 14 May,' the report said.

The biggest falls were seen in Peru (down 33 places to 110), Senegal (down 31 to 104) and Haiti (down 29 to 99th).

Major improvement was seen in Brazil, up 18 to 92 thanks to the departure of far-right president Jair Bolsonaro.

The Middle East and North Africa remains the most dangerous region for journalists, RSF said, while Europe remains the safest, though attacks on journalists in Germany saw it drop five places.

The ranking is compiled by combining data on abuses committed against journalists with hundreds of surveys sent to journalists, academics, and human rights activists.

AFP contributed to this report.

View original post here:
First Amendment last: America falls three places to rank BELOW Tonga on press freedom index - Daily Mail

The indictment of rapper Young Thug on gang-related charges in May 2022 sparked a movement in the music industry against the use of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal proceedings. Now as the hip-hop star awaits trial in Georgia, the issue is gaining bipartisan support from lawmakers across the country, who are introducing bills on the federal and state level to limit the controversial practice.

Missouri state Rep. Phil Christofanelli, a Republican sponsoring the bill in his state, told ABC News on Tuesday that using artistic expression in court proceedings could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and his bill is designed to regulate the practice and protect the First Amendment.

For me, it's about free speech, he said.

If you have a criminal system where your unrelated artistic creations can be brought against you as evidence to take away your life or liberty, that's about as chilling an effect as you can get, he added.

Rap lyrics have been used by prosecutors in the U.S. for decades as alleged evidence in criminal cases, but their inclusion in the indictment of Grammy-winning rapper Young Thug in Georgia brought national attention to the practice and sparked a movement across the music industry to Protect Black Art.

Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason, Jr. told ABC News on Wednesday that using artistic expression in court is a slippery slope and sets a dangerous precedent. Bills like this are opportunities to stand up, Mason said, adding that legislation that limits the use of artistic expression in court will have repercussions across all the creative areas and will protect the rights of creators across genres and disciplines.

Missouri House Bill No. 353 or the Restoring Artistic Protect Act is known as the Rap Act and is named after the federal bill introduced in Congress last year.

Christofanelli said the bill got unanimous bipartisan support in committee and groups across the ideological spectrum testified in favor of the bill, including right-leaning organizations dedicated to protecting the First Amendment and progressive groups focused on criminal justice reform and racial justice.

The bill, which was included as an amendment to a Senate bill on judicial proceedings, passed the Missouri House on Tuesday and is expected to go up for a vote in the Senate before the legislative session ends on May 12.

There's a little bit for everybody to love in this issue, and I think that's why it's done pretty well, even in a very conservative state like Missouri and a liberal state like California, Christofanelli said.

California became the first state to adopt a law limiting the use of lyrics in court when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law in Oct. 2022.

Democratic Reps. Hank Johnson of Georgia and Jamaal Bowman of New York reintroduced the The Rap Act on Capitol Hill last week a bill that was first introduced last year and helped inspire legislation on the state level.

A similar bill in Louisiana sponsored by Republican Rep. and Speaker Pro Tempore Tanner Magee passed in the House last week and is also expected to go up for a vote in the Senate this month.

In New York, Democratic Sens. Brad Hoylman and Jamaal Bailey co-sponsored the Rap on Trial bill last year. The bill passed in the Senate, but never made it to the state assembly and is up for a Senate vote again this year. Similar bills have also been introduced in Maryland and Illinois.

The bills would essentially require prosecutors to prove to a judge without the presence of a jury, that the lyrics in question have a factual nexus to an alleged crime and were intended to be taken literally as a representation of the defendants true thoughts or statements.

We want there to be a hearing before a judge outside of the jury's presence to make sure that this type of evidence isn't used to unfairly prejudice jurors against artist defendants, Christofanelli said.

Although the legislation addresses all artistic genres, research outlined in the 2019 book "Rap on Trial" by Erik Nielson and Andrea Dennis shows that the practice of using lyrics in court disproportionately impacts rap musicians.

"Rap music is the only fictional form -- musical or otherwise, that is targeted this way in the courts," Nielson previously told ABC News.

"It's absolutely racist," he added. Essentially what's happening is rap music is being denied the status of art."

Mason said that the Recording Academy is deploying its members to states across the country to provide grassroots support and meet with lawmakers to advocate for the issue.

This is exactly what the Academy is for, Mason said.

Anytime we can jump into action to protect or support or uplift our music community to enable them to do what they do, that's what we are here for.

Visit link:
As Young Thug awaits trial, the push to limit the use of rap lyrics in court gains bipartisan support - ABC News