Mediaboss Marketing

DAYTONA group of Columbia County residents is circulating a petition to dissolve the Dayton Rural Library District. Jessica Rufficorn posted a photo of the petition on Facebook in March. She and other community members who wish to dissolve the library district have posted their dissatisfaction with the librarys collection, the Library Board of Trustees, and Library Director Todd Vandenbark on the Facebook pages, including Dayton Speak freely(sic).

The dissolution efforts follow the groups dispute over 11 books on gender identity, sexual identity, or anti-racism. There is a protocol the board of trustees and the director follow to address complaints over books in the collection.

After the board completed the review of the books, it decided to retain all of them. The specific placement of the books in the library was addressed, ensuring access to appropriate aged readers.

Unfortunately, Vandenbark has been the focal point of the groups anger over the books not being removed. He and the board have addressed the concerns in writing and public meetings. He has asked anyone concerned to come to the library and speak with him.

The following message from the director was included in the April CCRLD newsletter.

A truly great library contains something in it to offend everyone.~ Jo Goodwin, librarian.

Recently, Ive learned of questions that some community members have asked about the librarys response to concerns about certain titles being available in our collection and Id like to take a moment to respond to these and some related questions.

Does the library put books in the Little Free Libraries?

The Friends of the Dayton Memorial Library are the generous folks who put up and stock these gems. When books at the Columbia County Library are withdrawn, we turn them over to the Friends book sales and to put in the free libraries. So, you may see some books stamped, Columbia County Rural Library District in a little free library. But neither I nor my staff add items to these boxes.

Why are these books in the library?

As a Library Director, it is my responsibility to make sure our collection represents all residents of Columbia County, and not just people of a certain religious or socio-political group. For example, a recent Gallup survey found that a record 7.1% of U.S. adults identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or something other than heterosexual (LGBTQIA+), up from 5.6% in 2012. And one in five Gen-Z adults (people born between 1997-2003) also identify as LGBTQIA+. Our collection lacked fiction and non-fiction titles for these groups so some were added in time for Pride Month in 2022.

Suicide is the second leading cause of death among young people ages 10-24. LGBTQIA+ youth are four times more likely to attempt suicide than their peers. More than 1.8 million LGBTQIA+ youth ages 13-24 are estimated to seriously consider suicide each year in the US and at least one youth attempts suicide every 45 seconds. (The Trevor Project) And making such materials available also serves as resources for parents, friends, and other loved ones who want to understand what being LGBTQIA+ is about. If having these titles in the library may prevent someone from taking their own life, then your library will make them available.

Why not just put controversial books behind the desk or in another part of the library as a compromise?

The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees that each patron has the right to find the information they choose. Libraries have a responsibility to provide information for a wide variety of users, also known as intellectual freedom. Intellectual freedom is the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause, or movement may be explored. (Dr. Tamara Meredith, Intellectual Freedom: Key Concepts for Training and Policy Development. Presentation at the CCRLD Board Meeting, Feb. 28, 2023) Shelving items in a way that restricts access to them is a direct violation of a patrons First Amendment rights and is a form of censorship. A parent or guardian has the right and responsibility to decide what materials are acceptable for their own family. But no one has the right to make rules restricting what other people use, or to make decisions for other families.

For example, lets say that one patrons favorite movie is American Sniper, the story of Navy S.E.A.L. sniper Chris Kyles pinpoint accuracy that saves countless lives on the battlefield. But another library patron comes to the front desk and claims that as a Christian, he believes in the Commandment Thou shalt not kill. This Christian patron goes on to demand that American Sniper be removed from the library because it glorifies killing and war. To remove the video from the collection, or place it behind the desk, denies the first patrons right to find the information they want. So, the video will be kept in the collection.

Your Columbia County Library seeks to offer the widest array of materials possible so that any patron who walks in the door can find materials that reflect who they are, their point of view, and the kinds of information they are seeking, every single day.

More here:
First Amendment protects freedom of information for all library patrons - Waitsburgtimes

Posted on: April 28, 2023, 02:59h.

Last updated on: April 28, 2023, 04:21h.

This weeks uproar over Tucker Carlsons and Don Lemons surprise departures from high-profile cable news jobs shows the limitations of First Amendment protections, according to legal experts.

The sacking of the media stars provides a lesson for TV celebrities that freedom of speech and freedom of the media exist in the Constitution, but wont provide them job security.

As far as the First Amendment goes, its just a reminder that media owners can fire anybody anytime, for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons, UNLV professor and attorney, Stephen Bates, told Casino.org.

Carlson seemingly got pushed out because of what he said and did at Fox, Bates said.

Also, the First Amendment guarantees a person the right to speak, but does not insulate him or her from the consequences of their speech, further advised Robert Jarvis, a law professor at Floridas Nova Southeastern Universitys Shepard College of Law.

Will the firings of Carlson and Lemon give some on-air personalities pause? Perhaps, he told Casino.org. But in the end, people tend to speak first and think later. On-air personalities are no different.

Bates also noted that many of the people who cheered when hearing about Carlsons ouster were upset when CBS pushed anchor Dan Rather out of his job.

When asked about the issue, Jarvis linked Carlsons and Lemons departures to Foxs recent $787M settlement with Dominion Voting Systems over its defamation lawsuit against the network.

I think they needed to send a clear message that a new day has dawned and that on-air personalities are going to be on a much shorter leash in the future, Jarvis said.

CNN management also was rattled by the Dominion settlement. CNN executives realized it sent a similar signal to its shareholders, Jarvis said.

The ousters are part of a broader and continuing debate over how news gets generated and disseminated, and what qualifies as news, according to Jarvis.

Clearly, the public is very distrustful of all media right now. And when you factor in the recent court judgments against Alex Jones and InfoWars, it is obvious that the system is breaking and a day of reckoning was going to come at some point. Of course, one could argue that the day of reckoning was already in motion.

In recent years, CNN also fired host Chris Cuomo and MSNBC forced host Chris Matthews to leave.

Still, from a First Amendment perspective, the reason for the turnover is a lot better than the blacklists of the 1950s, when people lost their jobs because of what they believed or did on their own time, Bates explained.

Carlson was no stranger to controversy at Fox News Channel. In 2017, he advocated conspiracy theories on the Las Vegas mass shooting, Salon reported.

Carlson raised questions about Jesus Campos, a security guard who reportedly confronted shooter Stephen Paddock on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel just before the massacre.

There were conspiratorial suggestions Campos had some connection to the shootings, but evidence was never presented to verify the suspicions.

Read the original post:
First Amendment Fails to Save Tucker Carlson's Job at Fox News - Casino.Org News

I believe our First Amendment rights died a little bit on Monday. You dont have to follow or like Tucker Carlson of Fox or Don Lemon of CNN to understand they both say things that drive up blood pressures on both sides of the political spectrum. So when both were unceremoniously terminated by their employers we are left to wonder whether Sean Hannity and Joy Behar are next.

Jokes aside, without totally speculating on Tuckers departure, Foxs settlement with Dominion Voting Machines was likely a contributing factor.

That settlement alone, in my opinion, should have been decided in the courts and not by Fox caving into Dominions defamation lawsuit. Why? Because the First Amendment protects honestly held opinions even if they turn out not to be true. I frankly think that, because defamation suits are very difficult to prove, Fox could have prevailed in a court of law. But it rolled over to pressure.

Former Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist once said, Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. That kind of explains why someone burning the American flag in front of the Supreme Court, while reprehensible in my opinion, is protected as free speech.

Heres another example: I really disagree intensely with virtually every word Carroll County Times opinion writer Tom Zirpoli puts on paper. That said, I will ALWAYS defend his right to say so many things I vehemently disagree with or even find over the top. Why? Because in our country it is and has always been his right to his opinion. Period!

Nationally, high-profile people are invited to campuses to speak to students on various topics and in recent times have been either shouted down without any civil give and take. In the case of champion swimmer Riley Gaines, she was literally attacked and driven into a classroom because she didnt want to compete against a trans-male athlete. Here again we have the death of common sense and civility.

Our country is very, very divided along political lines, and I dont see that changing anytime soon. News stations report the same events differently, just look at MSNBC and Newsmax. That explains why, if Donald Trump actually walked on water, the Washington Post would state that Trump did so because he couldnt swim, so he had to walk.

In the end, the whole issue can be summed up by what the late Sen. Patrick Moynihan, Democrat from New York, said. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. How True!!!

Dave Price, Sykesville

On May 1, Taneytown will have its city election, and voters will have an opportunity to elect their next mayor. I enthusiastically encourage folks in Taneytown to vote for Daniel Haines for mayor.

I met Daniel back in 2019, and I was immediately impressed with what he had already accomplished in his young life. Professionally, he was working as an American Sign Language interpreter and he was enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard, and he still does both. Soon after I met him, he was elected to the Taneytown City Council.

Four years later, I have seen what Daniel has been able to achieve as a council member, and that is why I hope to see him sit in the mayors seat. When he is elected mayor, Daniel plans to focus on increasing economic development, improving infrastructure, enhancing public engagement, being a fiscal watchdog over the budget, preserving local history, and supporting the city police department.

When Daniel first told me earlier this year that he felt that Taneytown needed new leadership and that he was considering stepping up to serve his city in an even greater capacity, he also told me that he was about to leave for a two-month stint in Utah for mandatory National Guard training. Instead of being worried if this time spent away from home would hurt his campaign and his chances of becoming mayor, Daniel went off to Utah and performed his duty to our country.

And that, my friends, is Daniel a nutshell. Daniel Haines abides by the oaths he makes, and keeps his commitments. As your next mayor, you should expect him to serve the people who live and work in Taneytown with the same vigor and dedication.

On Monday, please remember to vote at the Taneytown Police Department between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. and please consider voting for Daniel Haines for mayor.

Chris Tomlinson, Melrose

Tomlinson is a Republican state delegate representing District 5, which include Taneytown.

This is in response to Tom Zirpolis piece with the headline Trump-appointed says it all; recent rulings prove it (Carroll County Times, April 13). I am not sure if Zirpoli is allowed to create his own headline. In my experience, we writers of the occasional letter to the editor are not.

Regardless, the gist of the article is about a current federal court case concerning the drug Mifepristone which is widely used as an abortifacient. He described the use and efficacy of the drug as follows. It blocks progesterone, a hormone needed for the fetus to grow. A second drug, Misoprostol, given a day or two later, causes cramping and bleeding to empty the uterus ... empty the uterus indeed.

So in other words, what Zirpoli is defending, is a drug that is deliberately used to starve an innocent, little human being to death, so that a second drug can expel his or her little, now dead body from his or her mothers womb. Defenders of abortion often say: its just a clump of cells.

You know what? You and I and Zirpoli are just a clump of cells. We are now simply bigger and less vulnerable clumps. We did not come from a fetus. We were a fetus after we were an embryo and before we were a newborn infant then toddler then kindergarten student, and so on.

Abortion is barbaric. Even the ancient Greeks understood this. They gave us the study of ethics, the idea of behaving according to what is right not wrong. They gave us the Hippocratic oath which binds physicians to: first of all, do no harm. That same oath specifically forbids prescribing drugs or devices that induce abortion.

Sadly we have a history in this great nation of being less than inclusive with respect to human rights. We fought a bloody war between the states to include all races. In the 20th century, an emergent womens movement was needed to give women the basic civil right to vote. It continued to give women and girls equal opportunity in areas such as sports, but it went terribly awry when it began to pit mother against unborn child.

I like to think that if I was writing a letter to the editor 170 years ago, I would be an abolitionist. Today, I am an abolitionist. My fellow clumps, I hope you will join me in opposition of the great national sin of abortion.

Michael Hurley, Eldersburg

I read your newspaper every day, and whenever I read one of Tom Zirpolis opinion pieces, I am hopeful hopeful that he will be evenhanded, logical, insightful. Sadly, this is seldom the case, as his viewpoint is unremittingly one-sided and myopic.

Several weeks ago he inveighed against Republican proposals to deal with Social Securitys projected financial collapse. In fact, he refused to cite any of their ideas or reasons in the proposals. How is that responsible journalism?

Many prescient citizens are very concerned, but nary a word about the details from Zirpoli. Most recently, his column vilified what he called Florida school censorship, taking Gov. Ron DeSantis to task for House Bill 999 that promotes a patriotic curriculum that does not distort significant political events. I see nothing wrong with not distorting political events.

Zirpoli might have showed equanimity by also mentioning the imbroglio at Stanford University, where an invited speaker was shouted down by law school students; or how parents in Loudoun County, Virginia, have been arrested or had the FBI visit their homes simply for protesting against a sexual abuse case that was covered up, or for an agenda that pushes gender identity curriculum, rather than materials that will prepare students for college.

I taught high school English in Maryland for 45 years and can assure you what is being covered in classrooms now is worlds away from what was traditional during my tenure. Even more troubling is this: I modeled my teaching on what I learned at Western Maryland College [now McDaniel, where Zirpoli holds court], where nearly every class was a sharing of ideas, a discussion where both sides were aired, discusses, assessed.

Respect and comity were the requirement. Even in ROTC classes in the late 1960s, when the Vietnam War was hotly controversial, the major who taught us let us bring up concerns, issues, controversies, never shutting down discussions, no matter how heated these discussions became.

How different from todays educational and political scene, where a single written or spoken word even someones preferred pronoun might offend someone results in outrage, vituperation, censorship by Democrats as well as Republicans. And by Zirpoli, especially. We readers keep waiting, hoping for a balanced discussion. So far, nada. Is this the zeitgeist of the Carroll County Times as well? A sad reflection of our current times. No Dr. Seuss? Good grief!

David Sampselle, Taneytown

Go here to read the rest:
With Carlson and Lemon firings, First Amendment takes hit - Baltimore Sun

Former President Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene during the 3rd round of the LIV Golf Invitational Series Bedminster on July 31, 2022 at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. (Photo by Rich Graessle/Icon Sportswi

ATLANTA - Georgia Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene had some choice words about Fox New's decision to oust influential prime-time host Tucker Carlson.

Monday, Fox said that the network and Carlson had "agreed to part ways," but offered no explanation for the stunning move, saying that the last broadcast of "Tucker Carlson Tonight" aired last Friday. Carlson had ended the show by saying, "Well be back on Monday."

Yet on Monday night, viewers tuned in to see morning anchor Brian Kilmeade, who said that Carlson was gone, "as you may have heard."

Writing on Twitter Wednesday morning, Greene said Carlson's departure from the network was proof that the "First Amendment is gone."

While the amendment is about government restriction on speech Greene argued the state was connected to the firing through "the unholy union of government and big tech."

"Fox News firing Tucker Carlson and editors not allowing negative democrat news stories because it would reveal the truth means there is no longer a free press."

Greene had previously said that the network "caved to the woke mob" with Carlson's firing telling Rep. Matthew Gaetz that she heard from people deleting the channel's apps from their phones.

"One day people will say, Why didnt anyone say anything or try to stop it?" Greene wrote. "Sadly, they wont know how many tried, but they will know how many didnt."

The break from Carlson comes amid a cascade of bad legal news for the network. A week ago, Fox agreed to pay more than $787 million to settle a lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems over the networks airing of false claims following the 2020 presidential election shortly before Carlson was expected to be called to testify.

CBS "60 Minutes" on Sunday aired a report about a man caught up in a Jan. 6 conspiracy theory who said Carlson was "obsessed" with him, and whose lawyer has put Fox on notice of potential litigation. Carlson was also recently named in a lawsuit by a former Fox producer who said the show had a cruel and misogynistic workplace, and that she had been pressured to give misleading testimony in the Dominion case.

Carlson joined FOX News Channel in 2009 as a contributor and has hosted "Tucker Carlson Tonight" since 2017. Before joining FOX News, Carlson hosted "Tucker" on MSNBC, PBS "Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered" and co-hosted "The Spin Room" and "Crossfire" on CNN.

His populist tone about elites who are out to get average Americans rang true with Foxs predominantly conservative audience, even leading to talk about Carlson becoming a political candidate himself one day.

For the time being, "Fox News Tonight" will continue to air in Carlsons 8 p.m. Eastern prime-time slot, hosted by a rotating array of network personalities.

"We thank him for his service to the network as a host and prior to that as a contributor," the press release from the network said.

This station is owned by the FOX Corporation. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The rest is here:
Marjorie Taylor Greene on Tucker Carlson's ouster: 'The First Amendment is gone' - FOX 5 Atlanta

Lena Shapiro is a clinical assistant professor of law and the inaugural director of the College of Laws First Amendment Clinic, supported by The Stanton Foundation. Shapiro, an expert in free speech issues, spoke with News Bureau business and law editor Phil Ciciora about the current state of the First Amendment in higher education and popular discourse.

Theres an increasing trend on college campuses of students shouting down speakers they disagree with. How would you characterize the current state of the First Amendment in higher education?

Theres an ongoing battle between those who say they want to advance freedom of speech for everyone versus those who want to drown out voices that they dont agree with. The latter group wants to have it both ways: freedom of speech only for their opinions as well as those whose opinions are the same as theirs.

In other words, freedom of speech for me, but not for thee.

What that does is lower the level of discourse that all people have, which is harmful on a college campus because were supposed to be teaching students how to enhance their debate skills and analytic abilities. And when you say, essentially, I dont want this person here because theyre harmful, I find them offensive or They demean the rights of a number of groups of people you can certainly express those views, but that doesnt mean you can take it a step further, as many want to, and remove that speaker from campus. You cant unilaterally deprive others of that speech. Thats the hecklers veto.

If you are diametrically opposed to what this speaker stands for or has to say, you show up and counter protest. You hold another event, or you sit in the room and challenge the speaker with questions real, substantive questions that you want to debate on.

What you dont want are ad hominem attacks or protests that prevent speech from occurring entirely, which is antithetical to the free exchange of ideas.

What is the danger of the hecklers veto?

The danger is you dont actually change anyone elses mind. And having not changed their mind, you dont change their behavior. Youre also not minimizing the injustice that you believe results from that speakers speech and/or actions and the speaker who you think was perpetuating that injustice just goes on about their day.

Many students, like those at Stanford Law School who showed up to protest Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, want to speak out and advocate on behalf of issues that are deeply personal to millions of Americans. But by exercising the hecklers veto, those individuals didnt actually change any opinions on those issues, certainly not Judge Duncans.

Some believe if they yell loud enough, and if they scare off enough speakers, then it will just rid the world of the injustices that go on. But thats just not how the world works, right? If you want to change hearts and minds, you have to convince them.

The First Amendment is unique in that it allows misinformation and outright lies to flourish under the guise of the free exchange of ideas. Should the government continue to protect the speech of liars, even though they can inflict damage on society?

We saw that issue play out in the various defamation lawsuits against Fox News. And Fox News paid a big price for the misinformation they aired regarding Dominion Voting Systems, so the system does have checks in place to protect against misinformation. Generally, the news media is granted a wide berth to report on issues as they see fit.

If you start to set stricter standards and start to go after what you perceive to be a lie or misinformation on, say, a social media site, youre first going to have define what a lie is. But as we can see from todays environment, nobody can agree on anything so being able to properly define what a lie is will be challenging.

This is why we have the First Amendment. When people see things they perceive as lies, they are allowed to respond accordingly. I noticed a difference in news coverage late in the Trump administration when reporters on broadcasts across a number of different news outlets would report something that President Trump said and then explain why it wasnt true. Thats the way to deal with lies, misinformation and half-truths. If you think somebody is perpetuating an untruth, then bring your evidence forward. It makes us a better and a smarter society to do it that way.

So I dont think we can regulate what we deem or what someone else deems a lie, aside from some rare exceptions. Its just not realistic, and, ultimately, it harms the First Amendment protections that we have in the U.S.

I know people get upset and have a visceral reaction about various issues in the news. But I just dont know that such reactions change hearts and minds.

Its probably better to focus more on why a certain issue or story isnt true, as opposed to accusing the other side of stupidity, mendacity or malice. I am an advocate for always having more speech. Its why we have free speech in the first place.

Excerpt from:
How do you handle free speech issues in higher education, popular ... - University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign