Mediaboss Marketing

On Sept. 12, FIRE submitted its comment to the Department of Education in response to the departments proposed Title IX regulations. Our message is simple: You cant require colleges and universities to violate the constitutional rights of students or faculty.

FIRE opposes these proposed regulations because the new language, and the removal of critical language from the current Title IX regulations, constitute a severe rollback of First Amendment and due process protections for students in grievance procedures conducted on campus.

The proposed regulations most egregious provisions include:

If finalized, these and many other proposed provisions will mark a new, and unfortunately familiar, era of Title IX hearings in which institutions of higher education fail to protect the First Amendment and due process rights of students and faculty, likely resulting in costly litigation for institutions to ensure these basic protections are met.

When facts are in dispute in such high-stakes proceedings, live hearings that allow for live cross-examination are essential for permitting parties to meaningfully present and challenge evidence. As we argue in our comment to the department, failure to provide those protections violates the constitutional right to due process. Our position is backed by a growing number of court decisions. In Doe v. Baum, for example, the Sixth Circuit held:

Due process requires cross-examination in circumstances like these because it is the greatest legal engine ever invented for uncovering the truth. Not only does cross-examination allow the accused to identify inconsistencies in the other sides story, but it also gives the fact-finder an opportunity to assess a witnesss demeanor and determine who can be trusted. So if a university is faced with competing narratives about potential misconduct, the administration must facilitate some form of cross-examination in order to satisfy due process.

Although FIRE believes that these proposed regulations pose serious risks for students and faculty engaged in Title IX grievance procedures, we are encouraged that the department left in place some protections afforded under the 2020 regulations, including an express presumption of innocence and a requirement that institutions provide parties with non-punitive supportive measures, as appropriate, to help students continue their education during the grievance process.

FIRE will continue to engage with the department at every opportunity and monitor the state of due process and First Amendment protections on campus.

In particular, the departments requirement that institutions expressly provide the accused with the presumption of innocence has shown to make a difference. In FIREs most recent Spotlight on Due Process report, we analyzed the policies of Americas top 53 universities. More than 90% of institutions we rated have Title IX policies that include a presumption of innocence. Troublingly, in disciplinary hearings not governed by the Title IX regulations, nearly two-thirds (62.2%) of those institutions did not explicitly guarantee students that they will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. FIRE believes the department could do more by also requiring institutions to include a statement that a persons silence shall not be held against them.

Next month, FIRE will release its latest annual Spotlight on Due Process report, which will demonstrate the severe lack of due process rights that students are afforded at top institutions, as well as the massive disparity between procedural safeguards provided in Title IX disciplinary procedures many of which will be lost if the proposed regulations are adopted compared to non-Title IX disciplinary procedures those institutions also maintain.

To create new binding regulations or amend existing binding regulations, a federal agency must go through the rulemaking process required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Before these proposed regulations are finalized, the APA requires federal agencies to announce and explain regulatory language to the public. It also requires a comment period for public input. The 60-day comment period for the proposed Title IX regulation ended on Sept. 12.

A date has not yet been announced for a final rule of these proposed regulations, which is likely months away. Nonetheless, FIRE will continue to engage with the department at every opportunity and monitor the state of due process and First Amendment protections on campus.

Given that the Department of Education is required by the APA to meaningfully consider public input, including FIREs comment, we hope they will heed our warnings and amend the proposed language to conform to the well-established constitutional protections that students must be afforded.

Not doing so will have grave consequences for civil liberties on campus.

Go here to see the original:
FIRE's comment to Department of Education: Your proposed Title IX regulations are unconstitutional - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

The U.S. government should do more to prevent the spread of disinformation via podcasts.

The Joe Rogan Experiencea podcast where comedian and Ultimate Fighting Championship commentator Joe Rogan interviews a wide range of guestsis a conundrum.

On one side of the debate, fans of Rogan applaud his commitment to interviewing a wide range of guests for an extended period of time in a purportedly unbiased manner. Some see podcasts such as Rogans as a foil to traditional forms of mainstream media that they have come to distrust.

On other side of the debate, though, critics chide Rogan for his amplification of controversial guests, some whom are said to advance harmful conspiracy theories and further the spread of COVID-19 misinformation. They also criticize Rogan for failing to check facts and operating without traditional journalistic oversight.

How should policymakers resolve this debate?

If hosting platforms such as Spotify fail to moderate podcasts peddling in disinformation, the U.S. government should do more to regulate this growing area of news consumption.

If podcasts were treated like traditional forms of broadcast mediaradio, television, and satellitethey would be subject to oversight by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Although the FCC must operate within the bounds of the First Amendments speech and press protections, the FCC prohibits news broadcasters from distorting the news intentionally or from broadcasting false information that could contribute to public harm.

Podcasters, however, currently evade these prohibitions. But if the FCC and courts choose to adopt a definition of broadcast journalism that includes podcasts that distribute the news, podcast hosts could be required to obtain a license with the agency. This would bring these alternative forms of media under the FCCs supervision, eliminating some of the problems with fact-checking and deliberate misinformation that can harm listeners.

Questions of line-drawingsuch as when does a podcast cross into news territory, when does misinformation become deliberate or harmful, or can the FCC regulate other forms of online distributioncould complicate the solution of FCC supervision. But embarking on this delicate line-drawing journey would be preferable to the alternative future of over a quarter of people in the United States depending on news from an unregulated source.

Some of these debates are already underway with recent litigation surrounding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This law gives platforms some immunity from information posted by third party usersbut interpretations of the reach of this immunity has been heavily politicized as a choice between misinformation or censorship. Although this debate is ongoing, the FCC has made a case for its authority to interpret Section 230 in the absence of new legislation from Congress, which means platforms such as Spotify could be responsible for misinformation spread by hosts such as Rogan.

Concerns about First Amendment violations could be mitigated by the FCC applying its preexisting First Amendment safeguards, which the agency developed following a rich history of litigation interpreting its reach. In addition, the FCC could commit to limiting the restrictions against explicit and profane material with respect to podcasts.

Even if FCC oversight of podcasts ultimately remains in question, other agencies and tools for regulatory oversight should be explored.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), for example, regulates paid advertising content presented on podcasts and other online venues. Although these regulations do not cover all content within podcasts, they require hosts to be fully transparent about any endorsements and advertising content.

Expanding these advertising transparency requirements to relationships between the host and guests of the hosts showwhich often benefit the guest by way of increased following and more customers, similar to an advertisementcould better control the vetting and context of information provided by guests. This expansion of regulation could circumvent First Amendment concerns because it would not restrict the speech of the guest but merely require for a disclosure about the relationship between the guests appearance on the show and the guests business ventures.

Currently, legislators are advancing bills aimed at keeping platforms from elevating harmful content. These bills, called algorithmic amplification bills, do not attempt to censor the underlying content but would limit platforms immunity from liability in the event the platforms amplify harmful content.

Platforms such as Spotify, which make big financial investments in podcasts such as Rogans, could be punished for using algorithms to amplify harmful content. Passage of new legislation regulating platforms amplification of misleading podcasts could provide for a less invasive method of ensuring content quality without directly interfering with podcasts themselves.

With any regulatory avenue taken, government agencies and Congress must carefully consider the tradeoff between potentially restricting speech and protecting listeners. This tradeoff could be addressed by clearly defining what qualifies as news or other important informationleaving entertainment and opinion to be untouched by regulators.

With public faith in media at all-time lows, and the spread of misinformation on the rise, the U.S. government must act now to oversee popular podcasts that seemingly present authoritative news.

Read more:
The Podcast Problem - The Regulatory Review

TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) Black Lives Matter groups held a press conference on Wednesday discussing a lawsuit that alleges the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office is responsible for a 14-year-old Tampa boys death in 2014.

Representatives from Black Lives Matter Restoration Polk and Black Lives Matter Grassroots were joined by families of Black individuals whose lives were impacted by police brutality and racial injustice to discuss the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Andrew Joseph IIIs family.

The speakers called for an end to qualified immunity, which the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Officerepeatedly invoked in this case. Qualified immunity is a government protection that shields police officers and other officials from being sued. It can also block the release of information.

In my years of activism, I have had the unfortunate opportunity to work with countless families who have been impacted by police misconduct, police brutality and how these law-enforcement agencies are able to lean on qualified immunity in order to deprive families like the families behind me, and the Andrew Joseph family from the right to justice and accountability, said Pastor Carl Soto with Black Lives Matter Restoration Polk County Inc.

Andrew Joseph III and about 100 other teenagers were kicked out of the Florida State Fairgrounds on School Day in 2014 following a number of teen-involved fights and misconduct that broke out inside the fairgrounds, according to the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office.

However, his parents maintain that their son wasnt involved, but was handcuffed and detained. They said deputies dropped him off by the interstate to meet his ride home.The 14-year-old was hit by a car while trying to cross I-4.

A number of safety measures have been taken at the fairgrounds since that incident to ensure that any minor in attendance is safe, such as the HCSO Community Action Team that will once again be at the fair on Student Night, the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office said in a statement to News Channel 8 earlier this year.

The Josephs said theyve seen changes in the fairgrounds policy since that night, like parents getting a call if their child is removed from the park and having them sit in a waiting area until their parents arrive. They wish their son had been given that option, avoiding what they say was an unnecessary interaction with police.

Wednesday marked day three of the wrongful death trial. The Black Lives Matter groups met outside the federal courthouse in Tampa along with the families of Emmett Till, Oscar Grant, Breonna Taylor, Jacob Blake, Markeis McGlockton and Ruben Debrosse.

Families rallied demanding change, saying their loved ones suffered the same racial injustice at the hands of law enforcement, including the family of Emmett Till.

Emmett was killed by a white mob and the police covered it up and again were seeing attempts to cover up again 66 years later, the same type of cover-up, said Tills cousin Magnolia Carter. I stand for justice, I want to see the end of qualified immunity and I want to see the justice for this family that they deserve.

Continue reading here:
Black Lives Matter calls for end to qualified immunity, discusses lawsuit against HCSO in Tampa teens death - WFLA

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Pennsylvania Democratic Senate nominee John Fetterman said at one point during his political career that he holds a "Black Lives Matter kind of worldview" and appeared to insist that crime rates in major cities are tied to how much they "don't embrace" the movement, calling the notion "common sense."

Fetterman's remarks, offered during an interview with The Pitt News in August 2016, came during his tenure as Braddock mayor after he failed to garner his party's nomination for the Senate earlier that year.

"Let me take issue with the anti-establishment," Fetterman said. "I never positioned myself as anti-establishment. In fact, I was the only elected official in my race, I point out. Katie McGinty never held elected office and [Joe] Sestaks only elected office was a term, I believe, in Congress before he started running. So this idea that I was anti-establishment I just ran on what I felt were important, common sense issues whether that was a living wage, marijuana legalization, a Black Lives Matter kind of worldview, but also a community policing."

Fetterman, who said at the time that he did not consider his position on various issues to be "radical," claimed it's "common sense" that cities that "don't embrace" the Black Lives Matter movement have higher crime rates.

DEM SENATE CANDIDATE JOHN FETTERMAN DEFENDS PULLING GUN ON UNARMED BLACK JOGGER IN 2013

John Fetterman speaks during a pro-choice rally at Montgomery County Community College in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, on Sunday, Sept. 11, 2022. (Michelle Gustafson/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

"All these different issues that I ran on never felt like they were radical or very leftist, they just felt like common sense to me. Its like, what happens if you dont embrace Black Lives Matter? Well, you look at what happens in Baltimore, at what happens in Chicago. I mean, thats common sense."

Fetterman garnered criticism late last month after he claimed that ID shouldnt be required to vote because "poorer" people and "people of color" are "less likely to have their ID."

The now-viral clip of Fetterman, which came from a 2021 interview between him and liberal pundit Brian Tyler Cohen, featured the candidates perspective on why requiring universal voter ID in Pennsylvania is a bad idea. In it, he said, "In my own state they are going to pass, attempt to pass, a constitutional amendment making sure that universal voting ID for every time you vote, not just when you sign up to vote, but every time you vote."

FETTERMAN TORCHED FOR SAYING POORER PEOPLE, MINORIOTIES LESS LIKELY TO HAVE ID TO VOTE: COMPLETELY RACIST

Fetterman explained the alleged dark motive behind this amendment, stating it will be passed"because they understand that at any given time theres tens of thousands of Pennsylvanians who typically are on the poorer side and are people of color that are less likely to have their ID at any one given time."

The Democratic Senate nominee has also faced criticism over a resurfaced 2013 incident in which he pulled a shotgun on an unarmed Black jogger whom he suspected of involvement in a nearby shooting. Fetterman has since said his actions were wrong, but initially defended himself by saying he heard the sound of automatic gunfire and rushed to confront the man he suspected of being responsible. Fetterman held the man, then-28-year-old Christopher Miyares, at gunpoint. Police who arrived at the scene searched Miyares and found that he was unarmed.

Fetterman, who has served as Pennsylvania's lieutenant governor since 2019, campaigned on Monday alongside three West Philadelphia council members who have publicly supported the Black Lives Matter movement and backed calls to "defund the police."

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Republican Senate nominee for Pennsylvania, and John Fetterman, the Democratic candidate, will face off in the Nov. 8 general election. (Hannah Beier/Bloomberg | Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Three outstanding Councilmembers who are with me in my fight to turn out every vote here in Philly Support local Black-owned businesses," Fetterman said of the council members in a tweet.

Fetterman will face off in the November general election against Republican nominee Dr. Mehmet Oz in an effort to become Pennsylvania's next U.S. senator.

Fox News' Gabriel Hays and Thomas Barrabi contributed to this article.

Kyle Morris covers politics for Fox News. On Twitter: @RealKyleMorris.

Here is the original post:
Fetterman said in 2016 he held a Black Lives Matter 'worldview,' considered viewpoints to be 'common sense' - Fox News

The worlds outcry following the televised murder of George Floyd in the United States offered an opportunity for a fundamental reset in the over-policing of black communities. The marches and protests, and demands for change, across the summer of 2020 in the United Kingdom evidenced in some respects that change was possible. We were all united against racism; serving officers in the Metropolitan Police Service even took the knee as a sign of solidarity.

The then prime minister Boris Johnson promised an urgent examination of the state of racism in the UK, culminating in an action plan that took the form of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (CRED) report, which came to the much-criticised conclusion that institutional racism was not borne out by the evidence. This plan has to be viewed in the context of new laws that confirm a disturbing trend towards the reduction of civic space and a retreat from principles of equality and non-discrimination. Over the last few months, the government have passed legislation that effectively curtailsthe right to protest, allows for the arbitrary deprivation of peoples citizenship, and facilitatesblatant corruption in public office. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and the Elections Act 2022, confer extraordinary powers to the state, but not as far as I can see carte blanche authority to the police in their apparent campaign against black communities.

Instead, members of the police seem to be demanding this for themselves.

Chris Kabas fatal shooting another incident in the UKs list of George Floyd moments has led to the suspension of the officer responsible for the killing from frontline duties, and to yet another IOPC investigation. As a result of the suspension, some officers are reportedly threatening to withdraw their labour. To put it another way: unless they are given the green light to shoot unarmed Black men, and allowed to do so with no accountability, trained firearms officers are threatening to quiet quit. Such threats discredit the very officers who took the knee two short summers ago, undermine the already flawed CRED report, and signal if we were ever in doubt that in sections of the police service, Black Lives do not Matter.

I for one would welcome this threatened exodus of trained firearms officers; it may save a young black mans life.

Read more:
'In parts of the police service, Black Lives do not Matter' The Justice Gap - thejusticegap.com