Mediaboss Marketing

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan speaks during a ceremony at the Golcuk Naval Shipyard in Izmit, Turkey May 23, 2022. Presidential Press Office/Handout via REUTERS

Register

ISTANBUL, May 29 (Reuters) - Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said talks with Finland and Sweden about their joining NATO were not at the "expected level" and Ankara cannot say yes to "terrorism-supporting" countries, state broadcaster TRT Haber reported on Sunday.

Turkey has objected to Sweden and Finland joining the Western defence alliance, holding up a deal that would allow for a historic enlargement following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Erdogan's latest comments indicated his opposition continued.

"For as long as Tayyip Erdogan is the head of the Republic of Turkey, we definitely cannot say 'yes' to countries which support terrorism entering NATO," he was cited as telling reporters on his return from a trip to Azerbaijan on Saturday.

Register

Two sources previously told Reuters that Wednesday's talks with Finnish and Swedish delegations made little headway and it was unclear when further discussions would take place. All 30 NATO members must approve plans to enlarge NATO.

Turkey challenged the bids from Sweden and Finland on the grounds that the countries harbour people linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) militant group and others it deems terrorists, and because they halted arms exports to Ankara in 2019. read more

"They are not honest or sincere. We cannot repeat the mistake made in the past regarding countries that embrace and feed such terrorists in NATO, which is a security organisation," he said.

Sweden and Finland have said they condemn terrorism and welcomed the possibility of coordinating with Ankara.

"Diplomatic efforts are ongoing. We decline to comment further at this moment," Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde said in an emailed comment to Reuters following Erdogan's latest statement.

Erdogan also said Turkey wanted to see an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine as soon as possible, but that the situation was becoming more negative each day.

"On Monday, I will have phone calls with both Russia and Ukraine. We will continue to encourage the parties to operate channels of dialogue and diplomacy," he said.

Register

Additional reporting by Simon Johnson in StockholmEditing by Mark Potter and Nick Macfie

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read more from the original source:
Erdogan says he won't let 'terrorism-supporting' countries enter NATO - Reuters

from the better-late-than-ignored-indefinitely dept

Its 2022 and yet we still havent received a nationwide blessing from the countrys top court that recognizes a First Amendment right to record public officials carrying out their public duties. In most cases, this involves cops, whose public activities are far more public than those of most other public servants.

For whatever reason, the Supreme Court has avoided establishing precedent, despite the omnipresence of cameras carried in the pockets of every cell phone owner in America. Cell phone video has proven instrumental in several police misconduct cases, perhaps most importantly in the George Floyd case, where a witness video helped secure a murder conviction for white police officer Derek Chauvin, who knelt on the unarmed Floyds neck for nearly 10 minutes, ending the arrestees life.

Maybe the nations top court is just waiting for a case that it likes. Its had plenty of opportunities to affirm this right but has ignored them. The court that seems poised to overturn nearly 50 years of reproductive rights may just be waiting for a complicated case that allows it to tip its hat to the First Amendment while erecting all sorts of exceptions that make a right-to-record meaningless. The Supreme Courts history as a protector of police, rather than the people they serve, makes it the worst option for the establishment of citizens rights. But its also the only option for people seeking precedent that would force every cop anywhere in the nation to play by the rules.

Until the Supreme Court decides to address this issue, its up to appellate courts to define precedent in the jurisdictions they preside over. This may create a legal patchwork, but at least the patches encompass several states, rather than small jurisdictions within certain states.

Right now, another appellate court is being asked to affirmatively recognize a right to record police officers. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which presides over Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Utah, and New Mexico is handling a case involving a plaintiff who sued after Colorado police officers prevented him from recording a traffic stop. Here are the details, as reported by Colleen Slevin for the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

In the Colorado lawsuit, Abade Irizarry said he was filming a police traffic stop in the city of Lakewood when he claimed Officer Ahmed Yehia stood in front of the camera to block Irizarry from recording. The officer was on foot shined a flashlight into Irizarrys camera and the camera of another blogger. Then Yehia left the two, got into his cruiser and sped the cruiser toward the two bloggers, the lawsuit said. The cruiser swerved before reaching the bloggers and they were not hit, according to the lawsuit.

The case was heard in federal court in Denver, where a magistrate judge sided with lawyers for Yehia and dismissed it last year, agreeing with Yehias lawyers, who contended the right to record police was not clearly established by the time of the incident in 2019.

Fortunately for Irizarry, he has more than usual rights groups in his corner. None other than the US Department of Justice is advocating on Irizarrys behalf, arguing in favor of citizens right to record. The DOJ filed its own amicus brief last fall. Somehow, despite this being forwarded to the 10th Circuit nearly a year ago, it has yet to issue a ruling. It is just now hearing oral arguments on the case and, again, the DOJ is helping Irizarry out, arguing again that citizens have a right to record police officers.

Natasha Babazadeh, an attorney for the Justice Departments Civil Rights Division, urged a three-judge panel from the court to rule in that filming police is a constitutional right and said there has been an increase in the number of lawsuits filed against police by people saying they could not record them in public.

If the court sides with the plaintiff (and there seems to be little reason why it shouldnt), this would establish a right to record in the Tenth Circuit, bringing the total to seven out of thirteen circuits that have established this right. The addition of this precedent would make it that much more difficult for the Supreme Court to continue ignoring an issue that has been steadily gaining momentum for the past two decades.

Unfortunately, the establishment of a right to record wont do much for this plaintiff. It will probably be argued (successfully) that the lack of precedent did not make it clear officers could not directly impede the plaintiffs efforts to record the traffic stop. This will probably still be the conclusion even though these police officers were on notice as early as 2014 that there was presumptive right to record based on precedent established in other circuits.

But courts should refuse to continue humoring this sort of law enforcement gamesmanship. On one hand, cops love to argue anything that can be seen by passersby has no inherent expectation of privacy. But on the other hand, they argue anything they do that can be witnessed by passersby is somehow more deserving of an expectation of privacy or at least, a large number of restrictions that would allow officers to go about their business with no permanent (outside) record of their actions. This is de facto bullshit and should not be given credence by courts. Hopefully, the Tenth Circuit will establish this right going forward and, in doing so, force the Supreme Court to again take notice of an issue it has chosen to neglect.

Filed Under: 10th circuit, 1st amendment, abade irizarry, ahmed yehia, recording police

Originally posted here:
10th Circuit Appeals Court Asked To Recognize A First Amendment Right To Record Cops - Techdirt

In court, "truth" is more subjective than you may think.

THIS CASE IS DEAD AS WELL. AN 18 YEAR-OLD. >> HI, EVERYBODY. HELLO THERE. I'M DAN HAGGERTY. THIS IS THE PART OF THE NEWSCAST. WE DISCUSS THE NEWS A LITTLE BIT NOW WORKING ON A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT I DO WANT TO CHECK IN CHECK IN WITH YOU QUICKLY TONIGHT IN JUST A COUPLE OF E-MAILS BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN SENDING SO MANY OF THEM LIKE BETSY FROM CHAPEL HILL, WHO IS APPARENTLY A BIG FAN, BUT SHE'S A LITTLE CONFLICTED. SHE EMAILS DAN WRAL DOT COM AND SAID THIS. WE FIND OURSELVES TO BE JEOPARDY. LOYALISTS IN COMMERCIAL BREAKS. WE SWITCHED WRAL NEWS. IF YOU'RE RUNNING AN IN-DEPTH FEATURE, WE'VE CAUGHT A FEW, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHEN YOUR SEGMENTS TYPICALLY RUN ARE THE WEEKLY OR ARE THEY ON A PARTICULAR DAY AND WE JUST HAVE NOT FOUND A PATTERN YET. THAT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A PATTERN YET, BUT WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. I'M TRYING TO BUILD A LITTLE BIT OF A TEAM POSSIBLY AND HOPEFULLY SOON WILL BE DOING SOMETHING EVERY NIGHT. IN THE MEANTIME, THAT C. WHO CARES ABOUT JEOPARDY. HONESTLY, I KNOW IT'S ON THE SAME TIME AS ME. I KNOW IT RECENTLY PASSED 60 MINUTES TO BECOME THE MOST WATCHED NON-SPORTS SHOW ON TV. BUT LET'S SEE. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO FOLLOW THE PACK AND WATCH ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR THINGS IN AMERICAN CULTURE OR AND HEAR ME OUT HERE OR >> YOU WANT TO WATCH ME. >> A GUY SPENDS SOMETIMES 8 STRAIGHT MINUTES TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE BRIAN AND THE OLD SUPREME COURT OPINIONS TO A COOLER THAT WAY. IN FACT, YOU CAN FIND EVERYTHING I TALK ABOUT ON WRAL'S NEW YOUTUBE CHANNEL HAVE AN ENTIRE PLAYLIST CALLED IN DEPTH WITH DAN HAGGERTY WERE STILL KIND OF FINE TUNING THE VISUALS. IF YOU LOOK AT A COUPLE OF THE THUMBNAILS LIKE THIS ONE DOESN'T EXACTLY SAY LOOK AT ME, I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING SMART, BUT WE'RE WORKING ON IT. OKAY. SO PLEASE STICK WITH US. YOU'LL FIND ALL THE TOPICS THAT YOU EMAIL ME ABOUT THAT WE DISCUSS HERE DURING THIS SEGMENT LIKE MY RECENT DISCUSSION WITH YOU ABOUT POLITICAL ADS, YOU MAY REMEMBER THAT WE TALKED TO A LAWYER WHO WORKS WITH CAMPAIGNS TO CHECK THEIR ADS BEFORE THEY AIR. IT CONFIRMED TO US SOMETHING THAT WAS KIND OF HARD TO BELIEVE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT EFFECTIVELY THESE CANDIDATES CAN LIE IN THESE ACTS BECAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. AND IN THAT SEGMENT, I DISCUSSED THE CONCERNS THAT A VIEWER NAMED CAROL SHARED WITH ME RECENTLY. CARROLL SAID DAN. I WONDER ABOUT THE ETHICS OF THE STATIONS TO RUN ADS. IF THE AD IS DECLARED FALSE, BY FACT, CHECKED, WHY IS THE AD NOT PULLED THE MONEY? IS THE MONEY VALUED ABOVE THE TRUTH. I'M DISTURBED BY AS NOT BEING PULLED THE NEGATIVE. CHERI BEASLEY AD IS ONE THAT STICKS OUT. AND I KNOW THAT IT FEELS KIND OF STRANGE, BUT THE TRUTH ISN'T NECESSARILY PART OF THAT TRANSACTION. AND IN COURT, TRUTH IS MORE SUBJECTIVE THAN YOU MAY THINK. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PEOPLE LIKE PAUL SPAY AND POLITIFACT TO EXPLAIN THE FREE SPEECH THAT YOU HEAR DURING OUR COMMERCIAL BREAK. SOMETIMES PAUL CARROLL MENTION CHERI BEASLEY AND ADD THAT RUNS ON OUR AIR MAKING SOME CLAIMS ABOUT HER RULINGS AND A DEATH SENTENCE CASE AND AN ASSAULT ON A MINOR. >> THE FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CHERI BEASLEY GO EASY ON DEFENDANTS IN A PAIR OF SENSITIVE CASES. THAT'S WHAT THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE SUGGEST ITS NEW ATTACK AD. TAKE A LOOK. >> THE WORST THING COMES. THE STATION AND CHIEF JUSTICE SHERRY BEASLEY FAILED TO PROTECT THEM. THE MURDERER SHOW DOUBLING THE FACE BC. THEY CAME TO HIS SON'S MEN CONVICTED OF SEXUALLY ASSAULTING A 7 YEAR-OLD GIRL. SHE THREW OUT THE INDICTMENT. >> BEASLEY IS A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IN NORTH CAROLINA'S U.S. SENATE RACE WILL TAKE ON REPUBLICAN TED BUDD IN NOVEMBER. THE AD MAKES 2 CLAIMS ABOUT HER THAT SHE VACATED THE DEATH SENTENCE FOR SOMEONE WHO SHOT A TEENAGER AND THAT SHE THREW OUT THE INDICTMENT OF A MAN CONVICTED OF ASSAULTING A YOUNG GIRL. THE AD IS SOMEWHAT ACCURATE. BUT LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING NEITHER OF THESE CASES WAS ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S ACTIONS AND THE DEATH SENTENCE CASE. A MAN HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDERING A 17 YEAR-OLD. HE WAS INITIALLY GIVEN THE DEATH PENALTY. BUT THEN YOU SOMETHING CALLED THE RACIAL JUSTICE ACT TO GET HIS SENTENCE REDUCED TO LIFE IN PRISON. STATE LAWMAKERS THEN REPEAL THE RACIAL JUSTICE ACT AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT WAS ASKED SHOULD THE MEN BE SENT BACK TO DEATH ROW BEASLEY IN THE COURT RULED NO, THAT WOULD BE DOUBLE JEOPARDY. SO HE'LL SERVE LIFE IN PRISON. AS FOR THE CASE WITH THE YOUNG GIRL, THE MAN WHO HAD BEEN CONVICTED ARGUED TO HAVE HIS CASE THROWN OUT BECAUSE PROSECUTORS DIDN'T COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AS IT APPLIES TO IDENTIFYING HIS ACCUSER. THE INDICTMENT REFERRED ONLY TO THE GIRL AS VICTIM ONE. THE COURT RULED 42 THAT THE INDICTMENT DID NOT DISTINGUISH THE DEFENDANT ACCUSER FROM OTHER VICTIMS. BEASLEY IN THE 3 OTHER CITED THIS STATE LAW WHICH SAYS INDICTMENTS MUST HAVE SOME FORM OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION FOR THE VICTIM. SO ALTOGETHER, THAT AD HAD SOME ACCURATE INFORMATION, BUT IT LEAVES OUT A LOT OF IMPORTANT CONTEXT AND THAT'S WHY THE TREATIES OR A GET AFTER IT. >> TO READ MORE ABOUT THOSE CASES, GO TO WRAL DOT COM. THANKS TO PAUL TRYING TO HELP US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SEE IN THESE ADS AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE PLENTY MORE AS WE APPROACH THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. BUT THERE'S A LOT MORE IN GENERAL TO TALK ABOUT. SO PLEASE E-MAIL ME AT DAN. >> AT WRAL DOT COM, NOT TRY TO RESPOND TO EVERY SINGLE E-MAIL. PLEASE BE PATIENT. I GET A TON OF THEM. SO IF YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN A RESPONSE YET, TRUST ME. I'M WORKING ON IT. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY BE PERSISTENT. LIKE KARL WHO SAID, I ENJOY YOUR PROVOKING DISCUSSIONS OF CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS, BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE PRESSING ISSUE TREATED. WHAT HAPPENED WITH KAT CAMPBELL IS VISIT TO ICELAND. WE WERE SUPPOSED TO GET DAILY REPORTS WITH PICTURES OF WATERFALLS AND VOLCANOES, ET CETERA. BUT I SAW ONLY ONE ON THE FIRST DAY OF ARRIVAL WITH A HUGE CHURCH. THEN SUDDENLY SHE WAS BACK ON THE AIR AS IF NOTHING HAD HAPPENED. NO WORD MENTION OF ICELAND, WRAL TRYING TO COVER SOMETHING UP. YES. IS A SECRET AGENT.

Read this article:
First amendment allows political ads to run -- even if they have misleading statements - WRAL News

Many drivers consider their cars an extension of themselves and their personalities. Thats why its not terribly uncommon for drivers to drop thousands of dollars on custom paint jobs or other body modifications. With a bit of mechanical expertise, you can even add custom horn sounds to your car. However, horns are, first and foremost, a car safety issue.

Most of us dont appreciate excessive car horn blaring, but its hard to control the actions of other drivers. In fact, some people would even say that limiting how much one can honk infringes on free speech. What do the courts have to say about honking your car horn and the First Amendment?

According to AAA, the first Klaxon car horn was introduced in the early 1900s. Back in those days, it was considered polite to fire off an ahooga at pedestrians and other drivers. Still, just like today, it was primarily installed as a safety feature.

Car horn units are located under the hood, usually behind the grille or the front firewall. When you press down on the horn at the wheel, it sends electric currents into a metal diaphragm. The vibrations caused by this diaphragm can produce between 100-110 decibels.

Eventually, the Klaxon was swapped out for electric car horns in the 1930s. Since then, the car horn has received minimal upgrades, though mostly just material swaps.

In most cases, judges wont recognize honking your horn as exercising your First Amendment rights. In 1985, one driver claimed that he was allowed to repeatedly honk in traffic because it was his right of expressive conduct.

According to the First Amendment Encyclopedia, New York law states that he only should have been honking his horn if he was in danger. In order to violate the First Amendment, something must restrict the viewpoint or content of an individual. New Yorks law to reduce noise pollution and traffic noise does neither.

Another driver, Lori Compas, contested that she was allowed to honk her horn as much as she pleased because it was in protest. She thought that a parking lot for recreational vehicles had no place in a national park, so she used her horn to express that. The judge argued that honking your horn to express displeasure at something is not the kind of protest protected by the Constitution.

One Oregon court argued that banning horn honking could be seen as restricting free expression. The court made the case that using your horn to sound off a friendly greeting shouldnt be illegal. Such a harmless act is one thing, but breaking another law or causing a public disturbance with your honking is another.

In many cities, its illegal to honk your horn unless you or another driver is in immediate danger. You know those quick, happy beeps you might make when passing a friend on the road or at a stoplight? An officer might give you a ticket for that, possibly costing a few hundred dollars.

It might seem harsh, but beeping your horn at a friend encourages your friend to honk back. Other drivers probably dont appreciate getting stuck in the middle of a screeching conversation between two vehicles. At that point, youre both disrupting traffic and possibly disturbing the peace.

Likewise, you shouldnt honk your horn just because someone is making you angry. Obviously, a quick honk before someone cuts you off can prevent injury to everyone. However, if someones music is too loud or you spy an ugly bumper sticker, its better to look the other way.

Unrestrained car horns arent just annoying: theyre also not that great for your ears. Any excessive noise louder than 70 decibels can cause hearing damage over a long period of time.

The bottom line is that were not in the 20th century anymore. Unless you live in another country with more pedestrian traffic, most drivers wont appreciate excessive honking on their morning commutes. Free speech is obviously important, but theres more value in using our voices (and honks) for constructive purposes.

RELATED: Is It Illegal to Beep Your Horn at a Cop Car?

Visit link:
Is Honking Your Car Horn a First Amendment Right? - MotorBiscuit

The federal law is clear that social media companies generally cannot be held liable for the speech that is posted on their platforms. Despite this, New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), at the urging of N.Y. Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), has launched an investigation of the role of social media companies in the tragic mass shooting in Buffalo, which 13 people were shot, 10 of them killed.

The alleged shooter used social media platforms, such as Twitch, 4chan, and Discord, to plot and livestream the mass shooting, according to federal law enforcement sources. The investigation is intended to look into the role of these companies and other online resources and platforms that the alleged shooter used to express White supremacist views and his desire for violence.

It is not clear what James or Hochul hope will come from the investigation. The clear implication is that the social media platforms share the blame for the tragic shooting. There are calls to do more to prevent social media from being used to disseminate hate speech.

There is nothing objectionable about asking social media companies to do a better job of excluding speech that is awful but lawful, such as expressions of hate and White supremacy. The internet is full of vile and hateful material. It would be a better world if no one had these views or expressed them.

But the government cannot force platforms to moderate lawful speech. Social media companies are private entities andunlike the governmentthey do not have to comply with the First Amendment. They get to decide what content to include on their sites and what to exclude.

Although there are some limited areassuch as incitement of illegal activity or true threatswhere speech is not constitutionally protected and the government can forbid dissemination, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.

The alleged shooters statements of intent arent incitement under current law. Incitement requires that he intend to incite imminent unlawful action in others and be likely to so incite (Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)). Some of his posted statements might satisfy the New York statute prohibiting terroristic threats (N.Y. Pen. Code 490.20). But even if it did, its not clear it meets the constitutional test for a true threat.

The alleged shooters statements of intent arent incitement under current law. The Supreme Court has held incitement requires that the speaker intend to incite imminent unlawful action in others and be likely to so incite. Some of his posted statements might satisfy the NY statute prohibiting terroristic threats, N.Y. Penal Code 490.20. But even if it did, its not clear it meets the constitutional test for a true threat or falls within any other category of unprotected speech.

The government cannot punish hateful messages or platforms that are used to disseminate them. It would violate the First Amendment to hold the social media companies liable because the Buffalo shooter used them to express a message.

Moreover, a federal statute, 47 U.S.C. 230, is explicit that social media companies cannot be held liable, with narrow exceptions, for what is posted on their platforms. The law expressly preempts state laws that impose liability for such posts.

In fact, in part because this federal statute immunizes platforms for content moderation decisions they make, social media companies already do an enormous amount of content moderation. For example, from October to December 2021, Facebook, now known as Meta Platforms, says it took action against terrorism content 7.7 million times, bullying and harassment 8.2 million times, and child sexual exploitation material 19.8 million times.

And, when the alleged shooter attempted to livestream an act of mass murder, Twitch was able to remove the video and suspend his account in less than two minutes. Unfortunately, as with the shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand, recordings remain online.

Moderation of this speech is necessary for the internet to be usable for most people, and platforms know it. The enormous amount of content moderation performed by platforms such as Facebook demonstrate that social pressure and market factors can encourage conscientious content moderation without unconstitutional government pressure.

But it also must be remembered that content moderation occurs at so enormous a scale that it is impossible for platforms to get it right 100% of the time. It is completely acceptable to ask social media platforms to do better.

Attorney General James, of course, is free to conduct an inquiry into the role social media played in the Buffalo shooting. But, if the investigation concludes that too much or too little content moderation occurred, New York cannot force platforms to change their moderation practices because those practices are protected by the First Amendment and immunized by Section 230.

The best we can hope for is that social media companies will improve their content moderation practices by more accurately and rapidly excluding or limiting access to objectionable speech that users do not want to see and platforms do not want to host.

The internet and social media are tremendously powerful tools for freedom of speech. It is not hyperbole to say that they are the most important development for expression since the invention of the printing press.

They have enormously enhanced the ability for people to reach a mass audience and to access information. But such tools, and speech itself, can be used for good or for ill.

James can investigate, but the law is clear: The social media companies cannot be punished for being the sites where racist speech was expressed by a deeply disturbed and violent individual.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines

Erwin Chemerinsky is the dean of U.C. Berkeley School of Law and the Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law. Prior to that he was the founding dean and distinguished professor of law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.

Alex Chemerinsky is a federal law clerk in the District of Arizona.

Read the original:
Mass Shootings and Hate SpeechWhat Can the Government Do? - Bloomberg Law