Mediaboss Marketing

Buckhead cityhood legislation faced its first political challenges in the first week of the General Assemblys session with two chess moves aimed at a rapid checkmate.

Forthcoming legislation will seek to make any cityhood referendum a citywide vote rather than Buckhead-only. And the Senate version of the cityhood legislation, which is exclusively sponsored by Republicans, has been assigned to a committee with all Democratic members, though its chair says it will get a fair hearing.

Both appear to be chess moves against cityhood, for which backers must get General Assembly approval to place on the November ballot.

A peculiarity of the cityhood legislation is that it is sponsored exclusively by Republicans who do not represent Buckhead or Atlanta, while all-Democrat local lawmakers oppose it. Two of those legislators, Rep. Shea Roberts and Sen. Jen Jordan (who is also running for the Georgia attorney general position), are poised to file legislation requiring that any such referendum be conducted citywide and need a 57.5% supermajority to win. Roberts said she expects her version to get a first reading on Jan. 14.

The idea of such legislation was pitched in a Jan. 12 joint meeting of Atlantas House and Senate delegations by Edward Lindsey, a former state representative who is now co-chair of the anti-cityhood group the Committee for a United Atlanta. Lindsey noted that cityhood supporters have claimed that secession would be good for both Buckhead and Atlanta. He asked, why then do only the folks in Buckhead have the right to vote?

The pro-cityhood Buckhead City Committee did not respond to a comment request about the referendum-altering legislation.

The next move came Jan. 13 from Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican who has expressed skepticism about cityhood. Duncan assigned S.B. 324, the Senate version of the cityhood legislation, to the Urban Affairs Committee for consideration. The committees all-Democrat membership includes Sen. Nan Orrock, an Atlanta delegation member and vocal opponent of cityhood.

Some early political reaction was that the bill is likely to die in that committee, killing the cityhood effort for at least this year. However, the committee chair, Sen. Lester Jackson (D-Savannah), said in a phone interview that the bill will get a fair consideration.

I have not taken a position one way or another on the bill, said Jackson. He added that he personally does not think of it in a partisan way and that he is familiar with traditional cityhood efforts, including the failed 2019 proposal for Skidaway Island, an island near Savannah, to incorporate. He said he is not aware of any movements in the Savannah area for a Buckhead-like secession version of cityhood.

I know Ive had similar bills like this in my own community and I really think the lieutenant governor is doing the right thing [with the committee assignment], because it truly is an urban affairs issue, Jackson said.

Our committee will be transparent and it will be fair, and it will take time out to listen to all of the concerns of the general public on this issue, Jackson said. So everyones voice will be considered.

He indicated that, after a hearing, the committee will see where we should go with this legislation. He said he did not want to make any predetermination of what that result would be.

See the original post here:
Buckhead cityhood legislation challenged by political chess moves in first week of General Assembly session - Buckhead.com

DA parliamentarian Dianne Kohler Barnard (Michael Hammond, Gallo Images)

The DA rejects the appointment of Minister in the Presidency, Mondli Gungubele, as the political head of the State Security Agency (SSA) as "nothing more than a political chess move".

The presidency announced on Monday that President Cyril Ramaphosa had designated Gungubele to assume political responsibility for the SSA.

"While we believe that urgent intervention was needed in terms of the lack of intelligence before the catastrophic unrest in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng last year - and indeed long before then - the DA does not believe that centralising the SSA under the president is the right move," DA spokesperson on intelligence, Dianne Kohler Barnard said in a statement.

Kohler Barnard said:

We believe this is nothing more than a political chess move in the ANC's factional war. President Cyril Ramaphosa's tenure as leader is, in fact, paralysed by this battle between ANC factions, to the detriment of every soul living in South Africa.

"Appointing his close ally as the political head off the SSA will only fan the flames of distrust."

She said the move made oversight over the SSA extremely difficult.

"If the past 27 years taught us anything at all, it is that the ANC - no matter who is at the helm - cannot be allowed to govern without meticulous oversight."

READ |Gungubele tasked with political responsibility for State Security Agency

She said while the DA admitted that Gungubele, by all accounts, had an excellent reputation, it seemed that he had virtually no intelligence background.

"He has previously been Deputy Minister of Finance and worked in various provincial capacities. While stellar character is sorely missed in the president's Cabinet, expertise and experience must reign supreme when appointing the person meant to right the floundering SSA, and Crime and Defence Intelligence units. The alternative leaves an inexperienced minister guided by already deeply compromised SSA staff."

She said Ramaphosa should promote his current intelligence advisor Sydney Mufamadi, who penned the High-Level Review Panel Report on the SSA and chaired that investigation, to minister.

"If it means losing embarrassments like Lindiwe Sisulu, Lindiwe Zulu, Bheki Cele, or indeed 90% of the ANC Ministers, the country would be better off for it," Kohler Barnard said.

Mondli Gungubele. (Photo from GCIS)

Supplied

"South Africa simply cannot afford a veil of secrecy over the SSA. Sadly, that is all the president has achieved here. The fact that he has chosen to go against the High-Level Review Panel report's advice, speaks volumes. Especially in the light of the approaching ANC elective conference. The country is suffocating under the ANC government and finding new ways to hide the bodies in order to protect cadres and cronies cannot and should not be tolerated."

ALSO READ |Ramaphosa does away with intelligence ministry, SSA to report directly to him

When Ramaphosa shuffled his Cabinet on 5 August, he scrapped the State Security Ministry, moved then state security minister Ayanda Dlodlo to the Public Service and Administration portfolio, and said the state security would fall under the presidency.

"This is to ensure that the country's domestic and foreign intelligence services more effectively enable the president to exercise his responsibility to safeguard the security and integrity of the nation," said Ramaphosa during his Cabinet announcement.

Ramaphosa also appointed Gungubele as Minister in the Presidency, after this post became vacant with the death of Jackson Mthembu.

See original here:
Gungubele appointment as spy boss a 'political chess move in ANC's factional war' - DA - News24

Over the past week, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu has been caught up in two seemingly unrelated controversies. What they have in common is that they touch on important First Amendment issues.

In the first instance, her office sent out a poorly worded advisory asking that reporters keep their distance from homeless people while city workers removed their encampment at Massachusetts Avenue and Melnea Cass Boulevard. In the second, hate-spewing demonstrators have been gathering in front of Wus house in Roslindale to protest a requirement that city employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 and that restaurants and other businesses mandate vaccines.

The media guidelines were sent out on Jan. 11, the day before the city cleared the area around Mass. and Cass. Reporters and photographers were advised to stay 50 feet away from individuals; to refrain from capturing images of individuals faces; and to allow enough space for outreach workers to engage with individuals in private.

The 50-foot request was later amended to 10 feet an improvement, but still not enough for reporters to walk up to people and ask if theyd like to be interviewed. As soon as I saw the guidelines, I emailed the press office and said You cant tell us how to report, Boston Globe columnist and associate editor Adrian Walker wrote in a public Facebook comment.

Kelly McBride, senior vice president and chair of the Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership at the Poynter Institute, also took a dim view of the advisory.

Im always wary when government officials start telling the press how to behave ethically, she said in an emailed comment. This may sound shocking, but sometimes government folks are more interested in avoiding accountability for their actions and also making themselves look good than they are in nurturing a free press that serves the public interest.

Despite liberal use of the word please, its unclear whether City Hall intended the guidelines to be mandatory; the mayors press office declined to comment. In any case, it doesnt appear that there were any serious efforts at enforcement, as reporters were able to interview homeless people while outreach workers were moving through the area.

City officials came over to me and asked me not to take pictures of peoples faces, which I wouldnt have done anyway without permission but I appreciated they also told me to back up and give space, but mostly I was fine interviewing people, my GBH News colleague Tori Bedford told me by email. She added: I think the intention was to prevent the callous treatment of people that occurred last time, but it neglected how the press acts as an accountability agent to witness any callous treatment by the city and its not the citys place to tell us how to do our jobs on a public street.

As Bedford said, there have been reports of journalists acting insensitively toward homeless people during previous operations at Mass. and Cass. But its crucial that the media be allowed access to make sure that city workers are treating people with respect as well. Besides, the encampment was on public property, and attempting to restrict where reporters could go and what they could do was a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press.

Paul Bass, the editor and founder of the New Haven Independent, made another important point in a public comment: the guidelines denied agency to the very people the city was attempting to protect. I agree such rules are outrageous, he wrote. They are also patronizing and controlling: homeless people, like anyone else, have the right to decide if they want to tell their story!

Veteran political analyst Jon Keller of WBZ-TV (Channel 4) said Mayor Wus advisory appeared to go beyond anything he had seen from Mayors Tom Menino or Marty Walsh.

Without knowing for sure, I suspect that they didnt want any embarrassing feedback from these interactions to be broadcast, Keller said. It had the whiff of something drawn up by a PR or a press aide with the mayors image and the image of her administration foremost in mind. Now, that may well be their job as they see it, but this is not the right time or situation.

Not to make too much of this despite the admonition to keep 10 feet away, the media were not prevented from doing their jobs. But if city officials had problems with the way individual journalists had behaved on previous occasions, they should have dealt with them directly rather than send out a blanket set of rules.

***

How much abuse should elected officials have to put up with when theyre at home with their families? In recent days, a small group of bullhorn-wielding protesters has been gathering in front of Mayor Wus house in Roslindale to denounce her vaccination mandate. Wu lives in a two-family home with her husband, her two children and her mother.

As Wu tweeted over the weekend, the rhetoric has become increasingly ugly. Theyve shouted on megaphones that my kids will grow up without a mom bc [because] Ill be in prison, she said. Yesterday at dinner my son asked who elses bday [birthday] it was bc the AM chant was Happy birthday, Hitler.

In an ideal world, protesters would restrict their activities to public venues and events and leave political figures alone when theyre home. But social mores are breaking down and incivility is on the rise. And its not just Wu. Gov. Charlie Bakers home in Swampscott has been the site of multiple protests. There has even been speculation that the protests were among the reasons Baker decided not to seek a third term. Certainly Wus and Bakers neighbors didnt sign up for such abuse.

The challenge is that any action against such demonstrations would clash with First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, assembly and petitioning for the redress of grievances. The protesters are, after all, on public streets.

State Rep. Steven Howitt, a Seekonk Republican, has filed legislation to ban demonstrations within 100 yards of an elected officials home. If such a bill were to become law, theres little doubt that it would face a constitutional challenge. But its also possible that a narrowly drawn statute focusing on noise and intrusiveness would pass muster as a content-neutral time-place-and-manner restriction, according to the noted civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate.

The alternative would be to move high-profile politicians into official residences away from residential neighborhoods. That would be a shame. It strikes me as a good thing that our leaders live among us, even if the benefit is mainly symbolic. Sadly, that may no longer be possible.

GBH News contributor Dan Kennedys blog, Media Nation, is online at dankennedy.net.

Continue reading here:
The First Amendment and Mayor Wu: What press restrictions and vile demonstrations have in common - wgbh.org

Your Turn Mike Berry Columnist

There is no COVID-19 exception to the First Amendment, wrote U.S. District Court Judge Reed OConnor. His words, directed to the United States Navy, should remind all Americans and especially those in positions of authority that the Constitution refuses to bend to authoritarian impulses.

Earlier this month, OConnor issued a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Navy, preventing it from taking any further action against the 35 Navy SEALs and Special Warfare service members represented by the First Liberty Institute. It also provides hope for the thousands of members of the military who bravely raised religious objections to receiving the vaccine knowing full well their fates had long been sealed.

Those service members now have a roadmap for how to challenge the unjust policies and procedures described by OConnor as theater the Department of Defense has used to trample upon our service members constitutional rights.

Soldiers fight for our rights dont infringe theirs

While it is true our service members give up much to protect our freedoms, as OConnor underscored, we do not ask them to lay aside their citizenry and give up the very rights they have sworn to protect.

That includes when it comes to the vaccines. Thus far, the Navy has granted hundreds of medical and administrative exemptions to sailors. Ironically, there is even an exemption available for sailors who are participating in clinical vaccine trials that use placebos. In other words, sailors can be exempt from the vaccine if they participate a clinical trial during which they remain unvaccinated.

In contrast, the Navy has been entirely unaccommodating to the SEALs and thousands of other service members whose sincere religious beliefs forbid them from receiving the vaccine.

The Navy SEALs First Liberty represents Christians of various denominations. Each presented evidence and arguments to the court explaining the nature of their religious objection to the COVID vaccine. Some earnestly prayed to God for guidance and believe receiving the vaccine is a mortal sin. Some object because of the vaccines well-documented ties to the use of aborted fetal cells during its development.

I too, as a military reserve officer, have sought an accommodation due to my religious objection to the vaccine. Although I am still awaiting a response, I do not expect to be the first and only approved religious accommodation.

I have had many conversations about faith and service with these men. The Navy can no more question their spiritual devotion than it can question their patriotism or their war-fighting abilities.

Yet the Navy has issued zero accommodations for those asserting a religious objection to the COVID vaccine. Zero. The Navy, according to OConnor, merely rubber stamps each denial. Forcing a service member to choose between their faith and serving their country is abhorrent to the Constitution and Americas values. And punishing him or her for simply requesting a religious accommodation is purely vindictive and unlawful.

No attempt to accommodate SEALs

There was a time when our military found a way to accommodate service members religious beliefs while allowing them to serve. During World War II, the Army tried to court-martial Private Desmond Doss because he refused to carry a weapon due to his religious beliefs that taking life is wrong. The Army came to its senses and allowed Doss to serve as a non-combatant medic. Doss famously went on to earn the Medal of Honor for his heroic feats during the Battle of Okinawa, during which he saved more than 70 lives. If the military can find a way to accommodate service member religious beliefs during a world war, it can surely do so today.

The dozens of Navy SEALs and Special Warfare members First Liberty represents collectively have more than 350 years of military experience and more than 100 combat deployments. These are exactly the kinds of elite warriors our nation needs. And yet they have each suffered real harm because of their religious beliefs.

Some were ordered to remove their special warfare device SEALs wear the famed the Trident which indicates they are no longer part of the special warfare community. Others were warned that even if their religious accommodation were somehow miraculously approved, they would still be kicked out of the SEALs in disgrace. The Navy also threatened to recoup the expenses invested in them to make them the elite warriors that they are. At the preliminary injunction hearing last month, one of our SEAL clients who sustained a traumatic brain injury while serving our nation took the stand. He testified that the Navy sought to prevent his attendance at a traumatic brain injury clinic because he refused the vaccine. He offered to travel at his own expense, in his own vehicle, to a clinic that was indifferent as to his vaccination status. It defies common decency to deprive a service member of necessary medical treatment for injuries sustained in the line of duty. That is no way to defend a nation or run a military.

Pandemic or no, the government including our military has no license to abrogate the freedoms enshrined in our law and Constitution. The men who wrote the First Amendment were no strangers to plague, famine or war. They understood that the worst tyrannies are those imposed supposedly for the greater good.

Until now, none of the lawsuits challenging the militarys vaccine mandate have been successful. OConnors ruling is a beacon of hope that paves the way for our men and women in uniform to continue serving with their religious liberty intact. For that, every freedom-loving American should be rightly proud. In the meantime, let us hope that the Department of Defense comes to its senses and rights this ship.

Mike Berry is general counsel at First Liberty Institute, and a former active duty U.S. Marine Corps officer. To learn more, please visit http://www.firstliberty.org.

Visit link:
Vaccine mandates: There is no COVID-19 virus exception to First Amendment Leavenworth Times - Leavenworth Times

From Zhou v. Breed, decided Friday by the Ninth Circuit (Judges John Owens and Michelle Friedland, and visiting Sixth Circuit Judge Danny Boggs):

Appellants allege that both [S.F. Mayor London] Breed and Clear Channel violated their First Amendment right to free speech. To the extent that Appellants argue that Breed, or any public official, violated their First Amendment rights simply by speaking critically of a billboard or calling for its removal, that theory is squarely foreclosed by precedent.

We have previously joined a "host of other circuits" in holding that "public officials may criticize practices that they would have no constitutional ability to regulate, so long as there is no actual or threatened imposition of government power or sanction." Am. Fam. Ass'n, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2002); see also id. ("[L]etters which encouraged but did not threaten or intimidate landowner to terminate lease with billboard owner did not violate billboard owner's First Amendment rights." (citing R.C. Maxwell Co. v. Borough of New Hope (3d Cir. 1984))). Appellants have not alleged that, in criticizing one of Appellants' billboards, Breed or any public official made any threats of government sanction against Zhou, AAFPAC, Clear Channel, Outfront Media, Inc. , or anyone.

Appellants' argument that their First Amendment rights were violated when Clear Channel, a private company, removed one of their billboards also fails. "A threshold requirement of any constitutional claim is the presence of state action." We "start with the presumption that private conduct does not constitute governmental action." Appellants do not allege any facts or put forward any plausible legal theory that would support treating Clear Channel as a state actor in this case.

The mere fact that Breed or other public officials criticized a billboard or called for its removal, without coercion or threat of government sanction, does not make that billboard's subsequent removal by a private party state action. See also Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan (1999) ("Action taken by private entities with the mere approval or acquiescence of the State is not state action."). Nor does the fact that companies that own billboards might be subject to some government regulations convert Clear Channel's decision to take down the billboard following public officials' criticism into state action. See Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck (2019) ("Put simply, being regulated by the State does not make one a state actor."); Mathis v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (9th Cir. 1989) ("[T]hat PG & E is a public utility subject to extensive state regulation without more, is insufficient to infuse its conduct with state action."). Because Appellants have failed to allege state action, the district court properly dismissed their First Amendment claim.

{Appellants argue that, even if their allegations could not support a coercion theory of state action or a regulation theory of state action when those theories are analyzed separately, their allegations could support a finding of state action if those theories were analyzed together. That argument also fails.}

The district court correctly struck, pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute, Appellants' claims against Breed for inducing breach of contract and intentional interference with a contractual relationship.

Appellants do not have a sufficient legal basis for either of their tort claims asserted against Breed. To succeed on their claim for inducing a breach of contract, Appellants must show that a contract "was in fact breached." Because Appellants cannot show that Clear Channel breached its contract [given that the contract allowed Clear Channel to terminate it], Appellants' claim against Breed for inducing a breach of contract necessarily fails.

To succeed on their claim for intentional interference with a contractual relationship, Appellants must show that Breed knew of Appellants' billboard contracts and that she engaged in "intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship." Other than threadbare recitals of some of the elements of this cause of action, Appellants do not allege that Breed knew of their contracts with Clear Channel or Outfront, or that any of Breed's actions were intentionally designed to disrupt Appellants' contractual relationships with those companies. Indeed, the only specific action Appellants allege that Breed took was speaking critically about one of the billboards during a television interview. It is not possible to infer from that allegation that Breed's aim was to interfere with any of Appellants' contractual relationships. Consequently, Appellants failed to satisfy their burden of showing a sufficient probability of success on the merits of their tort claims against Breed, and those claims were properly struck.

The state action analysis is indeed consistent with the circuit court precedents (see this post). The interference with contract analysis strikes me as odd: Surely someone criticizing a billboard must be aware that the billboard was up under a contract, and it at least seems plausible that criticizing a billboard is intended to cause a "disruption" of a contractual relationship (even if not a breach), by being intended to urge the billboard company to remove it. Nonetheless, the claim should fail for another reason: Under California law, intentional interference with business relations (short of intentional inducement of an actual breach) is generally actionable only if it's otherwise unlawful (e.g., involves a threat of violence or some other illegal conduct).

Here's the factual backstory about the content of the billboards, from the decision below, though the content isn't legally relevant:

October 2019, plaintiffs Ellen Lee Zhou and the Asian American Freedom Political Action Committee ("AAFPAC") (collectively, "plaintiffs") posted two billboard advertisements in support of Zhou's campaign for mayor of the City and County of San Francisco.

One of AAFPAC's billboards showed Breed driving a red bus with the text "Werewolves of London Tours" near cars with smashed windows. Additional text read, "Vote Nov. 5 for Super Mayor Ellen Lee Zhou!"

Clear Channel and OutFront posted the billboards in October 2019. Soon after, Breed and her allies "began a concerted effort" to pressure Clear Channel and OutFront to remove the billboards by denouncing them as offensive, racist, and divisive. Breed's campaign publicized an October 21, 2019 press conference in front of the OutFront billboard, although Breed did not attend it. Those present, including State Assemblyman David Chiu and members of the Board of Supervisors, denounced the content of the billboard and called for its removal. News outlets reported various individuals describing the contents of the billboard as racist, misogynistic, and sexist, and opining that it had no place in San Francisco. Breed gave a media interview in which she said, "'[The billboard] is hurtful, it's disrespectful and it is no place [sic], I think in San Francisco for that kind of divisiveness.'"

See original here:
No First Amendment Violation in Removal of Billboard After SF Mayor Had Criticized It - Reason