Mediaboss Marketing

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear," George Orwell, the celebrated author of dystopian novels, once wrote.

Partisans love to cite Orwell when accusing their opposing political tribe of intolerance.

While these comparisons are often ridiculous we are not "living in 1984" no matter what alarmists say it is true that many on both the left and the right have grown too comfortable with censorship.

In progressive activist circles, certain words and ideas are considered "violence" and thus worthy of prohibition.

The right has made plenty of political hay out of such sentiments sneering that leftists are "snowflakes" hiding in safe spaces and coddled by trigger warnings. But at the same time, conservatives have a long, ignoble history of proudly embracing "Moral Majority"-style censorship and cancellation of the insufficiently "patriotic."

Despite this legacy of "value-based" censorship, the right has recently sought to recast itself as the defender of Western civilization including the principles of free speech and open inquiry.

Don't buy into the branding.

Over the past two years, state governments have been awash in Republican-authored bills that criminalize legitimate protest and lay broad blanket bans on ideas and words associated with "wokeness."

Prominent voices on the right have also cleverly co-opted the language of the left insisting that they're not censoring anything, they're just protecting marginalized voices. Only the names are changed.

It's all a sham.

Republicans are using the force of government to ban books, words, and ideas that offend their sensibilities.

The recent "Banned Books Week" spearheaded by librarians, academics, and writers' advocates helped lay bare just how triggered conservatives can be words and ideas that run counter to their moral codes.

Young adult novels with LGBTQ protagonists and books dealing with antiracist philosophies, once again, represented the lion's share of banned content.

Case in point, a Wyoming pastor is trying to get librarians criminally prosecuted for stocking books dealing with LGBTQ-related themes.

And even after some civil libertarian backlash to the many "anti-Critical Race Theory" laws including from organizations with uber-Republican donor Charles Koch Republicans across the country are running rampant in their efforts to stamp out words and ideas they find offensive.

The Wisconsin Assembly last week overwhelmingly approved a Republican-authored bill that, among other things, prohibits teaching students that any individual "by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously."

A lot of parents are not comfortable with their children being taught to essentialize people based on immutable characteristics, which frankly is one of the tenets of social justice activism.

But the bill also bans dozens of words and ideas to the point of grotesque absurdity.

Among the prohibited "terms and concepts" are:

The apparent intention is to stamp out not just "Critical Race Theory," but the mere discussion of any topic that was once known as "politically correct." If that isn't censorship, then the word has no meaning.

The bill hasn't been passed by Wisconsin's Senate, and even if it is, it's likely to be vetoed by the state's Democratic governor. But it's a revealing window into the speech-chilling aspirations of the right.

In Johnston County, N.C., the Board of Commissioners threatened to hold millions of dollars in public school funding unless the school board adopted a policy that essentially deems off-limits any criticism of the Constitution, the founding fathers, and "people who contributed to American Society."

The newly-adopted "Code of Ethics" even bans "fictional accounts or narratives" that can be "used to invalidate actual objective historical events."

Got that? Me, neither.

Would the novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin" be prohibited for depicting the horrors of slavery in the antebellum South? What about Toni Morrison's "Beloved"?

Does any book depicting many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence as owners of human beings violate the Code's edict that they should be "recognized and presented as reformists, innovators and heroes to our culture"?

Rather than stimulate a nuanced discussion of the founders' admirable contributions that also recognizes their moral deficiencies and hypocrisies, the Johnston County Code of Ethics aims to dictate a "positive vibes only" version of America. Instead of opening the discussion to provide historical accuracy and context, it's about forcing an "America, F--- Yeah!" version of history down students' throats.

School districts, rightfully, have a great deal of autonomy in determining curricula including the books that are assigned to students and the framing of historical events.

This won't always yield great results.

San Francisco last year wasted countless hours on removing "problematic" names from school buildings at times getting the historical justifications completely wrong.

Meanwhile, the South still has a smattering of counties which dabble in teaching creationism to public school children.

Like I said, not good.

What's far worse, however, are elected officials using childrens' educations to fight political battles by imposing overbroad bans with vague language on the curriculum of these schools.

It's wrong when woke progressives do it. It's wrong when reactionary conservatives do it.

But it's particularly galling when cynical hacks on the right claim the pro-speech Enlightenment mantle while literally calling for words that upset them to be banned and teachers to be fired.

Don't let conservatives who support these speech bans get away with calling them "anti-woke" or "anti-Critical Race Theory."

Call them what they are, "anti-free speech" and wholly "un-American."

Originally posted here:
Republicans Cancel Words, History, and Ideas in Libraries and Schools - Business Insider

YouTube isnt just the biggest video platform in the world, its actually the second-biggest search engine in the world, after Google. Which, as it so happens, owns YouTube.

Google and YouTube are far more powerful than Facebook or Twitter, which get more press because a lot of journalists are on Twitter, and its a primary battleground for the political class to talk to itself.

But Google and YouTube not only control their own platforms, they control you access to all other platforms. Ill Google that is shorthand for Ill search for that most people dont even think of other search engines. But that in itself is a source of control what Google puts on its first page of results is often quite political. What it boosts versus what it suppresses. And even what it simply refuses to show you at all, even if you type it in precisely. And the same goes for its YouTube search.

For example, if you simply type the words Rebel News into the YouTube search engine, https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rebel+news you get very political results.

You do get a few actual Rebel videos. But one of the first hits is this one:

Trudeau slams Rebel News: I wont call it a media organization.

Its not the most current; it doesnt have the most views; its not by Rebel News but its an attack on us.

Under that is this old one, from years ago:

Environment minister tells Rebel Media reporter to stop calling her 'Climate Barbie

Four years old but its the CBCs attack on us.

There are two legitimate Rebel News results in the top ten results. The rest are attacks on us including obscure attacks with few views. But YouTube has made it that way.

It bugs me, but luckily millions of people have been able to overcome the built-in bias to find us and get their news from us directly.

So the censorship grows:

Updating our ads and monetization policies on climate changeOctober 7, 2021

...In recent years, we've heard directly from a growing number of our advertising and publisher partners who have expressed concerns about ads that run alongside or promote inaccurate claims about climate change. Advertisers simply dont want their ads to appear next to this content. And publishers and creators dont want ads promoting these claims to appear on their pages or videos.

Thats why today, were announcing a new monetization policy for Google advertisers, publishers and YouTube creators that will prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change. This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change.

But what is this about? How is disputing astrophysics or the like a danger to the public?

I know the answer because its really about the danger of thinking for yourself. Thats what all of these things are about. And youll notice that, at least for the virus and global warming, the United Nations is taken as the global arbiter of truth. Thats right the place that puts the likes of Cuba and China on the human rights commission, the place that promotes the Taliban but condemns Israel thats the place that can decide what you can and cant say.

This really isnt surprising. And it really wont be surprising when the next subject is banned. The only surprise will be: what subjects are off-limits next? Me, Im guessing its transgenderism in womens sports. What do you think will be next?

GUEST: New Rebel News contributor Kelly Lamb (@LittleGoatCR on Twitter) to talk about her report on the Saskatchewan parents pushing back on school COVID rules.

FINALLY: Your messages to me!

Read more:
YouTube expands its censorship to global warming - Rebel News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

It sounds like hyperbole, but its true: A progressive education association wants parents attending school board meetings to be treated like terrorists.

It has asked President Joe Biden to criminalize parent opposition to Critical Race Theory and COVID mandates, a burgeoning grassroots movement that has caught radicals by surprise.

The move to suppress First Amendment rights came from the National School Boards Association (NSBA), which organizes school board members. It wants the Biden administration to use "extraordinary measures" initially created to deal with foreign threats to now intimidate parents and "preserve public school infrastructure," according to the groups recent letter to the White House.

The group wants the Biden administration to invoke the PATRIOT Act and create a posse that includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, and National Threat Assessment Center to protect them against parentsthe very people school boards are responsible for representing in their local communities.

KAROL MARKOWICZ: WHO DO YOUR CHILDREN BELONG TO -- YOU OR YOUR GOVERNMENT?

And the Biden Justice Department has quickly responded to the NSBAs request to criminalize political opposition and strong-arm Americans. U.S. Attorney Gen. Merrick Garland will meet with federal, state and local officials to "discuss strategies for addressing this disturbing trend."

Parents have a lot to say, however, and they should not be harassed.

Over the last year, parents have been attending school board meetings in large numbers to object to prolonged closures, as well as educators use of Critical Race Theory to promote racial prejudice. To most Americans, even those who may disagree with them, they are family, friends and neighbors advocating on behalf of their children. To the NSBA, theyre "current threats."

If anything, it is parents who sometimes must fear vindictive reprisals or censorship by school board members. In Loudoun County, Virginia, this year, members of the school board formed a Facebook group to investigate and dox parents who dared speak against CRT. Reports from Indiana, Minnesota, Virginia,and Wisconsin to name only a few, find that board members are no longer including time on meeting agendas for or are otherwise suspending public comment.

Both school board members and meeting attendees are responsible for keeping the meetings civil. NSBAs accusations that parents are a problem shows utter contempt for parents pouring into school board meetings to have their voices heard.

Censoring parents is sure to end badly. For parents to care about school children in their communities is a healthy, all-American development. Voter turnout for school board elections has been modest for years, hovering around 10 percent. The new interest should be celebrated, not criminalized.

Parents want to know what is being taught to their studentsas they should. School boards have the responsibility for directing important district operations, including curricular choices and other district operational policies. Yet board members have grown accustomed to "sleepy and ill-attended public meetings," according to USA Today, and are "reeling" to find parents upset at COVID-related policies and educators application of critical race theorys racially prejudicial ideas in K-12 classrooms.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

According to national polling, 70 percent of a nationally representative sample of parents say they do not want schools to teach children that their skin color is the most important thing about them.

State lawmakers around the U.S. agree and are considering proposals that say no public official can compel a teacher or student to believe or profess an idea that violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

School officials, on the other hand, are using discriminatory activities in schools based on critical race theory. This includes schools in Portland, Oregon, where videos of a public school critical race theory working group are available on YouTube.com; Evanston, Illinois, where a teacher is suing the district over mandatory racial affinity groups; and Hayward Unified School District in California, where school officials posted a note on the district website saying they would teach CRT.

NSBA promotes CRT and has urged the Biden administration to reinstate racially discriminatory workforce development programs that President Donald Trumps administration abolished last fall. Given the publics rejection of CRT and state lawmakers efforts to prohibit racial discrimination, its positions do not reflect the interests of families or policymakers.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Parents are not to be trifled with. According to Axios, more than twice as many board recall elections or campaigns were held or initiated between January and July 2021 than during all of last year.

NSBA should not be worried about parents attending meetingsthey should be worried about voters headed to the ballot box.

Mike Gonzalez is a senior fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Allison Center for Foreign Policy and the Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum fellow. His most recent book is "The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics is Dividing the Land of the Free" (Encounter Books, July 28, 2020).

See the original post here:
Butcher & Gonzalez: Biden's Justice Department clueless that censoring parents is sure to end badly - Fox News

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Few provisions of the Bill of Rights grew so directly out of the experience of the colonials as the Fourth Amendment, embodying as it did the protection against the use of the writs of assistance. But though the insistence on freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as a fundamental right gained expression in the colonies late and as a result of experience, there was also a rich English experience to draw on. Every mans house is his castle was a maxim much celebrated in England, as Samans Case demonstrated in 1603. A civil case of execution of process, Samans Case nonetheless recognized the right of the homeowner to defend his house against unlawful entry even by the Kings agents, but at the same time recognized the authority of the appropriate officers to break and enter upon notice in order to arrest or to execute the Kings process. Most famous of the English cases was Entick v. Carrington, one of a series of civil actions against state officers who, pursuant to general warrants, had raided many homes and other places in search of materials connected with John Wilkes polemical pamphlets attacking not only governmental policies but the King himself.

Entick, an associate of Wilkes, sued because agents had forcibly broken into his house, broken into locked desks and boxes, and seized many printed charts, pamphlets, and the like. In an opinion sweeping in terms, the court declared the warrant and the behavior it authorized subversive of all the comforts of society, and the issuance of a warrant for the seizure of all of a persons papers rather than only those alleged to be criminal in nature contrary to the genius of the law of England. Besides its general character, the court said, the warrant was bad because it was not issued on a showing of probable cause and no record was required to be made of what had been seized. Entick v. Carrington, the Supreme Court has said, is a great judgment, one of the landmarks of English liberty, one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution, and a guide to an understanding of what the Framers meant in writing the Fourth Amendment.

In the colonies, smuggling rather than seditious libel afforded the leading examples of the necessity for protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In order to enforce the revenue laws, English authorities made use of writs of assistance, which were general warrants authorizing the bearer to enter any house or other place to search for and seize prohibited and uncustomed goods, and commanding all subjects to assist in these endeavors. Once issued, the writs remained in force throughout the lifetime of the sovereign and six months thereafter. When, upon the death of George II in 1760, the authorities were required to obtain the issuance of new writs, opposition was led by James Otis, who attacked such writs on libertarian grounds and who asserted the invalidity of the authorizing statutes because they conflicted with English constitutionalism. Otis lost and the writs were issued and used, but his arguments were much cited in the colonies not only on the immediate subject but also with regard to judicial review.

The language of the provision that became the Fourth Amendment underwent some modest changes on its passage through the Congress, and it is possible that the changes reflected more than a modest significance in the interpretation of the relationship of the two clauses. Madisons introduced version provided The rights to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized. As reported from committee, with an inadvertent omission corrected on the floor, the section was almost identical to the introduced version, and the House defeated a motion to substitute and no warrant shall issue for by warrants issuing in the committee draft. In some fashion, the rejected amendment was inserted in the language before passage by the House and is the language of the ratified constitutional provision.

As noted above, the noteworthy disputes over search and seizure in England and the colonies revolved about the character of warrants. There were, however, lawful warrantless searches, primarily searches incident to arrest, and these apparently gave rise to no disputes. Thus, the question arises whether the Fourth Amendments two clauses must be read together to mean that the only searches and seizures which are reasonable are those which meet the requirements of the second clause, that is, are pursuant to warrants issued under the prescribed safeguards, or whether the two clauses are independent, so that searches under warrant must comply with the second clause but that there are reasonable searches under the first clause that need not comply with the second clause. This issue has divided the Court for some time, has seen several reversals of precedents, and is important for the resolution of many cases. It is a dispute that has run most consistently throughout the cases involving the scope of the right to search incident to arrest. Although the right to search the person of the arrestee without a warrant is unquestioned, how far afield into areas within and without the control of the arrestee a search may range is an interesting and crucial matter.

More:
Fourth Amendment: Historical Background | Constitution ...

CASE PREVIEW ByHoward M. Wasserman on Oct 10, 2021 at 1:27 pm

Civil claims seeking damages for constitutional violations arising in the criminal-justice process require the plaintiff to show favorable termination, meaning the criminal proceedings were terminated in favor of the accused (the plaintiff in the subsequent civil action). Thompson v. Clark, to be argued Tuesday, considers whether a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment requires a resolution that affirmatively indicates innocence, as the lower court held, or that it formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with innocence.

In January 2014, Larry Thompson lived in Brooklyn with his wife, Talleta Watson, their newborn daughter, and Thompsons sister-in-law, Camille Watson, who has cognitive delays.

Unbeknownst to Thompson, Camille called 911 late one evening, reporting red rashes on the babys buttocks and describing them as signs of abuse. EMTs arrived at the apartment, spoke with Thompson, then left without examining the baby. Police officers returned to the apartment with the EMTs; when Thompson refused to allow them into the apartment, they pushed through the door, tackling and pinning him to the ground. EMTs examined the baby and concluded the red marks were diaper rash, but took her to the hospital, where medical personnel confirmed that there were no signs of abuse.

Pagiel Clark was one of the officers who responded to the call and entered Thompsons apartment. Clark signed a criminal complaint against Thompson for resisting arrest and obstructing a governmental investigation. The report stated that Thompson had violently resisted: slapped an officer, flailed his arms, and physically struggled against the officers. Thompson was detained for two days before being released on his own recognizance at an arraignment. The prosecution offered an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, which would have led to records of the prosecution being sealed without punishment; Thompson refused. Thompsons defense attorney orally moved to dismiss the charges for facial insufficiency; the court ordered submission of a written motion. The prosecution then notified defense counsel it would dismiss the charges. One week later, the prosecution dismissed the case on its motion in the interest of justice and the court dismissed the matter.

Thompson sued for damages under Section 1983, which allows individuals to sue state actors for violating their constitutional rights. Of the several claims in the lawsuit, the one at issue is against Clark for an unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process (analogous to the common law tort of malicious prosecution) under the Fourth Amendment. The district court entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of Clark, concluding that Thompson failed to show the criminal charged were dismissed in a manner affirmatively indicative of his innocence. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed, because the record in the criminal proceeding provided no reasons for the dismissal and Thompson failed to show his innocence of the charges.

Thompson begins with the purposes of the favorable-termination requirement avoiding parallel criminal and civil proceedings and preventing individuals from using civil litigation to collaterally attack final criminal judgments. When criminal charges have been dismissed prior to trial, the subsequent civil action does not implicate either concern, as there is no parallel criminal proceeding and no judgment to attack. Under the Supreme Courts precedents, a plaintiff can show favorable termination when a conviction later was invalidated or when he has been acquitted following trial. Neither affirmatively indicates a persons actual innocence. If acquittal after trial or a later-invalidated conviction after trial establish favorable termination, Thompson argues, so must the successful dismissal of charges before any trial or conviction.

Thompson bolsters his argument through the state of the law for the analogous tort of malicious prosecution as of 1871, when Congress enacted Section 1983. Relying on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Laskar v. Hurd, Thompson argues that one state court at the time required affirmative indications of innocence and a clear majority did not limit favorable termination. American courts followed English precedent that found favorable termination when the criminal proceeding no longer was pending, absent a judgment or admission of guilt; that included cases in which criminal charges were dismissed or abandoned.

Finally, Thompson identifies practical problems with the 2nd Circuits approach, labeling it incoherent, perverse, and difficult to administer. It makes no sense, he argues, to require a civil plaintiff to show that the criminal proceeding indicated his innocence, whereas the criminal case asks whether the prosecution established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This requires a criminal defendant to prove his innocence during the prosecution, contrary to the presumption of innocence. The problem is exacerbated in this case, where the states dismissal of the prosecution stripped Thompson of any opportunity to present evidence of his innocence. It would force a defendant in Thompsons position he alleges he faced a meritless prosecution on unfounded charges based on fabricated evidence to object to dismissal of the charges and to go to trial to preserve a future Section 1983 claim. An individual facing weaker criminal charges, those more likely to be dismissed, is less able to bring a Section 1983 claim than an individual facing charges strong enough to warrant a trial and possible conviction.

The United States appears as amicus curiae in support of Thompson and urging reversal of the 2nd Circuit.

It argues that the common law tort most analogous to Thompsons claim for an unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process is malicious prosecution. Because the tort claim required favorable termination, so must the parallel Section 1983 claim. This preserves the common law analogy and fulfills the purposes of preserving finality, avoiding parallel litigation, and preventing civil litigation from becoming a collateral attack on a criminal conviction.

But termination of the criminal proceedings, the government argues, can be favorable without affirmative indications of innocence. That requirement has no basis in common law principles as of 1871. Despite variations across states, the general rule was that favorable termination meant that the prosecution being challenged had been disposed of and could not be renewed. Affirmative indications of innocence are not necessary to preserve finality or to preclude parallel proceedings. And the civil action does not function as a collateral attack on a conviction so long as the criminal proceeding ended in a manner not inconsistent with innocence. Nor are affirmative indications necessary to protect Fourth Amendment values. The Fourth Amendment question is whether criminal proceedings were initiated without probable cause, not how they ended; while the latter determination may inform the probable-cause question, the focus is on what the defendants knew at the earlier point in time.

Courts justify a favorable-termination requirement as a mechanism for filtering non-meritorious claims, by barring those lacking some demonstrated likelihood of success. While acknowledging reasonable concerns for frivolous claims, the United States argues those considerations do not justify an indications-of-innocence requirement, especially given its inconsistency with common law. Other requirements such as the plaintiffs obligation to prove the absence of probable cause and the defense of qualified immunity enable courts to stop false claims at the outset.

Clarks brief focuses on precedent issues that allow the court to affirm in the simplest way, without having to decide the meaning of favorable termination.

Clark argues that Thompson did not go to trial on a claim of unreasonable seizure-through-legal-process, although he could have. Instead, Thompson pursued a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim, alleging a seizure prior to initiation of process based on Clark signing the criminal complaint. But the Supreme Court has never recognized such a claim, and Clark urges it to hold that no such claim exists. Clark identifies a mismatch between malicious prosecution, which focuses on whether a police officer influenced a prosecutor into pursuing a criminal case, and the Fourth Amendment, which focuses on whether a police officer caused a seizure by ordering pretrial detention. The seizure Thompson complains of is his initial arrest, which ended following his arraignment and release on his own recognizance.

To the extent Thompson pursues a newly recast Fourth Amendment claim based on a post-arraignment seizure, Clark argues, the elements of such a claim may not include the favorable-termination requirement the court has been asked to define. The courts prior cases requiring favorable termination were due process cases, not Fourth Amendment cases. Lower courts are divided on whether the latter require favorable termination. Clark urges the court to clear the decks by confirming the absence of such a requirement or by dismissing this grant of certiorari as improvidently granted.

If Thompsons Fourth Amendment claim exists as he argues it and if it requires favorable termination, Clark argues, the 2nd Circuit applied the correct standard and the court should affirm. The question of what favorable termination required was unsettled at common law. Some courts required an affirmative ruling in favor of the accused, such as an acquittal, or a showing that the criminal charges lacked merit. No rule was so well-settled in 1871 that the court can presume Congress intended to adopt it. With no settled rule as of 1871, the court can look at post-1871 sources; treatises, a growing number of state courts, and seven of eight federal circuits have found that malicious prosecution claims under Section 1983 require indications of innocence.

Finally, Clark identifies policy concerns supporting an indications-of-innocence requirement. Such a requirement filters claims that have not already demonstrated some likelihood of success. It frees prosecutors to dismiss criminal charges for many reasons having nothing to do with the merits of the case, without creating the anomaly that the prosecutors professional and discretionary choice to drop charges subjects the arresting officer to civil liability.

View original post here:
Favorable termination and indications of innocence in Section 1983 malicious prosecution claims - SCOTUSblog