Mediaboss Marketing

Posted Nov. 17, 2014, 9:53 am Letter To The Editor

Dear Editor,

In the United States of America, and to an even stronger extent in the State of California, the First Amendment to our federal Constitution (and its state counterpart) guarantees freedom of speech.

To petition, protest, and advocate before governmental bodies and public marketplaces are constitutional rights and therefore protected speech. This lawsuit is an attempt to bully me and silence dissent in the City of Santa Monica, where the pony ride and petting zoo have been the subject of criticism and protests for years, long before my personal involvement.

In consultation with counsel, I intend to file an ANTI-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion to protect my freedom of speech rights and those of others who might otherwise be deterred by coercive litigation from exercising their rights -- and to defend the rights of suffering animals, sentient beings with emotional lives worthy of dignity and compassion.

I have repeatedly made overtures to the pony ride operators, introducing Jason, Tawnis husband, to Phil Brock, the Parks Commissioner, to see if they might be willing to compromise and move their animal exhibits to a more spacious and tranquil environment, where the ponies could be taken off the metal bar and walked with a gentle lead at a city park.

The City Council resolution relating to the ponies directed City staff to explore alternatives elsewhere in the City for the pony ride to operate in a more congenial environment for the animals. To my knowledge, the pony operators have not been interested in compromise and have repeatedly refused to consider more humane alternatives.

While the operators repeatedly and publicly attack my character, I know that I have only told the truth, expressing my opinion, both in words and photographs, throughout this period of protest, in which 1,450 people signed my petition to shut down the animal exhibits. Additionally, records obtained under the California Public Records Act have surfaced past complaints about the animal exhibits.

Beyond that, I learned that a separate protest in 2005 resulted in approximately another thousand petition signatures from market visitors disturbed by the sight of ponies tethered to a metal bar, circling for hours on hard ground, unable to turn around or seek water on their own during a hot summer day.

Not only do local residents find these exhibits objectionable, some of my neighbors boycotting the Main Street farmers market, but Marc Bekoff, noted scientist and colleague of Jane Goodall, with whom I consulted months ago, calls the exhibits thoroughly inhumane -- adding, Tethering animals so they cannot have freedom of movement and the freedom to get away from harassment and noise is as inhumane as keeping the animals in tiny cages in petting zoos, where they suffer physically and emotionally.

See original here:
Letter To The Editor: First Amendment Guarantees Freedom Of Speech

A video that emerged over the weekend appears to show Darren Wilson, the cop who fatally shot teenager Michael Brown in a St. Louis suburb in August, telling a citizen he doesn't have the right to record video of a 2013 encounter.

The details of the entire exchangeare a little murky. But in almost all cases in the United Statesyou actually do have the right to record police and other public officials carrying out their duties.

There are some state wiretapping laws that make it illegal to record audio of people without their consent, but the courts have consistently held that the First Amendment protects citizens' right to record the police when they're on the job. The police can't stop you unless you're interfering with their work -- and they can't take away your smart phone or delete the recordings just because you took video. Police need a warrant to mess with the content of your cell phone.

The Department of Justice has even officially weighed in on citizen recordings of law enforcement officers. Here's what it said in a 2012 letter toattorneys for the Baltimore Police Department:

Policies should affirmatively set forth the contours of individuals First Amendment right to observe and record police officers engaged in the public discharge of their duties. Recording governmental officers engaged in public duties is a form of speech through which private individuals may gather and disseminate information of public concern, including the conduct of law enforcement officers.

Obviously, just because you have the right doesn't mean all law enforcement officials will respect it. But there's also a growing movement to make sure that police actions are almost always facing the scrutiny of video evidence by use of mandatory body cameras, or "bodycams," on officers.

The cameras could potentially provide an extra layer of digital oversight over law enforcement behavior -- as well as a way for officers to verify their side of the story if a situation gets messy.

In the wake of the Ferguson protests, makers of such deviceshave seen their business boom.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union is on board with thethe useof bodycams, albeit with a fewcaveats about data retention and privacy implications. "Although we generally take a dim view of the proliferation of surveillance cameras in American life, police on-body cameras are different because of their potential to serve as a check against the abuse of power by police officers," the group said in a 2013 policy paper.

Andrea Peterson covers technology policy for The Washington Post, with an emphasis on cybersecurity, consumer privacy, transparency, surveillance and open government.

More:
Yes, you have a right to record the police.

Who Creates Jobs? And Yes, Hillary Clinton Is Wrong (Of Course)
Do consumers "create jobs" by buying things? Do business firms create jobs? Hillary Clinton is confused, and George Reisman clears things up for her in this episode of the Tom Woods Show.

By: TomWoodsTV

Continued here:
Who Creates Jobs? And Yes, Hillary Clinton Is Wrong (Of Course) - Video

Talking Points Memo's Dylan Scott interviewed Mitch Stewart, the former battleground states director of President Obama's reelection campaign and now a member of the Hillary Clinton campaign-in-waiting known as "Ready for Hillary," about how the 2016 electoral map could be expanded in Democrats' favor if the former secretary of state is, as expected, the party's presidential nominee.

Stewart suggests two "buckets" of states that Clinton could make competitive in 2016 that Obama, for a several reasons, couldn't in 2008 or 2012. The first bucket is Arkansas, Indiana and Missouri. The second contains Arizona and Georgia.

The first bucket of states is ridiculous. The second is plausible -- but almost certainly not in 2016. Let's take them in order.

Stewart's explanation for Clinton's heightened competitiveness in Arkansas, Missouri and Indiana is that she can appeal to whites and, in particular, white working-class voters and, even more particularly, white working-class women voters in a way that Obama could not. (It's worth noting that the Clinton people have made a similar argument about the potential competitiveness of Kentucky.)

"Where I think Secretary Clinton has more appeal than any other Democrat looking at running is that with white working-class voters, she does have a connection," Stewart told Scott. "I think she's best positioned to open those states." As evidence, Stewart cited Clinton's success in the 2008 primary process in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Fair(ish). But remember that Clinton's performance in those primaries was against an African American candidate named Barack Obama, not against a Republican in a general election. And that coming close isn't the same thing as winning. Yes, Clinton would almost certainly do better with white working-class voters than Obama did. But, in some of the states that Stewart puts in that first bucket, that's a pretty low bar.

Arkansas is a good example. It's easy to assume -- and the Clintons almost certainly are assuming -- that the former first couple of Arkansas have a special connection to the Natural State. After all, Bill Clinton spent years as the state's governor and used it as a launching pad for his presidential bid in 1992.

That was a very long time ago. And even in the past six years, Arkansas has moved heavily away from Democrats at the federal level. In 2008, both U.S. senators from Arkansas were Democrats, as were three of its four House members. Following the 2014 elections, all six are Republicans. ALL SIX. President Obama won just 37 percent of the vote in the state in the 2012 general election after watching someone named John Wolfe win 42 percent of the vote in the Democratic presidential primary against him.

Would Hillary Clinton do better than that? Yes. But the idea that the Arkansas that helped push Bill Clinton into the national spotlight has anything in common, politically speaking, with the Arkansas of 2014 is a fallacy. As for the idea that Obama's race was the fundamental reason for his poor showing among white working-class voters, here are two words for you: Mark Pryor. As in, the two term incumbent senator -- and son of a former governor and senator in the state -- who just lost badly in his bid for reelection. Pryor took just 31 percent among white voters and won an even more meager 29 percent among whites without a college education. (The exit poll didn't break down income level by race.)

Missouri and Indiana are slightly -- emphasis on slightly -- less clear-cut as such huge reaches when it comes to Clinton's presidential prospects. Obama's successes in both states in 2008 -- he won Indiana and lost Missouri by less than 4,000 votes -- would seem to provide significant encouragement for the Clinton forces. But subsequent election results in both states make 2008 look far more like the exception than the rule for Democrats.

Link:
The Fix: The ridiculousness of Hillary Clintons expand-the-map strategy in 2016

Talking Points Memo's Dylan Scott interviewed Mitch Stewart, the former battleground states director of President Obama's reelection campaign and now a member of the Hillary Clinton campaign-in-waiting known as "Ready for Hillary," about how the 2016 electoral map could be expanded in Democrats' favor if the former secretary of state is, as expected, the party's presidential nominee.

Stewart suggests two "buckets" of states that Clinton could make competitive in 2016 that Obama, for a several reasons, couldn't in 2008 or 2012. The first bucket is Arkansas, Indiana and Missouri. The second contains Arizona and Georgia.

The first bucket of states is ridiculous. The second is plausible -- but almost certainly not in 2016. Let's take them in order.

Stewart's explanation for Clinton's heightened competitiveness in Arkansas, Missouri and Indiana is that she can appeal to whites and, in particular, white working-class voters and, even more particularly, white working-class women voters in a way that Obama could not. (It's worth noting that the Clinton people have made a similar argument about the potential competitiveness of Kentucky.)

"Where I think Secretary Clinton has more appeal than any other Democrat looking at running is that with white working-class voters, she does have a connection," Stewart told Scott. "I think she's best positioned to open those states." As evidence, Stewart cited Clinton's success in the 2008 primary process in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Fair(ish). But remember that Clinton's performance in those primaries was against an African American candidate named Barack Obama, not against a Republican in a general election. And that coming close isn't the same thing as winning. Yes, Clinton would almost certainly do better with white working-class voters than Obama did. But, in some of the states that Stewart puts in that first bucket, that's a pretty low bar.

Arkansas is a good example. It's easy to assume -- and the Clintons almost certainly are assuming -- that the former first couple of Arkansas have a special connection to the Natural State. After all, Bill Clinton spent years as the state's governor and used it as a launching pad for his presidential bid in 1992.

That was a very long time ago. And even in the past six years, Arkansas has moved heavily away from Democrats at the federal level. In 2008, both U.S. senators from Arkansas were Democrats, as were three of its four House members. Following the 2014 elections, all six are Republicans. ALL SIX. President Obama won just 37 percent of the vote in the state in the 2012 general election after watching someone named John Wolfe win 42 percent of the vote in the Democratic presidential primary against him.

Would Hillary Clinton do better than that? Yes. But the idea that the Arkansas that helped push Bill Clinton into the national spotlight has anything in common, politically speaking, with the Arkansas of 2014 is a fallacy. As for the idea that Obama's race was the fundamental reason for his poor showing among white working-class voters, here are two words for you: Mark Pryor. As in, the two term incumbent senator -- and son of a former governor and senator in the state -- who just lost badly in his bid for reelection. Pryor took just 31 percent among white voters and won an even more meager 29 percent among whites without a college education. (The exit poll didn't break down income level by race.)

Missouri and Indiana are slightly -- emphasis on slightly -- less clear-cut as such huge reaches when it comes to Clinton's presidential prospects. Obama's successes in both states in 2008 -- he won Indiana and lost Missouri by less than 4,000 votes -- would seem to provide significant encouragement for the Clinton forces. But subsequent election results in both states make 2008 look far more like the exception than the rule for Democrats.

Excerpt from:
The ridiculousness of Hillary Clintons expand-the-map strategy in 2016