Mediaboss Marketing

Angst over President Obama's post-election plans on immigration is growing amid revelations that the Citizen and Immigration Service (USCIS) has issued a procurement request for as many as 34 million work permits and green cards.

The solicitation, discovered by Breitbart News, says bidders must be able to produce at least 4 million cards annually over a five year contract and surge to provide as many as 9 million documents in the early years of the contract.

This revelation provides startling confirmation of the crisis facing our Republic, said Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) The president is preparing to issue work authorization and legal status to millions of individuals illegally present in the country, in violation of plain statute.

The Alabama lawmaker added that the executive action looked poised to nullify the immigration laws of the United States and its sovereign people.

Similar speculation has lit up the conservative blogosphere, with many seeing it as an early sign of the administrations plans after the midterm elections.

Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, told Watchdog.org the president appears to be getting his ducks in a row before offering amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Its another petulant display of contempt of Congress, he said.

President Obama postponed action on immigration until after the election, saying he was worried that acting in the summer could politicize the issue. The move was also seen as a gift to vulnerable Senate Democrats who were worried executive action could motivate Republican voters to turn out at the polls.

But the White Houseon Wednesdayinsisted suggestions the procurement order was a precursor to the presidents executive action were crazy and too clever.

The fact of the matter is, there are still decisions to be made about what that policy will entail, and when were ready to announce that policy, we will announce it, press secretary Josh Earnest said. What I would caution you against doing is making assumptions about what will be in those announcements based on the procurement practices of the Department of Homeland Security.

Read the original:
Angst grows over Obamas plans for action on immigration

What Does the First Amendment Mean to You?
Group Members: Rex, Breeze, Keagan, Conner - Animas High School, Seniors - Feel free to view the rest of the seniors #39; videos at http://ahshumanities12.weebly...

By: ahshumanities12

View original post here:
What Does the First Amendment Mean to You? - Video

All-Class Lecture: Political Corruption and the First Amendment
Tim Wu, the Isidor and Seville Suzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and newly appointed head of the Poliak Center at Columbia Graduate School of Journalism discusses the ...

By: Columbia Journalism School

More:
All-Class Lecture: Political Corruption and the First Amendment - Video

First Amendment Video Project
Group Members: Noah, Dylan, Josh, and Riley - Animas High School, Seniors - Feel free to view the rest of the seniors #39; videos at http://ahshumanities12.weebl...

By: ahshumanities12

The rest is here:
First Amendment Video Project - Video

Contact Information

Available for logged-in reporters only

Newswise WASHINGTON, DC (October 23, 2014)One billion Facebook users generate 2.7 billion likes per day (or 1,875,000 every minute). Increasingly, social media has become a form of social and political engagement, and 47 percent of Facebook users have liked political cause-related comments. Protected free speech is a luxury the Western world has long enjoyed. Does clicking the universally understood thumbs-up like constitute actual speech? It conveys a message understood by most, but should it command constitutional protection? A recent article in the National Communication Associations First Amendment Studies journal explores legal precedents surrounding this form of communication and surveys Facebook users attitudes.

In the case of Bland v. Roberts, an employee was fired for liking a campaign lobbying against his boss. The employee claimed the right to free speech, but the judge ruled that in the absence of sufficient speech, the case could not proceed to trial. The employee was not reinstated. An ensuing debate revealed that large numbers of individuals felt this judgment would lead to fear and inhibition, and deter free expression of ideas and opinions onlinethe chilling effect. Ironically, the First Amendment protects symbolic language, even rude gestures such as the finger. If it can stretch this far, then surely it is not unreasonable to expect coverage for the Facebook thumbs up. In the context of todays morphing methods of communication, is the law failing to keep up?

The authors developed a study of Facebook users and devised a First Amendment Scale to examine the value of computer source code communication and its relation to free speech. Four hundred forty-four participants took part. More than half had liked political content in the past. Four hypotheses were tested and all proved true:

1. Like users most certain of who would see their like expected recipients to understand their meaning. 2. Those who felt they had sent a message with a like were sure that recipients understood. 3. Participants believed when using like on political content that their posts were constitutionally protected. 4. Those using like to convey a message believed that this should be protected by the First Amendment.

The most common interpretations for like amongst participants were agree, support, and generally endorse a person, place, or idea. Overall, participants believed that a like was akin to speech as described in the First Amendment.

The twist in the tale is that on appeal, the Bland v. Roberts judgment was reversed, finding that the thumbs up indeed qualified for protection. In both offline and online domains, each community of social practice negotiates its own language conventions and creates its own democracy of meaning. The parsing of the First Amendment will continue to be influenced by these communities, note the studys authors, Susan H. Sarapin of Troy University and Pamela Morris of the University of WisconsinLa Crosse. They finish by urging further research on the chilling effect and its potential negative impact on freedom of speech online.

###

NOTE TO JOURNALISTS

Link:
Should a Facebook "Like" Be Protected Free Speech?