One week after a double murder on a Portland MAX train horrified the city, a man riding a Blue Line MAX in East Portland started pummeling a TriMet operator who asked him to stop screaming about First Amendment rights.

The alleged assault occurred shortly after 2:15 pm this afternoon at the MAX station on East 102nd Avenue and Burnside Street. As the train approached the station, the operator asked a passenger to stop shouting, says Portland Police Bureau spokesman Sgt. Chris Burley.

"He was screaming and yelling about First Amendment rights," says Burley. "The operator of the train broadcast over the loudspeaker that he needed to quiet down."

When the train reached its stop, the operator went into the train's passenger car to ask the man to leave. The passenger physically attacked him, though accounts differ slightly on how. Police say he punched the driver. "He struck him several times," says Burley.

TriMet says the driver was pushed to the ground. Other passengers pulled the man off the driver.

TriMet spokeswoman Roberta Altstadt says the driver wasn't seriously hurt.

"The operator received minor cuts and bruises, that sort of thing, but wasn't transported for medical care," she says. "He will be fine."

The alleged assailant was arrested blocks away. Police have identified him as 23-year-old Steven Caldwell. He's been charged with fourth degree assault and three misdemeanors.

The assault comes at a raw moment for the city.

It's been one week since two men were killed trying to stop the anti-Muslim harassment of two teenage girls on a Green Line MAX train. The suspected killer, Jeremy Joseph Christian, is a white supremacist with suspected ties to right-wing extremists who have repeatedly roiled Portland with protests.

This Sunday, those "alt-right" protesters pledge to return for a rally that could mean more violence in an already tense city. Plans for counter-demonstrations are rapidly forming to disrupt the group's rallyin Terry Schrunk Plaza downtown.

At the center of these far-right protests is the demand for free speech. That demand often means pushing the boundaries of unpopular and racist rhetoric in hopes of inciting a violent response from left-wing foils.

Christian, who marched with these groups in April, entered his arraignment hearing Tuesday yelling, "Free speech or die, Portland!"

See more here:

Man Pummels MAX Train Operator While Screaming About First Amendment Rights - Willamette Week

Although Milo Yiannopoulos has resigned from Breitbart, the British-born journalist has found a way to remain in the U.S. Veuer's Amanda Kabbabe (@kabbaber) has more. Buzz60

News Sentinel Editor Jack McElroy(Photo: Paul Efird)

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

This past legislative session, state Rep. Martin Daniel introduced a bill he dubbed the Milo Bill" for Milo Yiannopoulos, the controversialex-Breitbart writer whose plans to speak at the University of California atBerkeleysparked rioting that caused the cancellation ofhis appearance.

The bill was supposed to protect freedom of speech on Tennessee campuses, a measure opponents considered unnecessary.

Rep. Mike Stewart, D-Nashville, also complained about naming bills after people that promote racism, pedophilia and hatred.

Daniel rethought the name, too, after Yiannopoulos was caught on video condoning sex between men and boys. The Knoxville Republican tweeted:"It will also be known as the Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, & the MLK JR. bill.

Too bad.

The First Amendment doesnt need help from the Tennessee legislature. But if it did, a law named after Yiannopoulos would be appropriate. The man makes a living being offensive. Thats exactly what the First Amendment must protect.

A related issue arose last week when the mayor of Portland, Ore., called on the feds to block demonstrators supporting the white supremacist who screamed slurs at women on a light-rail train then stabbed to death two men who came to their defense.

Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment, the mayor declared.

Actually, it is.The Supreme Court has made that clear in cases ranging from a 1969 rulingin favor of a KKK leader who called for "revengeance" against African Americans and Jews to a 2010 decision supporting the Westboro Baptist Church's right to picket a soldiers funeral with signs saying, "Thank God for dead soldiers."

There's a reasonvile speech must be protected. That'swhere tolerance is put to the test.

There's no need to protect speech with which everyone agrees. If Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine or Martin Luther King Jr. spoke at the University of Tennessee today, the cheers would be heard in Chattanooga.

Milo? Not so much.

Unfortunately, Americans forget this concept from time to time..

The past year has seen several instances of students trying to stop controversial speakers from appearing on campuses or shouting them down when they did: Bell Curve author Charles Murray at Middlebury College; DailyWire editor Ben Shapiro at University of Wisconsin-Madison; actor Gavin McInnes at New York University; white nationalist Richard Spencer at Texas A&M; andprovocateur Ann Coulter at Berkeley.

This reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of how the First Amendment functions.

The only effective answer to a bad idea is a good idea. Responding to speech with speech works. Protest is entirely appropriate, ifpeaceful.

But trying to silence words with which we disagree even if we find them despicable will backfire.

Jack McElroy is executive editor of the News Sentinel and can be reached at editor@knoxnews.com.

Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2rMLfXJ

Excerpt from:

First Amendment protects us all by sticking up for the despicable - Knoxville News Sentinel

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens has decided that taking millions of dollars in anonymous campaign loot makes him a champion of the First Amendment.

You have folks in the liberal media who are out of touch and have lost their minds, Greitens told KTVI Channel 2 last week. Now they are opposed to the First Amendment.

The governor rarely uses the word media without the adjective liberal, nor his political opponents as anything but career politicians. Both the media and politicians from both parties have criticized him for preaching ethics reform while taking nearly $4 million in dark money from federal super PACs during his campaign. He used a dark money Committee for a New Missouri to pay for his inauguration. It was then rolled into an ongoing dark fund to promote Greitens.

This would be ethically dubious for anyone, but particularly for a man who early in his campaign criticized candidates who set up these secretive super PACs where they dont take any responsibility for what theyre doing.

He told St. Louis Public radio in January 2016 that Ive been very proud to tell people: Im stepping forward, and you can see every single one of our donors, because we are proud of our donors and we are proud of the campaign we are running.

As Greitens, a scholar of Greek ethics, certainly knows, the word hypocrite comes from the Greek hypokrites, which means an actor whos pretending.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never definitively said that anonymous political contributions are protected by the First Amendment. The case law on anonymous speech is all over the place. Anonymous leafleting is OK, but petition signatures cant be kept secret.

The court never envisioned that groups would incorporate as social welfare organizations under the IRS code and use the anonymity granted to, say, Rotary Club donors to hide political donations. Indeed, in Citizens United vs. FEC, which opened the door to unlimited corporate campaign donations, the court took it for granted that full disclosure would cover any suspicions of corruption or bribery.

Greitens dubious First Amendment claims are supported by conservative activists like the Center for Competitive Politics. Its president, David Keating, once said his goal was to do for the First Amendment what the NRA did for the Second. If he means distort it beyond anything the Founders ever imagined, hes well on his way.

We prefer the up-front attitude of Geoffrey Standing Bear of Oklahoma, chief of the Osage Nation, which hopes to build an Indian casino in Crawford County. Yes, he told the Post-Dispatchs Tony Messenger, hed given $52,700 to Greitens dark money committee.

That was me trying to establish a good relationship with the governor of Missouri, he said. We thought we would show him respect.

The Tony Soprano rule applies: Those who want respect, give respect.

Read this article:

Editorial: Greitens stashes his sneaky money behind the First Amendment - STLtoday.com

The Post and Courier's "Watched" series chronicling police surveillance tactics has won the grand prize for work advancing the principles of the First Amendment in thethe 2017 Associated Press Media Editors Awards.

The three-part series by reporters Glenn Smith and Andrew Knapp was among the top honorees in the annual APME Awards, which recognizes watchdog journalism that saved lives, exposed bias, held government officials accountable and shed light on hidden practices. Winners will be recognized at an October conference in Washington, D.C.

"Watched" detailed how police forces across the United States are stockpiling massive databases with personal information from millions of Americans who simply crossed paths with officers. The series explored the pervasive but little-known police practice of gathering data from "suspicious" citizens in the absence of an arrest. That data can be stored indefinitely and used to track a persons movements and habits over time.

Critics contend the practice can intrude on privacy and keep innocent people under a permanent cloud of suspicion.

APME judges noted the series "produced results in Charleston, where the police chief announced an initiative to purge innocent people from the departments database, and won praise from civil libertarians and police alike for shedding light on surveillance techniques often hidden from public view."

"Watched" had previously won a National Headliner Award and took first-place honors for investigative and public service reporting in the South Carolina Press Association Awards.

Reach Glenn Smith at 843-937-5556 or follow him on Twitter @glennsmith5.

Continued here:

Post and Courier wins prestigious APME First Amendment award for series on police tracking methods - Charleston Post Courier

Donald Trump calls the press 'the enemy.' If that's the case, there's a lot more people on that list, says columnist E.J. Montini.

Criticisms of Ducey and Trump are rooted in muddled thinking about the First Amendment's free speech protections.(Photo: Photo: Getty Images)

Gov. Doug Ducey was right to veto the legislation (Senate Bill 1384) limiting the ability of school administrators to regulate the content of student newspapers. Much of the criticism of the veto was rooted in muddled thinking about the First Amendments free speech protections.

The First Amendment is a negative injunction: Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...

That gives Americans the right to write or say what they want. But it doesnt guarantee an audience. Or a publisher.

At the high school level, the publisher of a student newspaper is clearly the school. The vetoed bill would have sharply curtailed the authority a publisher usually has over content. Administrators could only exercise oversight over material that is defamatory, violates privacy or law, or creates an imminent danger of inciting disorder or unlawful conduct.

Those are all nebulous standards, subject to judgment, disagreement and litigation. The bill stated that the school isnt liable for content published in the student media, but thats a doubtful immunity.

The Arizona Constitution is highly protective of the right to sue. Courts are likely to look askance at letting the adults in the equation, and the only deep pockets in the picture, off the hook.

Schools exercising the usual authority of a publisher isnt an infringement on the First Amendment rights of student journalists. If the publisher of this newspaper took the advice of some of you and discontinued this column, my First Amendment rights wouldnt have been violated.

MONTINI: Ducey praises 'free speech' law that could put you in jail

A school punishing a student for content published on a private blog or Facebook might implicate First Amendment rights. But not publishing something in a publication paid for by the school doesnt. Thats exercising the prerogatives of a publisher.

This is a minor point, but not an irrelevant one. One of the challenges our schools face is maintaining an orderly learning environment. Schools arent helped by the Legislature concocting another legal thicket for them to negotiate.

Its unfair to Ducey to bring Donald Trump into the conversation at this point. Ducey behaved responsibly with his veto. Trump is behaving irresponsibly in his war with certain media. Nevertheless, much of the commentary regarding Trumps war with the media is also rooted in muddled thinking about the First Amendment.

The New York Times has a First Amendment right to write what it wants about Trump. And Trump has a First Amendment right to say what he thinks about what The Times writes about him.

Trump exercising his First Amendment rights doesnt curtail or threaten The Times First Amendment rights.

Some commentators make a more subtle point. By attacking certain media, they assert, Trump is undermining the role of the press that the First Amendment was intended to protect.

This is a historical miscue. At the time the First Amendment was adopted, the press, mostly newspapers and pamphleteers, were fiercely and transparently partisan.

The notion of the media as neutral and objective transmitters of information is a modern-era pretense. And the American people have never bought it.

In 2013, Gallup asked how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media such as newspapers, TV, and radio when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all? Well before Trump twitter storms became an important element of public discourse, 55 percent of respondents answered not very much or none at all.

There have been reports that the Trump administration was mulling abandoning the daily White House briefing or even booting reporters out of the White House, and this has been decried as an attack on the First Amendment. This has been the most muddled thinking of all.

Nothing in the First Amendment guarantees self-selected media office space in the White House or an administration spokesman to play gotcha with on a daily basis. Getting rid of both might reduce the herd mentality and emphasis on gotcha journalism and produce more diverse and substantive reporting.

Trump is frequently reckless and irresponsible in his attacks on the media. But so long as we are free to write and say that, the First Amendment is not under siege.

Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com.

MORE FROM ROBB:

Attorneys fleece Target for $18.5 million

Tom Horne's case proves the system is broken

There's a better way to boost teacher pay

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2sdReli

Read the original:

Robb: No, your First Amendment rights aren't being attacked - AZCentral.com

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler speaks during a press conference on January 17, 2017 in Portland. Don Ryan / AP

"It may be tempting to shut down speech we disagree with, but once we allow the government to decide what we can say, see, or hear, or who we can gather with, history shows us that the most marginalized will be disproportionately censored and punished for unpopular speech," said the organization in a statement immediately following Wheeler's call to block the parades.

"The mayor is not just anyone on the street, he's a government official who has to uphold the Constitution," said Mathew dos Santos, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon. "And he's not doing that," he said.

"Portland has a proud history of protest. I am a firm supporter of the First Amendment, no matter the views expressed. I believe we had a case to make about the threats to public safety posed by this rally at this place and at this time. My job is to protect the safety of everyone... protesters, counter-protesters, and bystanders alike," said Wheeler in a

Alt-right groups have scheduled a "Trump Free Speech Rally," on June 4. A "March against Sharia" event was scheduled for June 10 but organizers decided to cancel the rally in Portland and move it to Seattle instead.

Organizers felt the city was no longer safe for them.

"Due to Mayor Wheeler's inflammatory comments and what we feel is an incitement of violence, he has shamefully endangered every scheduled participant. Consequently, in order to ensure the safety of those who had planned on attending, we have taken the decision to cancel the Portland March Against Sharia," wrote the organization planning the march in a

June 4th parade organizer Joey Gibson said the mayor "needs to sit down and take a minute and listen," and feels that he is trying to "pin" Jeremy Christian on his movement.

Christian, who was arraigned on

The City of Portland has already

Wheeler also urged the federal government to follow in his footsteps and revoke federal permits issued to the group.

But the U.S. General Services Administration, charged with issuing permits, announced on Wednesday that it would allow the parades.

"All rules and regulations were followed by the applicant for the permit, including the timeframe for review. Since the permit was lawfully obtained to assemble at this federal location, GSA has no basis to revoke the permit," the agency said in a statement.

Revoking permits amounts to government suppression of speech, which has always been illegal, dos Santos said. You cannot withhold permits based on people's viewpoints, he said.

The case is a mirror image of another First Amendment battle out near Chicago 40 years ago.

In 1977, a neo-Nazi organization chose to stage their parade in the suburban Chicago town of Skokie, which at the time was home to thousands of Holocaust survivors.

Parade goers were slated to wear Nazi uniforms and emulate salutes and anti-Jewish chants from Nazi Germany.

Outraged community members tried to put a stop to the parade by using the same arguments set forth by Wheeler. The group said the parade promotes hate speech that would inflict emotional distress upon survivors of the Holocaust.

A girl leaves a message at a makeshift memorial for two men on May 29, 2017 in Portland. The men were killed on a commuter train while trying to stop another man from harassing two young women who appeared to be Muslim. Terray Sylvester / Reuters

Ultimately the Nazi group, represented by the ACLU, won at the Supreme Court level and was legally allowed to march under the first amendment. The group ended up holding a rally downtown instead.

"Part of the problem with hate speech is that it's in the eye of the beholder," said Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. "There is no neutral way to decide what hate speech is and courts will not even attempt it," he said.

The alt-right group has not made any indication that they are planning to incite imminent danger or violence during the parade, which may be questionable under the law, he said. "The idea that you can ban speech because it's offensive or may cause anxiety is not consistent with the first amendment."

Thus far, the alt-right group has not brought suit against the city for revoking their permits, but if the situation does arise, it's an open and shut case, Stone said.

"It's inconceivable to me that a court would uphold the mayor's argument," he said. "This is long standing, well-settled law, and the mayor has it completely wrong," he said.

Follow this link:

Does the First Amendment Protect Alt-Right Parades in Portland? - NBCNews.com

Media Matters for America (blog)

NRA Readies Next Attack Against The First Amendment Media Matters for America (blog) He then played a preview of a message featuring NRA's CEO Wayne LaPierre in which LaPierre claimed the media has weaponized the First Amendment against the Second, and that America would have fallen long ago had people placed their trust in the ...

Continued here:

NRA Readies Next Attack Against The First Amendment - Media Matters for America (blog)

Photo courtesy the MTHS Hawkeye

For the fourth year in a row, the Mountlake Terrace High Schools student newspaper The Hawkeye has won the First Amendment Press Freedom Award from the Journalism Education Association (JEA) and National Scholastic Press Association (NSPA). The paper was given the award during an opening ceremony at a JEA/NSPA conference on Thursday night in Seattle.

The award recognizes free and responsible student media that thrive at the school. While members of the Hawkeye, it is also an accomplishment for the district and school administrators. Board Member Ann McMurray was also in attendance Thursday night to accept the award.

Its an award that is earned by having a community that believes in and values the principles of the First Amendment, a school administration that values and protects students rights, and thriving student media where students are in full control of editorial decisions, Hawkeye teacher adviser Vince DeMiero said. That starts at the community level, so this is as much an Edmonds School District award as it is an MTHS award or a Hawkeye award.

The award was given to ten other schools from across the country.

(I am) incredibly humbled, but also terribly sad that everypublic school in America isnt a First Amendment Press Freedom Award winner, DeMiero said.

Schools compete for the title by answering questionnaires submitted by an adviser and at least one editor. Publications that advanced to the next level were then asked to provide responses from the principal and all media advisers and student editors, indicating their support of the First Amendment. In addition, semifinalists submitted their printed policies.

Those who were selected showed a strong commitment to the First Amendment and student media.

Mountlake Terrace High School has won the award several times, and was among the first to win the award in 2000.

See the rest here:

MTHS Hawkeye wins First Amendment Press Freedom Award for fourth year in a row - MLT News

Creativity

The First Amendment Appears in Arabic in Campaign From the ACLU Creativity This bold campaign from the American Civil Liberties Union sets out to show how powerful the First Amendment is -- in any language. Conceived out of New York-based Emergence Creative, the out-of-home effort simply, in black and white, features the ...

Read more:

The First Amendment Appears in Arabic in Campaign From the ACLU - Creativity

If you find yourself in Times Square between now and June, look up. You may catch a glimpse of the First Amendment in Spanish, English, and Arabic.

The ad on the Reuters Digital Tower at 3 Times Square is part of an ACLU campaign to raise awareness about First Amendment rights and remind people that the Constitution is for all of us, no matter who you are or what language you speak.

In addition to the Times Square billboard, the ads were unveiled at 30 bus shelters across Washington, D.C. The First Amendment in all three languages is also displayed on a fence in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn and will appear on a wall in the arts district of downtown Los Angeles.

Additional ads may appear in other cities and in other languages in the coming days and weeks.

The idea for the campaign came about shortly after Donald Trump was elected president on a wave of anti-immigrant hysteria and a pledge to ban Muslims from entering the United States. It was conceived of by the agency Emergence Creative, which approached the ACLU with the idea in December 2016.

In addition to protecting freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to peaceably protest, the First Amendment protects the right to practice your religion and not be discriminated against for doing so.

Because so much of the ACLUs work involves protecting First Amendment rights, and because we now have a president that openly disdains such freedoms, it seemed like a good time to point out the We the People means everyone.

Several advertising vendors refused to run the campaign. Representatives who handle advertising space for New Yorks Metropolitan Transit Authority and Washingtons Metropolitan Area Transit Authority declined, saying they did not accept issue oriented advertising.However, the vendors who did offer space did so at a substantial discount in part because they wanted to support the effort.

The First Amendment ads will run in Times Square through June, appearing twice an hour for 15 seconds on the electronic billboard at Reuters Digital Tower, 3 Times Square. The ads in Washington will appear on 30 bus shelters across the city for four weeks.

Any advertisers who would like to donate space should contact the ACLU.

Read the rest here:

The First Amendment Looks Beautiful in Any Language | American ... - ACLU (blog)

Highline

Science

Education

Weird News

Business

TestKitchen

Tech

College

Media

Pollster

Heroin Epidemic

Donald Trump

Racial Inequality

US Senate

Election Results

HuffPost Hill

Police Brutality

Hate Crimes

Supreme Court

Congress

So That Happened

Entertainment

Comedy

Celebrity

TV

Arts + Culture

Backspace

Movies

Healthy Living

Travel

Style

Taste

Black Voices

Latino Voices

Women

Fifty

Queer Voices

Parents

ALL SECTIONS

Arts + Culture

Black Voices

Books

Business

Candidate Confessional

Celebrity

College

Comedy

Crime

Divorce

Dolce Vita

Eat the Press

Education

Election Results

Entertainment

Fifty

Good News

Green

Healthy Living

Highline

Home

Horoscopes

HuffPost Data

HuffPost Hill

Impact

Latino Voices

Media

Newsletters

Outspeak

Parents

Politics

Pollster

Queer Voices

Religion

Science

Small Business

So That Happened

Sports

Style

Taste

Tech

Teen

TestKitchen

Travel

TV

Weddings

Weird News

Women

FEATURED

OWN

Paving the Way

The Power Of Humanity

Retire Well

Sleep + Wellness

What's Working: Purpose + Profit

WorldPost

04/07/2017 11:44 am ET

For the past year, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE, the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization where I work) has been building up resources in our new First Amendment Library. This week, weve added a feature that I hope will help anyone interested in First Amendment issues understand the terms commonly used in legal and academic discussions about these rights: the First Amendment Glossary.

With over 75 terms included, FIREs First Amendment Glossary is meant to be a quick guide for those who are interested in free speech advocacy but may not have the time or inclination to pore over academic literature and case law in order to understand issues such as the the difference between public forums and limited public forums.

The glossary gives visitors brief definitions for terms that commonly emerge when discussing civil liberties issues, and it additionally directs readers to other areas of FIREs First Amendment Library that offer extended commentary and primary documents, such as Supreme Court opinions that have colored the jurisprudence surrounding particular terms.

For example, if a reader views the term prior restraint in our glossary, they will be directed to the portion of FIREs Guide to Free Speech on Campus that discusses how prior restraint has been interpreted through the yearsfrom the Supreme Courts argument for why the publication of the Pentagon Papers did not necessitate prior restraint, to the battle college journalists have faced to keep the precedent set by a high school student newspaper case allowing for prior restraint from being applied to their campus newspapers.

Read more:

A First Amendment Glossary to Help Readers Understand Key Legal Terms - Huffington Post

Some Ricochet readers may already be familiar with the First Amendment Library, launched last November and maintained by the non-partisan non-profit Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE, where I work). Today, weintroduced a First Amendment Glossary to the library. Featuring definitions and explanations for over 75 terms commonly associated with First Amendment law, we hope this glossary gives people the resources to feel confident entering discussions related to free speech.

For those interested in going beyond the definitions featured, our glossary also serves as a great jumping off point for conducting additional research. Many of the meanings and applications for the terms featured in this glossary have evolved over time, so we have included links that take readers to other parts of the library which offer further explanations and added context.

For example, clicking on obscene material points readers to the portion of FIREs Guide to Free Speech on Campus which provides further analysis of the Miller v. California (1973) test for obscenity. If readers are interested in viewing Miller or any other Supreme Court opinion related to obscenity, the links included in the definition direct readers to related opinions in the librarys First Amendment Case Database.

Here at FIRE we are uniquely understanding of the fact that most people, especially students busy with class work and extracurriculars, do not have the time to sit down and read through the seemingly endless amount of First Amendment scholarship and case law available. Now though, understanding the difference between expressive association and intimate association just a few clicks away. We hope this glossary, along with other library resources, gives readers the foundation required to intelligently argue for and protect their civil liberties.

Visit link:

Making Academic and Legal First Amendment Issues More Accessible - Ricochet.com

Gene Policinski, Gannett 11:59 a.m. ET April 4, 2017

A man looks over the front pages from newspapers around the country on display outside the Newseum in Washington in this file photo from November of 2014.(Photo: Susan Walsh/AP)

Who brings us the news? Mostly its still men, according to a new Womens Media Center study, Divided 2017.

The report says that among the major TV networks, online versions of CNN, Fox, The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast, and the nations 10 largest newspapers:

#EqualPayDay: What you need to know about women in the workforce

Editorial: First Amendment victory in Trenton

The gender disparity shown in the survey is obvious in terms of numbers and simple equity, considering that women make up 51 percent of the population. But its implications, including the impact on news credibility, may not be so clear to news consumers. Cristal Williams Chancellor, the centers director of communications, noted in an interview that many of our fellow citizens are comfortable with men in anchor chairs or dominating story bylines. But in an era in which a majority of people say they distrust the news media and its motives, the most credible news operations should have diverse staffs that represent both their subjects and their audiences, she said.

Clearly, the news industry still falls short of having enough women to meet that goal. Why?

Its not for a lack of qualified female job candidates-in-training: Women made up two-thirds of the student body enrolled in journalism and media-oriented degree programs during the fall 2013 semester, according to data from the most recent Annual Survey of Journalism and Mass Communication Enrollment.

One factor in the lack of overall visibility may come from the finding that lifestyle, health and education remain the topics where women most likely appear. I can recall that same circumstance in newsrooms of the 1960s.

Another bit of history: The American Society of News Editors annual newsroom census found in 2016 that the number of women leaders and employees has remained nearly the same since the 1990s. The survey that year reported that women made up about a third of newsroom employees overall, with a higher number employed at online-only sites than at newspapers. Women comprised 38 percent of daily newspaper employees in this years survey and nearly 50 percent of online-only news organization employees.

At a 2014 ASNE conference, women who were editors also called for changes in hiring and the review/promotion process to address old canards of how women in leadership roles are perceived. Fast Company senior editor Kathleen Davis referenced a study of 248 performance reviews of 180 men and women in media, prepared by both men and women, which showed the word abrasive was used 17 times for women and never for men.

None of these stats or biases is the sole province of newsrooms, to be sure. And going back to the mid-20th century, women in leadership roles in major news operations from the news desk to the corporate suite more often resulted from inherited ownership than from corporate diversity considerations.

But the profession that represents us all in gathering and reporting the news ought to be more of a leader in the 21st century in being representative of all of us.

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C., 20001.

Read or Share this story: https://njersy.co/2nTrwB2

Continued here:

Inside the First Amendment: Men bring much of the news - NorthJersey.com

by: Mark Boxley Updated: Apr 6, 2017 - 11:39 PM

ORANGE PARK, Fla. - The owner of a video game store in Orange Park has filed a federal lawsuit against the town over a 9-foot inflatable Mario that officials say is a sign code violation.

Mario, the iconic Nintendo character, has caused a visible increase in foot traffic and even became a local attraction, Gone Broke Gaming owner Scott Fisher said in the suit.

Fisher opened his store in 2015 on Kingsley Avenue in Orange Park, a suburb of Jacksonville.

After getting the OK from his landlord and neighboring businesses, Fisher decided to put up the towering inflatable Mario character in July.

The impact on his business was immediate, he said.

People who came in often commented to Scott that they never knew the store was there until they saw Mario, the lawsuit said. Others said that Mario made it much easier to find Gone Broke Gamings small storefront on the otherwise busy road.

By the end of the month, though, an Orange Park Code Enforcement officer issued a notice of code violation, saying the inflatable display was an illegal portable sign.

If he left the Mario in front of the store, Fisher could have faced fines of up to $250 a day.

Fisher pointed out in his lawsuit that the towns sign code allowed inflatable displays, specifically if it constitutes a creative idea that lacks a commercial message.

Under (the creative idea) category, a business could display the same exact inflatable Mario that Gone Broke Gaming was displaying, so long as that business was not selling Mario-related products, the lawsuit said.

Fisher claims the towns prohibition of the inflatable Mario under its sign code constitutes discrimination and a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech.

The lawsuit is seeking the court to declare the Orange Park sign code unconstitutional, a permanent injunction prohibiting the town from taking enforcement action against the store for displaying the Mario, attorneys fees and $1 for the violation of Fishers constitutional rights.

As of Thursday, Orange Park leaders had not filed a response to Fishers lawsuit.

2017 Cox Media Group.

See the article here:

Florida video game shop owner claims First Amendment violation over town's inflatable Mario ban - WFTV Orlando

Sacramento Bee

Criminalizing the First Amendment: Republicans can't handle truth ... Sacramento Bee Convinced that paid, professional protesters are behind demonstrations against President Donald Trump, Republican lawmakers in several states are pushing ... and more »

Excerpt from:

Criminalizing the First Amendment: Republicans can't handle truth ... - Sacramento Bee

Harpo Productions/Oz WorksLast week, a Georgia state judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against talk-show host Dr. Oz over claims made on his show last year that much of the olive oil sold in U.S. grocery stores is fraudulent. The suit alleged that Oz wrongly disparaged the corrupt olive oil industry.

The lawsuit was brought against Oz by an industry trade group, the New Jersey-based North American Olive Oil Association (NAOOA), under Georgia's so-called veggie libel law. It's one of about a dozen states with these awful lawswhich allow a party to sue for damages if a person allegedly disparages their agricultural productson the books.

Oz won in court thanks to Georgia's anti-SLAPP law. Such laws gives people who speak out on issues of public concern a useful tool to counter lawsuits that seek to intimidate them into silence. ("SLAPP" is an acronym that stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation.")

Several domestic olive oil brands had also been sued alongside Oz.

Fraud in the olive oil business is, in fact, a longstanding problem. A 1917 Missouri court case, Lo Buono v. V. Viviano & Bros Macaroni Mfg. Co., centered on fraudulent olive oil, as did a 1950 federal case involving another producer. In the past decade, The New Yorker has dedicated at least two lengthy pieces to the issue of fraudulent olive oil. And Congress recently held hearings on the issue.

The fictional Corleone crime family in Mario Puzo's The Godfather used its olive oil business, Genco, as a cover for its criminal activities. That depiction of mafia involvement in the olive oil trade isn't far from the truth in some cases. Facing U.S. tax fraud charges in 1951, mafia boss and drug trafficker Francisco Paolo Coppola claimed to earn much of his income as an olive oil producer.

How does such fraud play out? An olive oil might be misbranded, claiming to be of higher quality than it really isfrom an earlier pressing, for exampleor to be from one country but hail from another. Or it might be adulterated, containingfor examplea mix of olive oil and other less expensive food oils.

In fact, the NAOOA, which represents many foreign olive oil producers, whose products make up the bulk of the olive oil sold in the United States, is itself keen to identify and prevent such fraud in the industry. A 2015 report issued by the group, for example, raises "significant questions" about the quality of California olive oils tested by NAOOA.

The NAOOA clearly understands the value of free speech.

Listen, I think Oz is a quack. Forbes writer Kavin Senapathy, whose writings expose quackery around food, was probably right when she called Oz's olive oil segment as "yet another gag in his lineup of shady antics."

But it's also another reminder of attacks on Dr. Oz's First Amendment rights.

In 2014, Oz was called before Congress to explain his claims about a variety of foods and supplements he claims have particular health-promotion qualities.

"Oz has absolutely zero responsibility to hold mainstream views and every right to make money off of those views," I wrote in a 2014 piece defending Oz's free-speech rights and attacking Congress for attempting to intimidate him into silence. "His popularity has absolutely no impact on his right to say whatever the hell he wants to say. And being hauled before Congress for saying what he wants places a tremendous burden on his, your, and my First Amendment rights."

As a reminder, the First Amendment protects speech regardless of its subjective value. It protects speech by neo-Nazis and Black Muslims, pornographers and religious zealots, and climate change alarmists and deniers alike. And your right to speak freely is stronger today thanks to a renowned medical doctor who freely espouses many views that appear, by any reasonable measure, to be objectively false.

Critics of Oz are free to rail against his idiocies. I hope they'll continue to do so. But when courts and lawmakers attempt to intimidate him into silence, they are more apt to turn Dr. Oz into a First Amendment hero than expose what he truly is.

See the article here:

Dr. Oz Rebuffs First Amendment Challenge by Olive Oil Industry ... - Reason

Jack Greiner 7:04 a.m. ET March 10, 2017

John C. Greiner, attorney for Graydon Head Legal Counsel. He's a commercial litigator with an emphasis on communications and media law. He serves on the firm's Appellate Practice Group. (Photo: Provided, Provided)

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument recentlyon a case that poses the question whether the First Amendment prevents a state from prohibiting a person from using certain designated social media sites. On its face, that question may elicit a question in response, e.g. why would the state prevent anyone from using social media?

And the answer is that North Carolina has a statute that prohibits registered sex offenders from accessing: a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site.

The statute defines commercial social networking site as one that:

That definition, of course, sweeps a lot of sites under its reach, including LinkedIn. And that poses a problem for people affected by the law. People use social networking for any number of reasons some trivial, some not. Job seekers no doubt use LinkedIn to search for opportunities and otherwise network. A law that shuts off that resource makes it tough to find work.

The law may or may not be good policy. But that isnt the issue for the Supreme Court. The question there is whether the Constitution permits it. And that decision may depend on a determination about what the statute actually prohibits. In upholding the law, the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that the law did not restrict expressive conduct. And for that reason, the First Amendment did not invalidate the law, so long as the statute advanced an important government interest and wasnt substantially broader than it needed to be to achieve the interest. Applying this test, the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that the governments interest in protecting children from sexual predators was important, and the statutes limited application (it didnt bar all internet usage) wasn't overly broad.

But the U.S. Supreme Court may conclude the statute in fact limits expressive conduct. If so, North Carolina would need to prove the ban is the least restrictive means to achieve the interest. That is a tougher test. And the Supreme Court may apply it. Justice Ruth Ginsburg, for example, noted that the First Amendment protects the right not only to speak but the right to receive information. A law barring access to a broad swath of social media sites would bar the receipt of information. If thats the case, and North Carolina has to prove the statute is the least restrictive means it will be in for an uphill fight. That standard allows the opposing party to effectively brainstorm all of the ways the law could be restricted. And if the court agrees with any of the ideas, it can invalidate the law.

We'll see how the Supreme Court resolves this one. There is still the prospect of a 4-4 tie (until Neil Gorsuch is confirmed). That would allow the law to stand. But if the Supreme Court applies the more strict standard, the odds are long for North Carolina.

It goes to show that we never know when the First Amendment will pop up. But it protects people we like as well as people who creep us out.

Jack Greiner is a lawyer with the Graydon Head law firm in Cincinnati and represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues

Read or Share this story: http://cin.ci/2msX0OZ

Continued here:

Is there a First Amendment right to LinkedIn? - Cincinnati.com

Vice President Mike Pence's vow to go after WikiLeaks for "one of the most significant compromises of national security in recent memory" could run smack into a First Amendment wall, according to one legal expert.

Pence, in an interview with Fox News' Bret Baier Thursday night, promised that those responsible for the 8,000-plus-file dump of CIA secrets, possibly including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, will pay a hefty price.

THE WEEK IN PICTURES

"Assange is clearly a media entity, albeit an unorthodox one... so the thief, the person who hands it to WikiLeaks, is the criminal. Not WikiLeaks."

- Judge Andrew Napolitano

"Trafficking in national security information, as is alleged WikiLeaks has done, is a serious offense," Pence said in an exclusive"Special Report"appearance. "This president and this administration will take it very seriously and use the full force of the law, and the resources of the United States, to hold all of those to account that were involved."

The idea of prosecuting Assange has been floating around since 2010, when WikiLeaks shared a massive trove of U.S. secrets leaked by Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning, then known as Bradley Manning. But to date, Assange has not been charged with any crime related to his website.

SESSIONS ASKS REMAINING 46 UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS TO RESIGN

The Australian-born Assange remains holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London where he was granted asylum in 2012, because of a European arrest warrant stemming from sexual assault allegations made by two women in 2010. Assange denies the claims, but risks deportation the moment he steps foot outside of that embassy.

Prosecuting Assange for the document dump would be an uphill battle for the U.S., according to Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano. In the modern, increasingly broad definition of press, WikiLeaks fits the bill, he said.

"If a stolen document containing state secrets gets into the hands of the press, which is loosely defined as any entity in the business of revealing things, and it is a matter of public interest then it can be exposed with impunity," Napolitano said. "Assange is clearly a media entity, albeit an unorthodox one... so the thief, the person who hands it to WikiLeaks, is the criminal. Not WikiLeaks."

Pence is not the only elected official who would like to see Assange behind bars.

"Assange should spend the rest of his life wearing an orange jumpsuit," Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said in a Thursday statement. "He's an enemy of the American people and an ally to Vladimir Putin."

Tuesday's leak of more than 8,000 documents touched off an international uproar, as some of the spy agency's most closely guarded cyber tools were allegedly revealed to the world. The CIA, according to the files, has the ability to spy on people through their smartphones and certain TVs and computers, expressed interest in hacking into the electrical systems of automobiles and operates a clandestine hacking sites in Germany.

While the First Amendment may protect Assange, it would not cover anyone who illegally leaked the material to his organization. The FBI has already mounted an investigation aimed at finding the mole who divulged the material or any external hacker who retrieved it from CIA servers.

But U.S. investigators will get no help from Assange on that score.

"We're specialists in source protection," Assange said.

Adding to the difficulty in tracing the source of this leak is the fact that many of the tools the government would have used may have just been shared with the public, at least according to WikiLeaks.

"How can you use your full resources when they were just radically depleted?" cybersecurity expert Gregory Keeley wondered. "This is analogous to the nuclear football codes being posted on Facebook."

Go here to read the rest:

First Amendment could protect Assange, despite Pence vow, says legal expert - Fox News

Peter Gabiola thought he was on the right track in 2013. He was out of prison and had been off parole for retail theft for more than a year when he started a new job with a Buffalo Grove sales and marketing firm.

But about an hour after he started, someone at the business Googled his name and saw that he was listed as being on parole. The company fired him immediately, he said.

The Illinois Department of Corrections had removed his records from its website. Commercial website Mugshots.com, however, still featured the information.

After having two more job offers rescinded, Gabiola typed his name into Google himself, saw his page on Mugshots.com, and contacted another site, Unpublisharrest.com, to try to get it taken down. He said the site, which only offers its service for Mugshots.com, told him it would cost $15,000 to attempt to scrub the information with no guarantee that his profile would be removed.

Decades ago, booking photos taken after someone is accused of, though not necessarily found guilty of, a crime had a shelf life, remaining available only if someone kept a newspaper clipping or was willing to visit the public library to scroll through microfilm.

But in the internet age, mug shots culled from public law enforcement endure on the web. The sites argue that people have the right to know whether, say, their son's baseball coach has been arrested. Mugshots.com says it's merely republishing arrest information from publicly available government records, so the First Amendment immunizes it from liability.

However, the growing business of charging consumers money to wipe the slate clean is drawing scrutiny across the country.

Illinois and some other states prohibit companies that publish mug shots from soliciting or accepting fees to remove or correct information about criminal records, equating that business model to extortion. Some credit card companies have policies prohibiting the use of their cards on mug shot removal sites.

A cottage industry of reputation-management websites has sprung up, offering comprehensive removal services so people whose mug shots are published don't have to go through the time-consuming and expensive process of contacting each site individually to get them removed.

Gabiola is a lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit seeking class-action status against Mugshots.com. The lawsuit alleges the site posts incomplete records so, in turn, Unpublisharrest.com, which the suit claims is a sister site, can solicit "takedown" fees from people desperate for a more wholesome digital footprint.

The lawsuit, filed last year, seeks $1,000 for each class member, plus punitive damages, and aims to force Mugshots.com to remove class members' photos. It seeks to represent, among others, anyone from Illinois whose information has been published on the site since Nov. 21, 2011, and anyone from other states whose information has been published since Nov. 21, 2012.

About 43,500 inmates currently are housed in Illinois prisons, and the experience of ex-inmates like Gabiola has drawn the attention of state Attorney General Lisa Madigan. She has intervened in Gabiola's case against Mugshots.com, saying the state "has a substantial interest in protecting citizens against financial exploitation" that "preys upon the stigma associated with being arrested, convicted or imprisoned."

Mugshots.com and Unpublisharrest.com "used photographs from the most humiliating moments in people's lives to shake them down for money," Madigan's office said in a November court filing, characterizing Mugshots.com's business model as an "extortionate practice" that a 2014 state law prohibits and the First Amendment doesn't protect.

"They run a commercial enterprise built to obtain money from people whose notoriety consists solely of having a criminal record," the attorney general's office said in a court filing.

Mug shot websites are on the radars of other states as well.

At least seven states have mug shot-related legislation pending, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks legislative efforts. Florida has introduced legislation similar to the Illinois law, though past Sunshine State efforts have failed.

Website critics say the industry can undermine former inmates' job prospects, particularly at a time when a widening swath of the public backs reforms to make it easier for former prisoners to find work as a path to rehabilitation.

But First Amendment rights for even unpopular speakers must be protected, a lawyer for Mugshots.com said.

"These are perilous times for the First Amendment," said David Ferrucci, a lawyer representing Mugshots.com. "We need to defend everybody's First Amendment rights."

Like Madigan, the lawyers who filed the lawsuit against Mugshots.com aren't convinced by the First Amendment argument.

"Freedom of the press does not include the right to use incorrect or wrong information to profit off of the worst moment of another person's life," said Stuart Clarke, an attorney with Chicago law firm Berton N. Ring. "The First Amendment is not a blanket protection for everything you do."

Gabiola, 53, who no longer lives in the Chicago area, said in a recent interview that it has been difficult for him to find a job and housing because Mugshots.com incorrectly still shows him as being on parole.

He said he just lost a job he held for four months, supervising crews that clean rail cars holding chemicals. When he was being considered for the job, he was asked whether he had ever been convicted of a felony, confirmed that he had, and still got the job, he said. His boss, however, recently Googled him and saw his inaccurate listing on Mugshots.com.

"It's like I'm a month away from homelessness constantly, and it's because of these websites," Gabiola said. "At the very least, the information on the website should be accurate because they're only making it harder for people that are really at the bottom of the barrel in society."

Mugshots.com argues in a court filing that Gabiola's reputation is damaged by the fact that he was arrested and convicted of multiple crimes. It also said that because he and other plaintiffs haven't paid any fees, they haven't been damaged by the removal service that is at the heart of the lawsuit.

"Mr. Gabiola, for example, does not complain that he was never on parole, only that he currently is not and his criminal record on the website is not up to date," the company said. "However, a website publisher has no obligation to update."

Mugshots.com said constitutional privileges to republish information from a public record "is not lost simply because the information has become stale, or is incomplete."

"No one would reasonably suggest that republication of O.J. Simpson's arrest photos from the Nicole Brown Simpson murder case would not be protected by the First Amendment simply because the arrest photo is more than 20 years old and Simpson was ultimately acquitted of the charges," it said in a filing.

It took issue with the "extortion" characterization. Extortion generally means seeking payment before not after publishing information, the company said.

It also said Unpublisharrest.com is a website separate from Mugshots.com that offers licensing rights to the public to control specific information in the Mugshots.com database.

Mugshots.com is owned and operated by Julkisuudessa in Nevis, West Indies, according to its website. The Better Business Bureau lists Unpublisharrest.com as an alternate business name for Mugshots.com.

Gabiola said inaccurate information is more likely to compel arrestees to pay to have the information removed, and it implies that people on the website are dangerous regardless of whether they're rehabilitated.

"I committed the crimes, yes, but I did my time," he said.

Illinois residents have the right to prevent the unauthorized use of their personal identities for commercial purposes, even when the information comes from government documents that might be published in other contexts, such as in newspapers, the attorney general's office said.

Unpublisharrest.com says on its website and in court filings that the removal service is no longer available to Illinois residents, which Madigan called a "tacit admission" that its business model is illegal.

But the state law might have unintended consequences.

"The irony of the mug shots act is that it makes it impossible for any individual to remove arrest records from a website," said Ferrucci, the lawyer representing Mugshots.com. "If the goal is to make it easier to hide histories from potential employers, the Illinois mug shots act makes that impossible."

Unpublisharrest.com isn't the only company in the space. New York-based EraseMugshots.com recently announced the opening of a second office, in Chicago. However, the company says it's not affiliated with any mug shot websites.

The website advertises that it searches more than 300 mug shot websites, compiles a list of online publications from which information should be removed, and then gets it taken down within 72 hours.

People with arrest records who try to take care of the problem themselves might not realize that they could be on many mug shot websites, said Bryan Powers, an EraseMugshots.com manager. After they're removed from one, others might move up higher on Google search results, he said.

"It's like a whack-a-mole situation," Powers said.

He said his site might charge anywhere from $100 to thousands of dollars, depending on factors such as the uniqueness of a name, where the customer lives, and the length of his or her arrest record, he said. Powers declined to say how many people work for his company in Chicago.

Separate from the lawsuit against Mugshots.com, Bluhm Legal Clinic at Northwestern University's law school is trying to get the names of almost 20 exonerated people off of mug shot websites, said Samuel Tenenbaum, clinical associate professor of law.

Among them are Terrill Swift and Jacques Rivera, who spent 15 years and 21 years, respectively, in prison for crimes they didn't commit.

Swift, 39, whose effort to get his photo removed from Mugshots.com was reported by the Chicago Tribune in 2012, said it's a "bad reminder" for his photo to still be on the site five years later. The site, accessed Friday afternoon, has photos of Swift, who was wrongly convicted of rape and murder, though it also displays a video of him after he was exonerated and lists links to related stories.

"We've been exonerated," Swift said. "They should do the right thing and take our pictures off those websites."

As of Friday afternoon, Rivera, 51, was still shown as being in custody for murder. He was exonerated and released from prison in 2011.

Ferrucci, the lawyer for Mugshots.com, said the site features stories about exonerations every Sunday and removes exonerees free of charge if they contact the site and provide documentation.

However, Tenenbaum said: "We contacted them. They wouldn't do it."

byerak@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @beckyyerak

Here is the original post:

Lawsuit: Mug shot website posts incomplete records so sister site can solicit 'takedown' fees - Chicago Tribune

Forbes

The First Amendment Red Herring In The Net Neutrality Debate Forbes Since the transition in January, progressive tech policy groups have worked overtime to shield the Obama Administration's net neutrality rules from President Trump's deregulatory scythe. These rules, adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in ...

Excerpt from:

The First Amendment Red Herring In The Net Neutrality Debate - Forbes