Since its beginning, the American Republic has debated sedition, free speech, and protection of reputation. After we cut our British roots we ensured our right to criticize our leaders, the politicians who control our government. The British crown demanded loyalty of its printers, but American courts would not tolerate such prosecutions as the notion of a truly free press emerged.

Today, we are witnessing an intense intersection of politics and libel law unlike anything weve seen since the 1960s. Politicians are suing for libel damages and being sued. The current overlap of politics and libel includes a push by the president of the United States to change libel law. Those who seek change, including President Trump, say they want to make it easier for plaintiffs to prevail and collect damages. Careful what you wish for, though, because such change would ease the path for plaintiffs seeking to collect damages from public officials such as Donald Trump.

Heading into the 2020 election, the Trump campaign filed three lawsuits in a 10-day period against mainstream media.

Legal scholars and pundits have opined that Trumps pending libel complaints against The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN are weak or even dead on arrival. These analysts point out that Trumps campaign is seeking damages due to political opinions, which are protected speech under the First Amendment.

As a life-long public figure and now public official, Trump (his re-election campaign is the plaintiff) must prove that the media defendants acted with actual malice, that is, reckless disregard for the truth or that they published information knowing it was false. The actual malice standard is well established through the First Amendment by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964.

Win or lose in court, the presidents libel lawsuits also are political messaging, dramatic actions that complement his anti-press rhetoric. The stories about the libel suits are arguably more effective than the libel suits themselves in the presidents battles to discredit the mainstream press. In addition to political messaging, libel claims even when they fail in court -- can be a form of punishment.

Presidential involvement in libel litigation is rare, but not unprecedented. President Theodore Roosevelt was irritated by published allegations of corruption in the sale of the Panama Canal. He pushed the Justice Department to prosecute publisher Joseph Pulitzer and other newspapermen for criminal libel. Courts later quashed indictments.

After his presidency, Roosevelt was sued for libel by a New York political figure (William Barnes) who objected to being called corrupt by Roosevelt. The jury trial, in Syracuse in 1915, was grist for Dan Abrams book Theodore Roosevelt for the Defense. The jury ruled in Roosevelts favor; he seemed to thrive in legal combat, the book says.

Fifteen years ago, there was speculation about the prospect of President George W. Bush suing the National Enquirer. The Enquirer published a report based on unnamed sources who claimed that pressures of the job led Bush to drink, even though he said he gave up alcohol on his 40th birthday.

The president would be exceptionally ill-advised to file suit over this story, even if he knows . . . its false, wrote First Amendment lawyer Julie Hilden in 2005.

She suggested such a suit would likely fail because its actual malice claim appeared to be weak. Plus, she warned, the suit would expose the president to civil discovery. Bush did not sue.

After the 1964 election, Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater successfully sued Fact Magazine and its publisher for an article questioning Goldwater's mental fitness to hold office (Goldwater v. Ginzburg). Federal courts found that Goldwaters complaint met the actual malice standard, awarding $75,000. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1970, declined to hear the case.

In seven earlier speech-related cases filed by Donald Trump or his companies before he became president, four were dismissed on the merits, two were voluntarily withdrawn, and one was an arbitration won by Trump by default. These findings were compiled by Susan E. Seager, a First Amendment attorney who teaches media law at University of Southern California. Indeed, this appears to be a way of life for the highly litigious Trump, who has been involved in approximately 4,000 legal battles over the past 30 years, both as a plaintiff and defendant. An exhaustive analysis by USA Today detailed those seven libel cases where he initiated the lawsuits and seven more where he was named defendant. These dont even include the threats of suits, the so-called Ill sue you effect that can too often chill speech.

A common thread of these cases is the pursuit of jumbo damages. Trump alleged $5 billion in damages (in New Jersey state court) because author Timothy OBrien and his book publishers cast doubt on the size of the real estate moguls wealth. Trump lost after five years of litigation but assessed the outcome this way to The Washington Post: I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees but they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make [OBriens] life miserable, which Im happy about.

Judicial appointments are a priority for the Trump Administration. Interestingly, a judge nominated by the president in 2018 dismissed (with prejudice) a case filed by a Republican congressman.

On August 5, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge C.J. Williams of the Northern District of Iowa dismissed Congressman Devin Nunes defamation complaint against Esquire writer Ryan Lizza and its publisher. The judge said published criticism of Nunes (R-CA) was not actionable (Devin G. Nunes v. Ryan Lizza and Hearst Magazine Media, Inc).

Interestingly, part of this recent case deals directly with President Trump and his tweets. Ill quote Judge Willliams opinion regarding Trumps tweet that Obama had my wires tapped in Trump Tower:

First, to the extent defendants assert President Trump made up the tweet,

the statement is not of an concerning plaintiff (Nunes). Second, plaintiff has

not alleged that the statement is false. Third, even if the statement is factually inaccurate, the statement that plaintiffs theory about surveillance of the Trump campaign began with President Trumps tweet is not defamatory.

Sarah Palin, John McCains vice-presidential running mate in 2008, sued The New York Times for defamation, claiming that a 2017 editorial maliciously associated her with a mass shooting that injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). A federal judge dismissed her case, but a 3-0 panel of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, thus reviving the case (Sarah Palin v. The New York Times).

Besides the characters involved and the reversal in federal court this case is interesting because The New York Times published a correction: An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.

To prevail, Palin a public figure -- must show that the newspaper acted with actual malice.

Meanwhile, a former contestant on The Apprentice, Summer Zervos sued President Trump in 2017 claiming she was defamed because candidate Trump said her allegations of his sexual misconduct in 2007 were lies. In 2019, a 3-2 majority of a New York State appeals court rejected the argument from Trumps counsel that a sitting president cannot be sued in state court (Zervos v. Trump).

In addition to its spotlight on the Supremacy Clause, the Zervos lawsuit also examines the boundaries of opinion-as-defense in defamation disputes. Trumps lawyers argue that his campaign rhetoric and opinions are protected by the First Amendment.

Nicholas Sandmann, a student at Covington Catholic High School in northern Kentucky, alleged that he was defamed by news coverage and social media sharing of accounts of his encounter near the Lincoln Memorial with a Native American activist in early 2019. Sandmann sued The Washington Post for $250 million; NBC and CNN for $275 million each. CNN and The Washington Post settled for undisclosed terms.

Are media rattled by all this litigation? Yes, I think thats pretty apparent. How could they not be in this anti-press environment? Libel claims are part of a general, overarching criticism of press, reporting the news, and media prerogatives.

From a bottom-line standpoint, media must pay for legal defense. Newspaper publisher McClatchy a defendant in one of Congressman Devin Nunes myriad libel suits filed for bankruptcy in February. The Poynter Institute for journalism published commentary in 2019 that McClatchy could hire 10 reporters for the money it would spend on the Nunes lawsuit.

A small newspaper in Iowa (Carroll Times Herald) won a libel case but created a GoFundMe appeal in 2019 because the legal defense drained its resources. Response to the solicitation mainly small donations, from across the country was impressive.

Most certainly the Sandmann cases have drained considerable resources from some of the most noted media companies in the country as those out-of-court settlements show.

We also see a flurry of high-dollar claims not directly related to political speech.

On August 14, the unanimous North Carolina Supreme Court upheld a jury's libel decision against the Raleigh newspaper (Beth Desmond v. The News & Observer Publishing Company). The Ohio private liberal arts Oberlin College is appealing the whopping $44 million in damages awarded to a local bakery stemming from an alleged shoplifting attempt by three African American students (Gibsons Bakery v. Oberlin College). Rolling Stone paid dearly for its flawed article about a campus rape at the University of Virginia.

Fundamental change is not likely in the near future. Justice Clarence Thomas suggested its time for the Supreme Court to examine/roll back the New York Times v. Sullivan standard created in 1964. The premise is that current strict standards intended to protect free speech and free press make it nearly impossible for public figures and public officials to prevail in libel cases.

Justice Thomas colleagues on the Court have not publicly joined him in urging review of Sullivan.

Libel cases are percolating in federal and state courts that eventually could ripen for Supreme Court review. The Roberts Court has been protective of speech, including commercial and political speech, such as:

Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 (political contributions)

Snyder v. Phelps, 2010 (picketing at funerals)

Sorrell v. IMS Health, 2011 (data mining, drug marketing)

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 2015 (sign regulations cannot be based on content)

Matal v. Tam, 2017 (trademarks)

We all can be grateful that American libel law does not mirror British libel law, where the burden of proof is on the defendant rather than the plaintiff. Surely by now we have all seen the clickbait coverage of actor Johnny Depps libel case against The Sun (Johnny Depp v. News Group Newspapers) for its 2018 reportage of his contentious divorce, which included a headline calling him a wife beater.

American libel law is not British libel law. And we need to keep it that way.

The National Law Forum. LLCNational Law Review, Volume X, Number 234

Link:

Libel Law, Litigation Politics and Trump Ahead of 2020 Election - The National Law Review

Treasure Coast Newspapers Published 4:00 a.m. ET Aug. 21, 2020

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

As I write, the postmaster general has decided to stand down on disrupting the mail flow for the general election Nov. 3. However, based on his previous behavior and conflicts of interest, I don't trust him.

In Martin County, a safer way than mailing it is to hand-carry the ballot to the Martin County election office on the corner of Martin Luther King and Dixie Highway, up to the last minutes of the election. There is a slot outside or you can bring it in.

From Oct. 19 through Oct. 31 you can bring it inside any libraryin Martin County.

Check with the election office on any details. Make your vote count.

Harvey Finegold, Stuart

Letter carriers load mail trucks for deliveries at a U.S. Postal Service facility in McLean, Viriginia, on July 31, 2020.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

Back when I was in school, we were taught that you could not go on to the second lesson until you mastered the first lesson. If you did move forward without a full grasp of the first lesson, you were surely going to stumble and fail on the second lesson.

As we try to debate the Second Amendment, and come up with solutions on gun control, I wonder if the real root cause is not in the Second Amendment? It seems most of the mass shootings stem from someones hatred against another persons or groups freedom, religion, or right of expression. Those are First Amendment guarantees.

I grew up with guns. Some of my fondest memories as a kid was taking my gun into the woods with friends, setting up bottles or cans, and shooting at them to see who was the better shot. In addition to having fun, it also taught you respect and responsibility, because you knew the danger involved. I would hate to see that privilege taken way.

So, as we fight not to have that privilege taken away, I think we take the wrong approach. We say that weapons are there for our protection. The reality is that no personal firearm, regardless of its capabilities, would defend you against an attack from a foreign country, as it would have back when the Second Amendment was written. You would be no match for such arsenals as tanks, missiles, rockets, fighter jets, bombers, and nuclear bombs.

So my question is: What are you really protected against? Certainly not an attack from a foreign country. My guess: someone who hasnt quite mastered the first lesson (the First Amendment). The next time you really want to stand up and fight for the Second Amendment, start and practice the First Amendment.

Mike Bentz, Stuart

I was so sad to hear about the shops and restaurants in Port St. Lucie West. Having lived in PSL West for over 15 years I cannot understand why the snowbird bill that is before Congress again (vetoed by President Obama) is not passed. I am a Canadian and this bill sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio would allow seniors to stay in your wonderful country for eight instead of six months. Many Americans do not realize that we are only allowed 182 days in America and being law-abiding people we adhere to the law.

My wife and I can not access any government programs, we have health insurance and love to dine out, buy things and generally enjoy the area. The statistics for snowbirds spending is well documented. Why not increase it by a third?

The only negative reason I have been able to find is that this is an immigration issue and part of a bigger picture. No offense, but I do not want to immigrate and this is a bipartisan bill. Our government lacks common sense just like yours but tell my barber, grocery store worker or favorite waiter in PSL that this makes sense.

I last heard it was before Homeland Security, and an all-out attack from Canadian seniors could be a serious national disaster.

Looking forward to again returning this November. I'm sure my wife's shopping will stimulate the local economy and I hope there are many restaurants open for our dining pleasure.

Murray Chalmers, Port St. Lucie

As I was watching the president of this rich country doing another one of his campaign speeches from his country club, surrounded by his (except for one) white-privilege millionaire members and donors, I was wondering how his unemployed loyal minions were reacting to the crumbs he was tossing at them by signing an executive order that would givethem $400 a week and no payroll taxes.

Am I missing something here? You do not get a paycheck, so you do not pay payroll taxes, really.

Trumps Republican minions refused to vote on the $600 that the Democrats felt was needed, which came to $31,200 year, only $5,000 above the federal poverty guideline for a family of four. The $400 a week comes to $20,800 a year, which is $5,400 less than the $26,200 federal poverty guide line for 2020.

On the other hand the living wage in the United States is $16.54 per hour, or $68,808 per year, in 2019, before taxes for a family of four (two working adults, two children). However, since our president is only interested in lining his pockets,he would not have been briefed on this fact.

I guess Trump agrees with his Republican fat cats: Keep the masses barefoot and pregnant and let them eat the crumbs thrown at them and expect them to thank him for all he has done for them.

Sandra Cordes, Stuart

Marlette(Photo: Marlette)

Read or Share this story: https://www.tcpalm.com/story/opinion/2020/08/21/letters-editor-aug-21-2020/5609726002/

Read this article:

Letters to the Editor: Aug. 21, 2020 - TCPalm

August 30 is the one year anniversary of the tragic and traumatic death of innocent Elijah McClain in Adams County. A yet-unknown number of Coloradans intend on Sunday the day before police encountered McClain to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights to honor Elijahs life, protest his death and seek justice. Another unknown number of people intend to hijack that protest to advance the cause of violence and lawlessness. Those people are not protestors; they are rioters and criminals.

This disturbing scenario has played out in Denver and Aurora numerous times in the past several months. I have grown weary of the lack of arrests and accountability for those who brazenly, wantonly, and repeatedly flaunt our laws, destroy our property, and attempt to injure our public safety officers.

We continue to witness the complete abdication of responsibility from our governor, attorney general and those in control of our legislature. They have failed to publicly and forcefully denounce the criminal rioters. Scanning their social media feeds and public pronouncements for any criticism of those who thrive on the lack of response by a police force stymied by the politics of appeasement is like a Wheres Waldo search in braille.

The deafening silence, unjustifiable inaction, and failure to demonstrate leadership from their positions of authority positions we loaned to them to defend the rule of law in our community is the result of either their fear of alienating the extremists in their base, or their satisfaction with the outcome. Oh, if we had just one Polis-esque stay off the damn highways or those who destroy public property are selfish bastards. Alasjust crickets.

What was that phrase the extremists and Democratic nominee for president Joe Biden have been pushing? Oh yeah: silence is complicity.

The anarchist apologists who have whimsically dismissed the crimes that repeatedly occur as far less important than the causes they claim motivate them are ignorant, nave, and disingenuous.

Ignorant in that they have conflated moral relativism with legal irrelevance. Defacing our Capitol is not unfortunate, it is unlawful. There is no First Amendment protection to violations of our laws as long as it was for a super important issue.

Nave in that history is replete with examples of appeasement failing to achieve peace, but rather leading to greater conflict. Weakness invites aggression.

Disingenuous in that they would never ever apply this nonsensical justification to a group whose ideology they opposed. Can you imagine what new courage our currently muted government officials would say if pro-life activists repeatedly trashed government buildings?

There is nothing noble or righteous about the manner in which the rioters have stolen the message of those who peacefully seek accountability and reform. Barricading police inside a building is not an act of civil disobedience akin to a sit-in at a whites-only lunch counter at Woolworths. Spilling over I-225 to shutdown highway travel for the unsuspecting and innocent, endangering lives. Harassing motorists is not the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Enough is enough.

Hundreds will be involved in Sundays events.

To protesters: keep it up. Remain visible, heard, and peaceful. Know that the forces of anarchy and lawlessness will be there with you. You bear some responsibility for them because you can do something about them. Reject them. Denounce them. Report them. Reclaim the moral high ground from those who will subvert your message and tarnish the perception of your cause. Your message deserves protection. Their methods deserve prosecution.

To law enforcement: we support you in the defense of the rule of law. You know it is more than a tweetable platitude; it is an obligation from your oath. Be proactive, not reactive. Take appropriate action to protect protestors and hold rioters accountable: public safety, not political appeasement.

To the rioters: peace. Our community deserves it and the law commands it. You have no legal justification to damage property, fire incendiary devices at police officers, or take over an interstate highway. This is not a challenge, but a commitment. The palsied will of some government officeholders is not contagious to other elected leaders. Some of us take seriously our oaths to support Colorados laws and faithfully discharge the duties of our offices.

To all Coloradans, it is time to publicly choose. With whom do you stand, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the protesters, or the rioters? Let us commit ourselves to allow this Sunday to be about remembering a sweet, young man who should not have died, instead of criminal rioting and law enforcements response to it.

George H. Brauchler is the district attorney for the 18th Judicial District, which includes Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert and Lincoln counties.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Updated Aug. 21, 2020 at 3:27 p.m. This column originally had the wrong date of Elijah McClains death. McClain died in the hospital on Aug. 30 after he was removed from life support.

See the original post:

Brauchler: Peace, please, at the Elijah McClain protests this Sunday - The Denver Post

This week, EFF filed suit to stop Texas A&M University from censoring comments by PETA on the universitys Facebook and YouTube pages.

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, Texas A&M held its spring commencement ceremonies online, with broadcasts over Facebook and YouTube. Both the Facebook and YouTube pages had comment sections open to any member of the publicbut administrators deleted comments that were associated with PETAs high-profile campaign against the universitys muscular dystrophy experiments on golden retrievers and other dogs.

Where government entities such as Texas A&M open online forums to the public, the First Amendment prohibits them from censoring comments merely because they dont like the content of the message or the viewpoint expressed. On top of that, censoring comments based on their message or viewpoint also violates the publics First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Texas A&M knows this well, because this is not the first time weve sued them for censoring comments online. Back in 2018, EFF brought another First Amendment lawsuit against Texas A&M for deleting comments by PETA and its supporters about the universitys dog labs from the Texas A&M Facebook page. This year, in a big win for free speech, the school settled with PETA and agreed to stop deleting comments from its social media pages based on the comments messages.

We are disappointed that Texas A&M has continued to censor comments by PETAs employees and supporters without regard for the legally binding settlement agreement that it signed just six months ago, and hope that the federal court will make clear to the university once and for all that its censorship cannot stand.

EFF is joined by co-counsel PETA Foundation and Rothfelder Falick LLP of Houston.

Follow this link:

EFF Sues Texas A&M University Once Again to End Censorship Against PETA on Facebook and YouTube - EFF

In a near-empty arena on the river in his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, former Vice President Joe Biden accepted the Democratic nomination for president, promising hope over fear, fairness over privilege, love over hate.

And, he said, Facts over fiction.

Lets see about that.

Our partners at PolitiFact examined a range of claims made by Biden, fact-checking or putting them in context. Here are excerpts related to health policy and the COVID-19 pandemic:

Five million Americans infected with COVID-19.

Its a little higher than that. According to data from Johns Hopkins University, the number of positive tests as of Aug. 20 was 5,573,517.

More than 170,000 Americans have died.

This is accurate. Johns Hopkins data counted 174,248 U.S. deaths through Aug. 20.

More than 50 million people have filed for unemployment this year.

This, too, is accurate. Since March 21, 57.4 million Americans have filed initial unemployment claims.

By far the worst performance of any nation on Earth.

The United States leads the world in the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths. Using other metrics that account for population, the U.S. isnt the absolute worst, but it still lags behind many other countries. For instance, the United States has the fifth-highest death rate per 100,000 people.

The virus is known to have infected a higher percentage of the population in the U.S. than in many other places. The U.S. has one of the highest rates globally of people who have tested positive 16,430 per million residents, which is lower than Chiles, but higher than that of any other large country.

More than 10 million people are going to lose their health insurance this year.

This number may be an underestimate. In a July report, the Urban Institute estimated that from April through December 2020, 10.1 million people will lose health insurance tied to a job that they lost during the pandemic. This analysis was done by looking at employment loss projections data from U.S. Labor Department reports.

But that number is lower than another estimate. KFF estimates that nearly 27 million people could lose their employer-sponsored health insurance and become uninsured due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF, the Kaiser Family Foundation). This 27 million figure includes both those who lost employer-sponsored insurance as well as dependents who may have been covered on the same plan. The estimate was based on assessing data from Labor Department unemployment claims and determining whether workers were eligible for ACA insurance.

The assault on the Affordable Care Act will continue until its destroyed, taking insurance away from 20 million people, including more than 15 million people on Medicaid. And getting rid of the protections that President Obama worked so hard to get passed.

Biden was referring to the coverage losses that would result if a Trump administration-backed lawsuit to overturn the Affordable Care Act is successful. And health policy experts and press reportscite numbers close to what Biden listed.

Close to20 million peoplegained health insurance after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, either through the Medicaid expansion or as a result of its marketplace subsidies for individuals below 400% of poverty. So, it follows that if the ACA were overturned, their health coverage would be at risk.

Additionally, an Urban Institute estimate matches Bidens15 millionfigure regarding how many people would lose Medicaid coverage if the ACA were struck down. That would be a result of the federal government no longer helping states pay for Medicaid expansion.

There are other estimates that take into account the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The left-leaning Center for American Progress estimates that3 million additional people (beyond the already estimated 20 million) could lose health insurance coverage because of COVID-19 and be eligible for other government programs, such as Medicaid.

And because the ACA ensures that those with preexisting conditions must be covered by health insurance, that protection, as Biden called it, would no longer be in place if the law wereoverturned, because President Donald Trumphas not issued a health care planthat would offer a similar guarantee.

And after all this time the president still does not have a plan for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Its unclear exactly what type of plan Biden is referring to in this general statement. It is true that, thus far, no national testing or contact tracing plan has been issued. Nor has the White House issued a national blueprint to address the COVID-19 pandemic, despite Trump saying he would do so in July.

We are in the process of developing a strategy thats going to be very, very powerful. Weve developed as we go along, Trump said July 21.

However, the White House has said that Trump does have a plan. Several plans, in fact, seem to have emerged.

Part of one Trump administration plan included restricting travel from areas that have been affected by the virus in March. This initially targeted only China, but then extended to Iran, Italy, South Korea and other European countries. The White House also said Trump worked to expand testing capacity by developing a public and private partnership that would bring more coronavirus testing to parking lots of big-name chain stores. (There were only a few in operation when we checked in April.)

Trump has also touted a plan to develop a COVID-19 vaccine as quickly as possible, called Operation Warp Speed. The goal of Operation Warp Speed is to deliver 300 million doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by January 2021. A federal plan for vaccine distribution is not yet ready.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump has emphasized he wanted state leaders to take control of virus response within their states. But critics say these efforts do not represent a coordinated strategy.

Well have a national mandate to wear a mask, not as a burden, but to protect each other.

A nationwide mask mandate is easier said than done, given current law.

The Congressional Research Service found that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could use the Public Health Service Act (Sec. 361) to issue regulations mandating the use of masks. But a mandate would likely run into legal problems with the Constitution and other laws, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which requires courts to grant certain religious exemptions.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Courts interpretation of the 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from controlling or requiring states to carry out federal directives. Congress could incentivize states to enact mask mandates, as long as the incentives arent considered significant enough to coerce or force states into enacting the mandate, the CRS report said.

A number of courts have affirmed state and local authority to impose social distancing measures and temporary business closures. Opponents of masks say that the requirement violates their First Amendment rights. At least one federal court has already rejected this claim and said the requirement regulates conduct, not speech.

Daniel Funke, Louis Jacobson, Victoria Knight, Bill McCarthy, Samantha Putterman, Amy Sherman and Miriam Valverde contributed to this report.

Excerpt from:

Democratic Convention, Night 4: 'Facts Over Fiction' in Biden's Speech - Kaiser Health News

Thousands of people have donated to a GoFundMe set up by Gwen Hinnant. It's raised nearly half-a-million dollars as of Friday night. Wochit

The same day 5-year-old Cannon Hinnant was viciously murdered while he rode his bike near his Wilson, North Carolina, home, a little girl in St. Joseph, Missouri was among three people shot in an afternoon drive-by shooting outside a grocery store.

Raelynn Elise Craig later died at the hospital. She was 2.

Her family remembered her as an angel and a fighter, a local media outlet reported. She was born premature and she beat the odds and she was here, a family member said.

Like the 209 children aged 11 or younger gone to gun violence in 2019 alone, now shes not. And 12days later, her killer remains free.

Cannon Hinnant, pictured here at age 4.(Photo: Photo courtesy Gwen Hinnant)

Every single one of those 209 deaths and the 36,000 yearly gun violence deaths in this country are an unspeakable tragedy.

Nearly 1,300 people under 18 die every year from gun violence, says a study published in the medical journal Pediatrics. Last year, while 209 died, Gun Violence Archive reported nearly 500 gun injuries to children 11 or younger.

Thankfully, not many of them have been used as a political prop the way Hinnant was. A tragedy that shouldve brought out the best of us did the opposite. It showed us at our worst.

'I HAVE NO IDEA WHY':5-year-old boy fatally shot in North Carolina 'loved everybody,' family says

If youve spent any time on social media in the last few days, you probably saw a few posts about the incident. People were asking where the media coverage was, claiming bias. Some were asking why there werent mass protests like after George Floyds death. The hashtag #SayHisName was trending. It wouldve been a sweet hashtag if all of its participants were well-intentioned. I guess white lives dont matter, I saw someone write on Facebook.

Weve become so good at talking over each other. Weve become so good at hijacking other peoples plight and misplacing it as our own.

It reminded me in a way about a protest I covered recently in Dover, Delaware. A few hundred people peacefully protested along a well-traveled highway to speak out against Delaware Gov. John Carney and the ongoing coronavirus restrictions in the state. It wasnt long before a Black Lives Matter group arrived and the two sides briefly exchanged words.

One group, which included a few Black protesters, used their First Amendment right to speak out against what they said was tyranny. The other groups goal is to bring awareness to police brutality and systemic racism against Black people.

A man in the Reopen Delaware group looked at me while the two sides shouted at each other from one side of the road to the other. These are two separate things, he said.

Thats why I was so startled last week to see Hinnants brutal murder used the way it was.

What happened to Breonna Taylor and George Floyd and what happened to Cannon Hinnant arent related incidents. I suspect most rational people know this.

Its been more than five months since Louisville Police used a battering ram to execute a no-knock search warrant to enter the Taylor's apartment. They were investigating two men believed to be selling drugs from a house separate from the 26-year-old emergency room technicians apartment. Her apartment was believed to be a place the men used to accept packages.

Police banged on the door, but Taylor and her boyfriend were in bed. So police blew the door open, startling Taylor and her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, who fired his weapon. Police say he shot first, and their return fire ended Taylors life. The dispatch logs indicate Taylor received no medical attention for more than 20 minutes after she was struck, The Louisville Courier Journal reported.

In the months since people began protesting and using #SayHerName to bring awareness, change has happened. Louisville Police are no longer allowed to execute no-knock warrants. Officer Brett Hankison was terminated. He blindly fired multiple rounds into a covered patio door and a window, according to the termination letter.

But Hankison and the other officers were never arrested and never charged, and the other two remain employed. So #SayHerName will liveon.

Column continues below the photo gallery.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

The Hinnant family doesnt have to sleep at night the way Raelynn Elise Craigs family does: Wondering every second who her killer was and if he or she will ever pay for what they did.

Hinnants life did matter. Within 24 hours, Darrius Sessoms, a Black man, was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. He may never see life outside prison again, barely a consolation for losing a child.

What happened to Taylor didnt get national media attention until late May, around the time Floyd was killed by a Minneapolis Police officer.

But just days after Hinnants killing, many people, mostly the conservatives in my timeline, wanted to know where the media attention was. It was a bit confusing. If not for media coverage, how would they have known about what happened to a little boy in a small eastern North Carolina city? Pretend that you can hear me shouting when I say this: Facebook is not a media outlet.

The virality of Hinnants story followed a similar path ofmany other viral stories in the social media age. A local media organization reported on an incident, and people on social media started talking about it. Next, national media swooped in and now almost $1 millionhasbeen raised for his family.

I dont pretend to know why exactly some people reacted with vitriol in the way they did, and I dont believe pointing at an issue and shouting racism does anyone any good. But Raelynn Elise Craig was black. And so was Zamar Jones, the 7-year-old Philadelphia boy who was caught in the crossfire of gun violence and shot in the head earlier this month. He died two days later.

And while Philadelphia media covered the incident, I doubt many people in California know who Zamar Jones is.

You can draw your own conclusions.

Cannon Hinnants death could have brought out the best in us. We could have continued the conversation about gun violence. We could have wondered how Sessoms got a gun. We could have talked about the need for better mental health resources.

Instead, we didnt. Some of us decided a 5-year-old was worthy of perpetuating a twisted narrative.

So, yes, Say His Name. Say all of the names of the hundreds of little kids taken from us every year.

When you remember Cannon Hinnant, dont remember him for what his death brought to your social media timeline. Remember the boy with the light brown hair and beautiful smile who loved Spider-Man and Crocs. Remember how senseless his killing was.

And remember, too, that he never asked for this, to be used as a political prop,the latest victim flung into a culture war stoked by a loud social media culture that is bringing this country to its knees.

Jeff Neiburg, breaking news reporter, The News Journal.(Photo: Jennifer Corbett, The News Journal)

Jeff Neiburg covers breaking news for Delaware Online/The News Journal. Contact him at jneiburg@delawareonline.com.Follow him on Twitter @Jeff_Neiburg.

Read or Share this story: https://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/2020/08/21/opinion-cannon-hinnant-murder-could-have-showed-us-our-best-did-opposite-gun-violence-facebook/5612037002/

Go here to read the rest:

Cannon Hinnant's murder could have showed us at our best. It did the opposite | Opinion - The News Journal

Lawyers for music and entertainment mogul Jay-Z want advertising company Lamar to reconsider its decision not to allow a billboard critical of a local police officer in the Milwaukee region.Those lawyers, which represent Team ROC, said Lamar initially told them it had billboard space available and asked the team to submit a proposal.The sign read, "Alvin Cole, Jay Anderson, Antonio Gonzales. They did not deserve to die. Officer Mensah must be held accountable."Cole, Anderson and Gonzales were shot to death by Wauwatosa police Officer Joseph Mensah within a five-year period. The city's Police and Fire Commission recently suspended Mensah, although the district attorney cleared the officer of wrongdoing in the Anderson and Gonzales shootings. Cole's February death is under review by the district attorney.Lamar denied the billboard request, Team ROC's lawyers said."The reason given, and I'm quoting the language here, 'It could have an affect on a future action,' Team ROC lawyer Jordan Siev said. "So we went back and looked at their copy acceptance policy and that's not a stated ground. They purport to look to protect people's First Amendment rights and specifically say they will do so, but they turned down this billboard when it seems to certainly fit within their copy acceptance policy."In early July, Jay-Z called for Mensah to be fired.PREVIOUS REPORT: Music, entertainment mogul Jay Z calls for Tosa officer to be firedSiev said his team tried again after making some changes. The second draft kept the names, but changed the message under them to read, "They did not deserve to die. Police officers shouldn't murder innocent people."Lamar blocked the second proposal as well, Siev said."The billboard copy from Team Roc was vetted through our usual copy acceptance process and rejected on the basis that we do not post copy concerning potential crimes, unless there has been a judicial determination of guilt," Lamar Advertising Communications Director Allie McAlpin wrote in an email to WISN 12 News. "Team Roc is welcome to resubmit amended copy that complies with our policies."The email appeared to be different than the message Siev said Team ROC received from the advertising company."The only logical conclusion that we can reach from this is; despite what their copy acceptance policy says -- that they are looking to protect people's First Amendment rights -- they're, in fact, engaged in an act of censorship here because they're afraid of a controversial billboard or message," Siev countered.When asked if Team ROC sought to have its message appear on billboards owned by companies other than Lamar, Siev said when Team ROC did its initial search for billboard space, Lamar had the only space available in the area at the time."We're hopeful that they will see the error of their way and reverse course and allow us to put up the billboard, and if they don't then we'll assess what our legal rights are and consider next steps," Siev added.

Lawyers for music and entertainment mogul Jay-Z want advertising company Lamar to reconsider its decision not to allow a billboard critical of a local police officer in the Milwaukee region.

Those lawyers, which represent Team ROC, said Lamar initially told them it had billboard space available and asked the team to submit a proposal.

The sign read, "Alvin Cole, Jay Anderson, Antonio Gonzales. They did not deserve to die. Officer Mensah must be held accountable."

Cole, Anderson and Gonzales were shot to death by Wauwatosa police Officer Joseph Mensah within a five-year period. The city's Police and Fire Commission recently suspended Mensah, although the district attorney cleared the officer of wrongdoing in the Anderson and Gonzales shootings. Cole's February death is under review by the district attorney.

Lamar denied the billboard request, Team ROC's lawyers said.

"The reason given, and I'm quoting the language here, 'It could have an affect on a future action,' Team ROC lawyer Jordan Siev said. "So we went back and looked at their copy acceptance policy and that's not a stated ground. They purport to look to protect people's First Amendment rights and specifically say they will do so, but they turned down this billboard when it seems to certainly fit within their copy acceptance policy."

In early July, Jay-Z called for Mensah to be fired.

PREVIOUS REPORT: Music, entertainment mogul Jay Z calls for Tosa officer to be fired

Siev said his team tried again after making some changes. The second draft kept the names, but changed the message under them to read, "They did not deserve to die. Police officers shouldn't murder innocent people."

Lamar blocked the second proposal as well, Siev said.

"The billboard copy from Team Roc was vetted through our usual copy acceptance process and rejected on the basis that we do not post copy concerning potential crimes, unless there has been a judicial determination of guilt," Lamar Advertising Communications Director Allie McAlpin wrote in an email to WISN 12 News. "Team Roc is welcome to resubmit amended copy that complies with our policies."

The email appeared to be different than the message Siev said Team ROC received from the advertising company.

"The only logical conclusion that we can reach from this is; despite what their copy acceptance policy says -- that they are looking to protect people's First Amendment rights -- they're, in fact, engaged in an act of censorship here because they're afraid of a controversial billboard or message," Siev countered.

When asked if Team ROC sought to have its message appear on billboards owned by companies other than Lamar, Siev said when Team ROC did its initial search for billboard space, Lamar had the only space available in the area at the time.

"We're hopeful that they will see the error of their way and reverse course and allow us to put up the billboard, and if they don't then we'll assess what our legal rights are and consider next steps," Siev added.

More:

Jay-Z clashes with MKE billboard company over message critical of suspended officer - WISN Milwaukee