from the that's-all-it-is dept

Understanding the "bipartisan" approach to internet regulations over the last couple of years really boils down to "both parties want to control the internet" and twist it to their own advantage. Almost everything you hear about "harms" from the internet are disingenuous nonsense from grandstanding politicians. That's not to say there aren't real problems with things on the internet or how it's structured -- but there is almost no realistic exploration of those issues by those in various legislatures. It's all about grabbing control over the internet. Two recent articles highlight pretty clearly how both Republicans and Democrats are clearly salivating to control speech online for their own benefit -- and not for the actual good of society or the internet.

First up, we have The Spectator. To be honest, this publication has been a garbage publication recently, pushing out all sorts of nonsense, but apparently there are still a few people there who can publish something good. Taylor Millard has written a short and to the point article noting, accurately, that so much of the bipartisan attacks on the internet lately are really about one thing: how both parties want to control your speech online. We've discussed how the policy plans of Republicans and Democrats often feel at odds, with Republicans complaining about too much moderation, and Democrats complaining about too little, but the truth is slightly more nuanced, and both are really just looking to have control over speech online -- control that is simply not allowed under the 1st Amendment.

The Democrats' attacks on free speech are pretty straightforward:

Congressional Democrats are hoping to enact rules due to their concerns over so-called misinformation and harmful content. Their anger over the 2016 election of Donald Trump and the bogeyman of Russian interference fueled the original push for new regulations. The coronavirus pandemic and 2020 presidential election fallout poured rocket fuel on the ideological pyre, as did the QAnon conspiracy and discussions around alternate Covid treatments, masks and vaccine efficacy.

Vermont congressman Peter Welch promoteda new five-member commission with civil penalty power making sure Big Tech is unbiased and doesnt promote harmful content. The Democrat used the infamous for the children crusade as reasoning. Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar desiresHealth and Human Services control over the internet where public health is involved. She believes more lives would be saved if Section 230 protections for Big Tech were removed. New Mexico senator Ben Ray Lujan took it a step further, sayingthat the spread of misinformation ended up fueling distrust in public health officials, promoting conspiracy theories and putting lives at risk. To paraphrase Frank Herbert: he who controls the information, controls the world.

The Republican side is just slightly more nefarious in that they falsely claim that their efforts are in support of free speech, though as rulings in Texas and Florida have shown, they're equally as problematic under the 1st Amendment.

Republicans are just as censorious but they shroud their urge to regulate Big Tech under the guise of protecting free speech. The Florida and Texas legislatures passed rules requiring large social media companies not to remove users from their platforms if they express dissident viewpoints.

We see this elsewhere too -- not just in the states. Nearly all of Josh Hawley's policy proposals regarding the internet are about controlling how internet companies present speech. And Republicans are just as prone as Democrats to roll out "for the children!" legislation that is designed to simply give government more control over speech.

The second article is by Adam Thierer, and published over at The Hill and makes a very similar point:

The only thing unifying both sides is a desire for greater regulatory control of media. In todays hyper-partisan world, tech platforms have become just another plaything to be dominated by politics and regulation. When the ends justify the means, principles that transcend the battles of the day like property rights, free speech and editorial independence become disposable. These are things we take for granted until theyve been chipped away at and lost.

Is there any way to make both sides happy without undermining the digital economy, which has been dominated globally by American firms for over a quarter century?

Thats unlikely, but it hasnt stopped lawmakers from introducing a flurry of bills to weaken or eliminate protections afforded bySection 230, which limits liability for platforms that host user-generated content. Implemented in 1996, it has served asthe cornerstone of Americas ascendancyin the digital world andhelped spur an avalanche of innovation. Gutting it would put all that at risk.

As Thierer rightly notes, this is entirely about attacking free speech and the 1st Amendment, by both parties, in order to control a medium they haven't been able to control for the past few decades:

Without admitting it, both sides are really at war against the First Amendment, which protects the editorial decisions made by private companies. To be sure, there is problematic content to be found on digital media platforms, and there aresome legitimate complaintsabout overzealous takedown policies and lack of transparent standards. That does not mean there is an easy policy fix to those problems, however. Butcourts have held repeatedlythat the First Amendment protects efforts by private media firms to devise their own approaches.Just last week, a Texas judge blocked a law that sought to limit social media platforms editorial freedoms. That followed a court in Floridaenjoining a similar lawthis summer.

Critics like to paint large tech companies as nefarious overlords out to destroy civilization. In reality, the problems we see and hear on modern platforms reflect deeper problems in our society. If these companies are to be blamed for anything, its making human communication so frictionless that every person now has a soapbox to speak to the world. Thats both a blessing and a curse. With unbounded speech comes many wonders but also many problems.

The battles here are not about making a better internet. Or "protecting children." It's very much about each of the political parties wanting control over the key tool that has enabled people to communicate with each other, without having that speech first filtered through an "official" source.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: controlling speech, democrats, free speech, republicans, section 230, social media, speech

Read more here:

The Bipartisan Attacks On The Internet Are Easily Understood If You Realize They Just Want To Control Speech Online - Techdirt

SAN JOSE, Calif. For more than three months, the defendant has donned a medical mask, clutched arms with her mother and entered the Robert F. Peckham Federal Building in San Jose, Calif., where executives, scientists and investors have accused her of fraud.

Now a jury of strangers will decide on her guilt.

A jury of eight men and four women were handed the case late Friday of Elizabeth Holmes, the founder of the blood testing start-up Theranos. Lawyers for both sides finished their closing arguments earlier in the day in the nearly four-month-long trial and Judge Edward J. Davila of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California read detailed instructions to the jury. Jurors will meet to deliberate on Monday morning.

In the courtroom on Friday morning, Kevin Downey, a lawyer for Ms. Holmes, spent nearly three hours attempting to discredit each of the governments witnesses and raise doubt in jurors minds. As he flipped through slides meant to dismantle the prosecutions evidence with headings including Not every potential issue is an actual issue, a few jurors scribbled notes.

Mr. Downey concluded by saying Ms. Holmes was not a criminal. She believed she was building a technology that would change the world, he said, raising his voice and gesturing dramatically.

Ms. Holmes faces 11 charges of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud for claims she made to investors and patients about Theranoss technology and business dealings. She has pleaded not guilty. If convicted, she faces up to 20 years in prison.

The trial, which has alternated between media spectacle and business-school cautionary tale, has come to represent a moment of truth in Silicon Valley, where executives have rarely faced consequences for their inflated claims. If Ms. Holmes is found guilty, prosecutors could begin to more aggressively dig into the wildly optimistic tales of rocket ship growth at more start-ups.

Even if she is acquitted, some executives may still tread more carefully in their optimistic pitches. Start-ups have been riding a wave of investor exuberance for nearly a decade, despite repeated warnings of bubble-like behavior that could lead to more disasters like Theranos.

I would suspect that C.E.O.s of similar companies will be more careful when they talk, said Andrey Spektor, a lawyer at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner and a former federal prosecutor in New Yorks Eastern District. He said recordings of Ms. Holmes pitching her company to investors and on TV were among the most incriminating evidence in the case.

Prosecutors used dozens of witnesses and hundreds of documents to argue that Ms. Holmes, 37, knowingly lied to investors about Theranos. She said the company had military contracts when it did not, that its technology was comprehensively validated by pharmaceutical companies when it had not been, and that its machines could do hundreds of tests when it could only do a dozen.

On Thursday, Jeff Schenk, an assistant U.S. attorney and one of the lead prosecutors, summarized the governments case simply: When Theranos was almost out of money, Ms. Holmes could have let it fail. But she chose to defraud investors instead, he said.

That choice was not only callous, it was criminal, Mr. Schenk said.

Ms. Holmess lawyers countered with a range of responses: She had been told by her colleagues that the technology worked, she had hid information to protect trade secrets, she had moved to fix the problems once she learned of them, and the broader narrative about Theranos was more complicated than the prosecution had made it seem.

The government is showing an event that looks bad, but at the end of the day, when all the evidence flows together, it isnt so bad, said Mr. Downey. He showed slides illustrating the steep burden of the government to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ms. Holmes had knowingly lied to get money.

Ms. Holmess defense primarily relied on her own testimony, which lasted seven days and upended the narrative of the case. It was the first time that Ms. Holmes had told her version of the events leading to Theranoss collapse, which has been widely documented in podcasts, books, documentaries and news reports.

On the stand, Ms. Holmes painted herself as a hardworking and ambitious entrepreneur who believed in her companys technology and potential. Any exaggerations or misleading statements were merely her projecting grand plans for the future, she implied.

She further said Ramesh Balwani, her former longtime boyfriend and business partner, who is known as Sunny, had berated her and controlled every aspect of her life. She also accused him of sexual abuse, which he has denied. Their relationship had been kept a secret at the time.

But in court, every aspect of the relationship text messages, emails, conversations, infidelities and the limited liability company through which they owned a home was picked apart. Prosecutors dug in to try to show the pair conspired to commit fraud. Ms. Holmess lawyers tried to show she was a victim.

It is rare for defendants in white-collar criminal trials to take the stand, and it is even rarer for them to introduce testimony of abuse. Ms. Holmess lawyers were expected to call an expert witness to tie her claims of intimate partner abuse to the alleged fraud, but they did not.

On Friday, John Bostic, a prosecutor, elaborated on statements made by Mr. Schenk the day before about the abuse allegations, telling the jury they did not need to come to any conclusion about Ms. Holmes and Mr. Balwanis relationship to issue a verdict. He also attempted to separate the abuse from the fraud charges.

There is no evidence regarding a link between what their relationship was like and the conduct she is charged with committing, he said.

Ms. Holmess testimony added to the spectacle of the trial, drawing large crowds of onlookers who often waited more than five hours outside the courtroom for one of its limited seats. One man yelled that Ms. Holmes was a girl boss as she entered the building, and a trio of attendees pretended to sell black turtlenecks Ms. Holmess business uniform during Theranoss rise as part of a performance art piece.

On Friday, Mr. Downey closed his argument by saying that Ms. Holmes did not intentionally defraud anyone. When Theranos got into trouble, he said, Ms. Holmes did not try to cover up, cash out or flee like a criminal would.

She went down with that ship, he said.

Mr. Bostic rebutted Mr. Downey by reiterating the governments argument against Ms. Holmes.

The disease that plagued Theranos wasnt a lack of effort, he said. It was a lack of honesty.

Read more here:

Boeing joins other federal contractors in dropping its vaccine mandate. - The New York Times

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The New Hampshire chapter of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT-NH) is asking a federal court to block the implementation of a state law intended to prohibit the teaching of divisive concepts associated with critical race theory (CRT).

Passed this summer, HB2 prohibits public employees from teaching that individuals are inferior, superior, should be discriminated against, or are inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive as a result of various aspects of their identity (race, sex, creed, marital status, etc).

WHAT IS CRITICAL RACE THEORY?

AFT-NH's lawsuit, announced on Monday, alleges that the statute violates teachers' First Amendment right to free speech.

Deb Howes, who serves as AFT-NH president, said in a statement: "This law has created fear among teachers who are not actually violating any New Hampshire law, but fear they could be targeted without evidence by people with a political agenda. Educators are terrified of losing their teaching license over simply trying to teach. This is something I never thought would happen in America."

AFT President Randi Weingarten suggested that the law would hinder teaching of issues, like Japanese internment during WWII.

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu announces that he is seeking a fourth term as governor of New Hampshire, instead of running for the U.S. Senate seat held by Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan, during a news conference, Tuesday, Nov. 9, 2021, in Concord, New Hampshire. (AP Photo/Holly Ramer)

"We must teach both our triumphs and our mistakes, whether its enslavement, Japanese internment or the treatment of those with disabilities," she said in the group's press release.

CRITICAL RACE THEORY: THESE STATES ARE ALREADY CRACKING DOWN ON THE CONTROVERSIAL CONCEPT

But in a statement provided to Fox News, Gov. Chris Sununu, R-N.H., denied the law would prevent teaching about American history.

"Nothing in this language prevents schools from teaching any aspect of American history, such as teaching about racism, sexism, or slavery it simply ensures that children will not be discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, sexual identity, or religion," he said.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, along with members of Congress, parents and caregiving advocates hold a press conference supporting Build Back Better investments in home care, childcare, paid leave and expanded CTC payments in front of the U.S. Capitol Building on Oct. 21, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Paul Morigi/Getty Images for MomsRising Together)

AFT-NH alleges, however, that the state law is "unconstitutionally" and "hopelessly vague" and subsequent state guidance has failed to clarify its effects.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

It pointed to a document from the Department of Education, Commission for Human Rights and Department of Justice. That document answered a list of "Frequently Asked Questions" such as "Are schools allowed to teach students historical concepts related to discrimination?"

When outlining which ideas teachers are prohibited from teaching, it reads, in part: "In short, do not teach that a person or a group is inherently oppressive, superior, inferior, racist, or sexist. Teach and treat all equally and without discrimination."

See the original post:

New Hampshire teachers' union suing over state's anti-critical race theory bill - Fox News

I made the decision about 10 years ago: I would stay here, in the Triad, and dedicate the rest of my career to local news. I stopped looking for gigs outside this market, stopped pitching longform freelance pieces to the magazine market, stopped pretending I could do anything else with my career outside the news business.

Why, you ask, would I do such a thing?

Because I believe reporting can save the world. And I go where Im needed.

Its true that reporting can save the world thats why freedom of the press is the very first amendment in our Bill of Rights. Journalism, done ethically and responsibly, literally heightens a readers awareness. As for undermining despots and combatting injustice: The facts, written down and disseminated, make a more potent weapon than any firearm.

I believe this.

And I go where Im needed. Its why I left New York, where there are thousands of guys like me. I came to realize it was why I settled here, in Greensboro, where the mediascape in 2000 was a dreary and provincial visage: no altweekly, no independent media, not even a monthly city magazine.

I found out very quickly that I could make a real difference here, as opposed to pitching my stories into the great maw of freelance work and moving on like a hired gun.

More: Local news is the best news. Its the most underserved there are more print reporters covering the White House than there are at the Greensboro, Winston-Salem and High Point newspapers combined. Local news affects your life a lot more than anything you will see on the Today show.

And like a lot of things that are important to the functioning of society, theres no money in it.

Triad City Beat is a free paper and it always will be. And we are able to do a lot with the small bit of advertising we are able to sell. But its never enough.

And so we created the First Amendment Society, a way for readers to donate to our enterprise, help keep our journalists paid and help keep the news free for those who dont have a few extra dollars to send our way.

Youll be seeing and hearing more about it in our pages, on our site, in our emails and on our social media properties. But for now its enough to say that the FAS is for people who believe in the power of reporting, like me.

Continue reading here:

EDITORS NOTEBOOK: The TCB First Amendment Society: Reporting can save the world! - Triad City Beat

A coalition of the nations largest media companies and news organizations has filed a legal brief in support of Stephen K. Bannon, asking a federal court not to bar him from publicly releasing documents related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

As part of a contempt of Congress case against him, the government is seeking to prevent Mr. Bannon from releasing thousands of pages of documents he has access to. The coalition which includes ABC, CBS, CNN, Dow Jones, NBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post filed the brief on Tuesday, arguing that the governments proposed order would violate the First Amendment.

Mr. Bannon, a onetime adviser to former President Donald J. Trump, was indicted by a federal grand jury in November and charged with two counts of criminal contempt of Congress after he refused to comply with subpoenas to testify and to provide documents for the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 mob attack. He has pleaded not guilty.

As part of the discovery process, Mr. Bannons lawyers have gained access to more than 1,000 pages of documents, including transcripts of witness testimony and grand-jury exhibits. In a Nov. 17 filing, the Justice Department asked that a protective order be put in place to bar Mr. Bannon from making any of the documents public.

In a subsequent filing it noted that Mr. Bannon had indicated he intended to release documents to make extrajudicial arguments about the merits of the case pending against him and the validity of the governments decision to seek an indictment. Federal prosecutors also pointed to remarks that Mr. Bannon made at a news conference after his first court hearing, including: Were going to go on the offense on this.

It is unusual for Mr. Bannon and major news organizations to fall on the same side of an issue. Like Mr. Trump, Mr. Bannon has frequently denigrated established news media outlets.

But the coalition argued that the release of documents by Mr. Bannon was in the public interest.

The public has an overwhelming interest in the facts, circumstances and causes of the Jan. 6 riot, the coalition said in its brief. Bannon has been indicted in an investigation of the riot and has demonstrated his desire to communicate with the press and public about the governments case against him.

News of the legal brief was reported earlier by The Daily Mail.

Here is the original post:

Major news outlets side with Steve Bannon on one part of his legal fight. - The New York Times

The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set newsroom policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or onbangordailynews.com.

Freedom of religion. Freedom of the press. Two of Americas most cherished constitutional rights enshrined in the First Amendment, protecting them from political interference.

Lets add a healthy dose of government involvement.

That is what is presently percolating in Washington. This coming week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argumentsabout Maines so-called Blaine Amendment. Meanwhile, the Democrats Build Back Better bill proposes a $1.7 billion tax creditfor local news outlets.

The Blaine Amendments are a vestige of a bigoted time in our nations history. Their inspiration, Maines own James G. Blaine, was Speaker of the House in Washington, a U.S. senator, secretary of state and failed presidential candidate.

The laws passed in numerous states prohibited the expenditure of government funds on any religious educational institution. They arose during a time of heated anti-Catholicism and survive on the books today.

That is why they are in court.

Maine has some unique aspects compared with other states in the Union. We have a tradition of town academies, which are private institutions to which towns pay tuition in lieu of providing a high school. Think Maine Central Institute in Pittsfield or Thornton Academy in Saco.

Other municipalities are school choice towns. They do not have schools of their own, so they let families choose where their students can go. For example, Raymond is one. Ninth graders from that town could attend Windham, or Waynflete, or Westbrook.

But they could not go to Catholic schools like St. Dominics or Cheverus (full disclosure: Im a class of 02 graduate and now serve on the board of trustees). Because of Maines Blaine Amendment.

Turn to the other part of the First Amendment: freedom of the press.

It is no secret that local news outlets are facing dire financial straits. The revenue streams of newspapers most notably print advertising have been upended by the internet. However, journalists, administrative staff and others who work for them still (rightly) want to be paid. Making it all work is a challenge.

That is why Democrats have included local news tax credits in the Build Back Better bill.

If passed, it would be a massive change in the fabric of our nation. After all, the entire reason freedom of the press is enshrined in the Constitution is to empower news organizations to hold the government accountable, even if they fail miserably, like the CNN-Chris Cuomo debacle. It is hard for a journalist to ask tough questions when their paycheck relies on tax credits.

Further, the IRS has inappropriately targeted disfavored groups in the past. If a journalist hits a little too close to home, it isnt hard to imagine their employer being randomly selected for an invasive audit.

Both the Blaine Amendment and Build Back Better deal with government policy directly impacting the funding of organizations that are constitutionally protected from government interference.

In the case of the Blaine Amendment, religious schools are singled out for a prohibition on fundsthat are otherwise generally-available to other private schools.

With the local news tax credits, news organizations are singled out for special, positive treatment from the taxman.

It is probably time for the Blaine Amendments to be removed from the books. Government cannot discriminate against religion. And as long as dollars are permitted to flow to private schools from a school choice town, they should flow equally at the students election.

The local news tax credits are a bit different. News organizations are businesses, and they should participate in generally available business programs. But having Washington kite checks changes the dynamic precipitously.

So instead of tax credits, Mainers who value local news like the august Bangor Daily News should show that value with a subscription. And give reporters the ability to keep a close eye on Augusta. There is a lot going on; some of it is even worth hearing about.

Thank goodness for the First Amendment.

More articles from the BDN

Read more here:

Freedom of religion, and the press, in the spotlight in Washington - Bangor Daily News

The helmet Aaron Cantu was wearing when he was hit by an officer's flash-bang grenade in 2018. Aaron Cantu

Cantu was one of hundreds of Portlanders who met in downtown Portland on August 4, 2018 to protest a rally organized by Patriot Prayer, a right-wing group based in Vancouver, Washington. It was during this demonstration that officers with the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) chose to fire "less-lethal" munitions into a crowd of more than 50 counter-protesters gathered near SW Columbia and Naito.

Cantu was running in the opposite direction of the police when an officer's flash-bang grenade lodged itself into his skull. Cantu was wearing a bike helmet at the time, but the munition was powerful enough to blaze through his helmet and cut into his head. According to the lawsuit Cantu filed against the city, Cantu could have died from the impact if he wasn't wearing the helmet.

Cantu suffered a traumatic brain injury from the incident. Cantu continued to suffer from dizziness, tinnitus, and emotional trauma more than a year after being injured, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed in 2019 on behalf of three protesters injured during the August 4 demonstration, including Cantu. Plaintiff James Mattox, who was hit by an officer's rubber bullet during the event, has already settled with the city, collecting $22,882 in May 2020. Plaintiff Tracey Molina, however, is still actively engaged in the litigation. The lawsuit is temporarily on hold while Molina heads to trial to face federal criminal charges for not following the orders of a federal officer while protesting outside of Portland's Immigrant and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in May 2021.

Another demonstrator filed a separate lawsuit against the PPB for her injuries during the August 4 clash. Michelle Fawcett was struck by a fiery munition shot by an officer into the crowd, leaving her with searing third-degree chemical burns on her arm and chest. In September 2021, Fawcett agreed to settle the case.

Cantu's settlement payment of $125,000 is the largest received by any August 4 demonstrator who sued PPB. Cantu's co-plaintiff Mattox received $22,000 from the city last year, while Fawcett collected a $50,000 payout. The public dollars to cover the costs come from the citys insurance and claims fund which, in the current fiscal year, has a budget just over $46 million.

Cantu's legal counsel is expected to give testimony during the Wednesday council meeting. Follow the meeting, which begins at 9:30 am, here.

Read more here:

City Council to Pay $125000 to Protester Injured by Police in 2018 - The Portland Mercury

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo conceded in March, 2021 that he could not, ethically, cover the sexual harassment allegations against his brother, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The family ties were simply too strong for him to do so independently.

But afterwards, Chris provided behind-the-scenes counsel to his brother and his brothers team. By August, 2021, when Andrew resigned in the wake of the scandal, there were calls for Chris to step down from his job as well because the New York attorney generals initial report revealed that he had helped draft a statement for his brother in February. As the adage has it, no one can serve two masters. The CNN anchor who should have been serving the public was secretly putting family loyalty first by helping his brother navigate a political and public relations disaster.

And now CNN has fired Cuomo. The firing happened on Dec. 4, less than a week after the attorney generals office released pages of transcripts, exhibits and videos from its investigation into sexual harassment allegations against Andrew Cuomo. The documents detailed the extensive help Chris Cuomo had been providing to his brother for months.

Viewers of CNN would have known about the cozy familial relationship between the two. In 2020, when Andrew Cuomo was still governor of New York, Chris teamed up with his brother to banter on the cable network about how the state was handling the pandemic. The segments were wildly popular.

Although they raised eyebrows in media ethics circles because Chris Cuomo appeared to be violating fundamental norms of journalistic independence. CNN justified its exception to a conflict of interest rule imposed since 2013 prohibiting the anchor from covering his brother, stating, Chris speaking with his brother about the challenges of what millions of American families were struggling with was of significant human interest.

And, incidentally, the banter was great for ratings. But the sexual harassment scandal that erupted in late 2020 put an end to all that.

But it did not end the behind-the-scenes conflict.

As Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel former journalists and now ethics scholars and media watchdogs have written, [Journalists] must strive to put the public interest and the truth above their own self-interest or assumptions.

Journalists fundamental role in democracy is to hold those in power, especially those in government, accountable. But if they have close relationships with those in power, their independence, or at least the perception of it, can be compromised. Independence coupled with accountability and transparency underpin the publics trust in journalists.

But goodwill towards Chris Cuomo, who the Washington Post reported was known for his intense loyalty to the network, its employees and their families, along with the unwavering support of CNN President Jeff Zucker, helped Cuomo keep his job.

He stayed in it until the Nov. 29 document dump disclosed just how closely the CNN anchor had helped his brother Andrews team frame and mount a defense to the accusations. Among the offers Chris made: he would work his own journalistic sources to investigate the credibility of the women who alleged harassment or assault.

At that point, CNN suspended Cuomo indefinitely.

When Chris admitted to us that he had offered advice to his brothers staff, he broke our rules and we acknowledged that publicly, CNN said in a statement. But we also appreciated the unique position he was in and understood his need to put family first and job second.

Cuomos firing followed four days later.

Was it ethical for the anchor to continue to advise his brother while representing to his viewers that he was keeping his relationship at arms length? Should he even have participated in what a Donald Trump campaign spokesman called the Cuomo Brothers Comedy Hour at the beginning of the pandemic?

Journalists associations have developed ethical codes and guidelines that address this situation.

One of the oldest and best known is the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). News organizations also have their own ethics rules and post them online so that the public can read them. Television networks frequently assign ethics enforcement to their Standards and Practices departments.

These codes set out the ethical standards for a news operation.

But the word code is a misnomer. Although news organizations are free to enforce their provisions on their own staff, they are not intended to create legal obligations to anyone else, as with licensed professions such as law and medicine. The SPJ Code is explicit about this, emphasizing that its code is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable.

It does, however, emphasize that conflicts of interest must be avoided, or at the very least, disclosed, to maintain independence and transparency.

CNN has acknowledged that Chris Cuomo broke our rules. But the rules arent posted on CNNs website. In fact, CNN has fought to keep them secret.

In August, the Washington Post quoted from a leaked copy of the networks News Standards & Practices Policy Guide, reporting that the document mandates that CNN employees should avoid any real obligation or appearance of any obligation to any interest that he/she may be covering or reporting on, and should avoid conflicts between personal interests and the interest of the company or even the appearance of such conflicts.

That sounds about right, but did CNN enforce those rules with Chris Cuomo? How could the anchor avoid conflicts of interest while pitching softball questions to his brother during the pandemic, much less by providing behind-the-scenes advice on how to deal with the sexual harassment scandal?

Many media commentators say that he couldnt, and now, CNN seems to agree.

Was it unrealistic to expect the Cuomo brothers not to confer in times of crisis? Some news consumers think so, as reader comments on a Nov. 30 New York Times story contended: One of the biggest draws to CNN is Chris Cuomo & his personalized brotherly banter & friendship with Don Lemon. He reflects whats right in America. Family & Loyalty.

Those readers are right that it is a question of loyalty. But they are answering the question differently than many journalists would.

Kovach and Rosenstiel have written that journalists first loyalty is to citizens, and in their book The Elements of Journalism call it an implied covenant with the audience.

As columnist Margaret Sullivan argued in the Washington Post, You dont abuse your position in journalism whether at a weekly newspaper or a major network for personal or familial gain.

Conflicts of interest violate that covenant and undermine public confidence in media independence. Some conflicts of interest are such a problem that no amount of disclosure or disclaimers can cure them. CNN has apparently concluded that Chris Cuomos is one of them.

View post:

How dual loyalties created an ethics problem for Chris Cuomo and CNN - The Conversation AU

By Dr. John E. Warren, Publisher, The San Diego Voice & Viewpoint

From time to time, it becomes necessary to remind some of us of what the freedom of speech provision of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution actually says while addressing the issue of hate speech and the idea of religious freedom.

The First Amendment to the Constitution actually says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, abridging the freedom of speech. Or of the press, or the right of the people, peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. This means that there shall be no state religion in this country. Hence, all the religions of the world are found in the United States of America. It also means that you are freed to have no religion. It does not mean you have a right to prohibit the faith or practices of another persons religion. The phrase or prohibiting the free exercise thereof means Muslim, Hindu, or any other religion has a right to be practiced in this country without inference from those of a different faith.

Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. This means Congress can not make laws limiting or stopping ones freedom of speech. It does not mean that this freedom is without limits. It has long been held that the freedom of speech clause does not carry with it the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre where such a shout could cause death or harm. We may have the right to say what we want to or about another person, but that right carries with it consequences, including libel, defamation, and damages for pain and suffering based on the harm caused either physically or emotionally. Hate speech falls within this category because such speech can cause pain, suffering, and, in some cases, even death.

So while Congress can make no laws abridging or limiting ones speech, it has been established that the freedom of speech is not without limits, which includes harm to others. Clearly, there are limits on the freedom of the press.

This means that freedom of speech does not include the right to use offensive language clearly aimed at ones ethnicity or gender and is, therefore, deemed hate speech.

So it was hate speech when members of the public speaking, before the County Board of Supervisors, called the African American Public Health Officer a name associated with a racial stereotype. It was not an act of hate speech when a member of the Countys Human Relations Commission abstained from a vote that he disagreed with on the basis of his religious belief as a Pastor. When pressed for a reason for his abstention, he said that it was based upon scripture, which, he quoted, called the conduct in question an abomination. This was not hate speech but an exercise of his right to a religious belief covered by the First Amendment.

All of us have a duty to understand these First Amendment freedoms and how to apply them without harm and offense, which was the intent from the very beginning language by our Founders. Hopefully, this will help some of us at a very important time with our fragile democracy.

More here:

The First Amendment, Hate Speech, and Religion - San Diego Voice and Viewpoint

A person walks up the ice covered step of the Kentucky State Capitol on Friday, Jan. 29, 2021, in Frankfort, Kentucky. Photo by Michael Clubb | Staff.

The University of Kentucky College of Communication and Information hosted the annual State of the First Amendment Address on Wednesday, Nov. 17, featuring an address reinforcing journalists rights to report without restrictions from the government.

The address focused on the Kentucky Kernels win in May 2021 against the University of Kentucky in the Kentucky Supreme Court. After UK failed to comply with an open records request from the Kernel regarding a sexual assault accusation against a professor, a legal battle ensued.

After a four-year legal battle, the Kernel won the case. The court said that the university failed to comply with its obligation under the Kentucky Open Records Act (ORA).

Elizabeth Woodward and Tom Miller, the attorneys who defended the Kernel, gave the address.

They spoke on the case itself and the rights of journalists, touching on the difference between a journalists rights under the First Amendment and their rights to open records. Woodward explained that cases such as the one between the Kernel and the University of Kentucky can result in changes of the ORA. For instance, in summer 2021, the number of days public agencies have to handle requests increased from three to five days, and the law changed to grant only Kentucky residents the ability to request open records.

The Supreme Court held that the university had treated the investigative file as if it were one giant record unable to be separated, Woodward said on the case.

The attorneys also said that access to information from public agents is in the public interest, making open records cases important to the future of journalism.

The most rewarding type of work we do is working with journalists, who are the defenders of democracy, Miller said.

He went on to explain other cases that he had worked on involving other journalism institutions like the Louisville Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The event also recognized two of the most recent recipients of the James Madison award, an honor given to individuals who championed the publics right to access information at the national level.

The recipients, Benny Ivory and Stan MacDonald, spoke on their experiences as journalists and their time defending the First Amendment.

The First Amendment was under attack during the good old days, and it is today, MacDonald said. The First Amendment is sacred, and it should be protected with everything we have, because without it democracy dies.

The Kernel was the recipient of the James Madison award last year in recognition of its fight for rights under the First Amendment and the ORA.

Students, faculty and staff were given a chance to ask the attorneys questions about journalists rights and the case at the end of the celebration, including what steps citizens can take to prevent further weakening of the ORA. Miller said that the most important thing people can do is vote.

Remind [elected officials] how much you care about government transparency, he said.

Read this article:

UK College of Communication and Information hosts 2021 State of the First Amendment Address - Kykernel.com