A federal district court in Washington on Friday granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting officials from the U.S. Agency for Global Media, including its head, Michael Pack, from interfering with the editorial independence and First Amendment rights of the journalists at Voice of America and the other networks it oversees.

The ruling,issued by Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ordered that a request for preliminary injunction by the plaintiffs be partially granted. The order was a stopgap measure to prevent further actions laid out in a complaint until a trial can be held.

The ruling relates to a complaint filed by five USAGM officials placed on administrative leave in August and VOA Program Director Kelu Chao, who argued actions taken by the new head of the USAGM were unlawful and violated the First Amendment and the statutory firewall set up to prevent outside interference.

Howells ruling marked a major setback for Pack, a former conservative documentary producer tapped by President Donald Trump to head the newly reconstituted USAGM. Since Pack was confirmed by the Senate in late June, the top leaders at VOA and other networks resigned or were removed, hiring and spending were frozen and Pack stopped approving visa renewals for the agencys foreign journalists.

Moreover, Packs political appointees conducted internal investigations of reporters and editors suspected of producing news stories unfavorable to Trump and the administration that had a chilling effect on the work of editors and reporters, according to the complaint.

Under the order, USAGM officials including Pack are prohibited from making or interfering with personnel decisions related to individual editorial staff at VOA and its sister networks; directly communicating with editors and journalists, with the exception of the heads of those networks, or unless they have a directors consent; and conducting investigations into content, journalists and alleged breaches of ethics at the networks.

Requests denied

The court denied requests for a preliminary injunction involving alleged violations of the International Broadcasting Act, Administrative Procedure Act and Packs fiduciary duties as head of USAGM and alleged activities in excess of his authority.

USAGM did not respond to VOAs email requesting comment.

Editorial independence and journalistic integrity free of political interference are the core elements that sustain VOA and make us Americas voice, VOA acting director Elez Biberaj said.

A steady 83% of VOAs audience finds our journalism trustworthy. There are few, if any, media organizations that can claim such trust, Biberaj added.

Attorneys for the Department of Justice argued in a filing last week that the free speech protections of the First Amendment do not apply to VOA journalists because they are federal government employees, but Howell strongly disagreed.

She said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving Pack and his aides violated and continue to violate the First Amendment rights of VOA journalists because, among other unconstitutional effects of their actions, they result in self-censorship and the chilling of First Amendment expression.

Howell cited an investigation into VOAs White House correspondent Steve Herman, saying it imposes an unconstitutional prior restraint not just on Hermans speech, but also on the speech of Chao and other editors and journalists at VOA and the networks.

The court will rule later on the full complaint filed against USAGM.

Lee Crain, the counsel for the plaintiffs, said, The court confirmed that the First Amendment forbids Mr. Pack and his team from attempting to take control of these journalistic outlets, from investigating their journalists for purported bias, and from attempting to influence or control their reporting content.

In a statement Friday, Crain said the opinion ensured journalists at VOA and the other networks can rest assured that the First Amendment protects them from government efforts to control editorial and journalistic content. They are free to do exactly what Congress intended: export independent, First Amendment-style journalism to the world.

Global audience

VOA and its sister networks have a vast global reach and have seen a surge in readership and viewership in the past year amid the coronavirus pandemic and the contested 2020 U.S. presidential campaign. In fiscal 2020, news and information programming of USAGMs five networks together reached a worldwide weekly audience of 354 million people in 62 languages, an increase of 4 million from last years record audience, according to USAGM figures.

In a 76-page memorandum opinion Howell said VOA and the other networks export the cardinal American values of free speech, freedom of the press and open debate to the dark corners of the world where independent, objective coverage of current events is otherwise unavailable.

These outlets are not intended to promote uncritically the political views and aspirations of a single U.S. official, even if that official is the U.S. president, Howell said.

Pack has allegedly taken a series of steps since his June 4, 2020, confirmation that undermine this mission.

Lawyers representing USAGM at the hearing on November 5 argued that Pack was using expanded powers granted to the CEO by Congress in legislation intended to improve the agencys management and efficiency.

The preliminary injunction found that the statutory firewall reflects that Congress determined this interest to be of greater public importance than the general government interest in efficiency. It added that the court recognized the networks have an interest in maintaining an appearance of the highest journalistic credibility.

Ann Cooper, professor emeritus of professional practice and international journalism at the Columbia School of Journalism in New York, said VOAs role as an independent network is crucial to its audiences.

Regulations to protect VOAs editorial independence are hugely important, said Cooper, who as a veteran foreign correspondent has worked and traveled to some of the worlds most repressive countries.

If you remove that safeguard and allow a leadership that begins to dictate the coverage, of course you are going to lose credibility. VOA is serving countries where people already see what it means to have a government mouthpiece as media. Thats not what they are turning to VOA for, Cooper said.

J-1 visa exemption

The court order prohibited interference in editorial staffing decisions, with the exception of J-1 visas permits for international journalists with exceptional skill.

In June, Pack announced a case by case review of the J-1 visas, citing national security concerns and referring to findings of an Office of Personnel Management report that criticized yearslong lapses in background checks for some staff.

Since June, VOA is aware of only one decision being made in a J-1 case. Packs office last month signed a memo rejecting a VOA Indonesian Service journalists request for a visa renewal and green card sponsorship.

The other visas have expired with no decision supporting or denying the renewal request.

In the memo, the judge said Packs decision to give greater scrutiny to J-1 visa applications fell within USAGMs evaluative and review responsibilities, and cited the defense argument that foreign staff are employed only if suitably qualified U.S. candidates are not available.

VOA journalists have said previously that J-1 colleagues bring valuable insight and skills beyond simple fluency in a language that help the network broaden its reach and engage with audiences.

J-1 visa holders whose visas expired told VOA the action felt discriminatory and they doubted that the reviews took place.

One of those, Serdar Cebe, an anchor who hosted two shows, including the Turkish divisions flagship, Studio VOA, was due to fly to Istanbul on Sunday after his grace period ended without a visa renewal.

Cebe was aware other colleagues at VOA had lost their J-1 visas but said he did not become worried until the end of August, when his service chief suggested the journalist prepare for bad news.

I was shocked as I did not see that coming. I thought that the U.S. was the champion of the world for the freedom of press and that I would never find myself in a situation where a journalist could be expelled from the VOA due to a visa issue, Cebe said in an email exchange.

Journalist sees bias

Grace Oyenubi, a Nigerian journalist who worked for VOAs Hausa Service, also said the lack of visa renewals seemed biased.

I just feel its discrimination. Its discriminatory, she said, adding that she passed vigorous security checks before being hired by VOA.

The loss of her visa has repercussions for Oyenubis family. Her husband, whose visa is tied to Oyenubis, had to leave his job and they could be forced to uproot their 7-year-old son, who has been to schools only in the U.S.

Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, in September proposed a bill to grant a temporary extension to journalists affected by the J-1 delays.

A spokesperson for Merkley told VOA the senator is continuing to push his Republican colleagues to stand up and support free, fair and independent journalism at USAGM.

The spokesperson added, Senator Merkley is hopeful that January will mark the beginning of a new chapter for USAGM, for the journalists wronged by USAGM, and for press freedom around the world, and he will continue to do all that he can to support those efforts from the Senate.

Read more here:

Court Injunction Bars USAGM From Editorial Interference - Voice of America

The COVID-19 pandemic and the historic 2020 presidential election have many in the JMU community. A nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, 1 for All, is dedicated to raising awareness about and promoting First Amendment rights.

On Nov. 12 and 13 from 12-1:30 p.m., 1 For All hosted events at Warner Commons where students were encouraged to share their opinions on the sidewalk.

Taylor DeRossett, a senior communication studies major, explained 1 For Alls mission, encouraging the free expression and exchange of ideas.

1 for All is a movement all across the country basically designed to elevate and promote First Amendment rights on college campuses, DeRossett said. What weve done here is we got a grant from the overall organization to promote it at JMU.

Carli Aldape, a junior media arts and design major, said that the group discovered the need to inform students on how they could practice their First Amendment rights.

We also did some research before our campaign and found that people knew about their first amendment rights but werent really sure on how to practice them on campus, Aldape said.

Guidelines at JMU limit the number of students that can assemble because of COVID-19. Aldape said that this event provided students with a way to share their voice with a large group of people in a safe manner.

Mary Comerford, a junior communication studies major, said that some of the topics students were encouraged to write about included post-election stress and the universitys response to COVID-19.

Students responded to a question regarding their anxieties about next semester, writing about asynchronous classes, not wanting to graduate or staying motivated. Participants also responded to a prompt about their thoughts on the spring break cancellation, writing that students should have a voice, and theyre a little upset but [they] understand.

Helen Nguyen, a junior communication studies major from Vietnam, said that she encourages students to use their voices to express their opinions on campus.

This kind of event is really eye-opening for me as I am an international student, Nguyen said. We dont really talk much about free speech in my country, so its kind of cool for me to [see this] and [you should] practice it if you have the chance.

Comerford said she recommends students attend events similar to Chalk It Up that focus on providing students with a way to freely express their opinions.

It can definitely be eye-opening for people and different ideas can come together to enlighten you on things you didnt notice before, Comerford said. It can also help promote diversity and inclusion on this campus.

While 1 For All gave away free masks to those who opted to participate, DeRossett said she noticed many students had motivations beyond the incentive in writing their thoughts.

Everyone seems really willing to do it, they dont even need the [free] masks, DeRossett said. All of these things are questions that people have on their mind that they really want to talk to someone about, so it's not hard to get someone to sit down and write it out.

Aldape said that the main goal of the event was to provide students with a platform to practice their First Amendment rights.

[We hope that people will] just come out and give us their opinions and express that freedom of speech, to show JMU that their students do have an opinion as well, Aldape said.

Contact Sydney Dudley at dudleysl@dukes.jmu.edu. For more coverage of JMU and Harrisonburg news, follow the news desk on Twitter @BreezeNewsJMU.

Go here to read the rest:

Chalk It Up to the 1st Amendment: Students Practice Free Speech - The Breeze

Friday, November 20, 2020

Do as adversaries do in law, strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.

William Shakespeare,The Taming of the Shrew, Act I, sc. 2

In the aftermath of the historic and divisive election, many of us welcome an end to the besiegement of ads, media commentaries, Facebook and Twitter postings, etc. that are not only uncivil, but in many cases just plain nasty.

The political climate of brinkmanship, rudeness, and lack of cooperation (let alone collaboration) appears to be increasingly reflected in the workplace. Collectively these behaviors are called incivility, and have become so prevalent that many scholarly studies have been conducted on the topic. Google incivility in the workplace or visit the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) website and youll get the idea.

What is civil and uncivil behavior in the workplace, and what are the legal and other implications of uncivil behavior?

Civility is a collection of positive behaviors that promote courtesy and respect. The word has its origins in the Latin word civis, which in Latin means citizen. Keith Bybee, the author ofHow Civility Works, put it this way in a 2019 NPR interview: Civility is the baseline of respect that we owe one another in public life.

To paraphrase the old Irish proverb by substituting civility for diplomacy, Civility is telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they will look forward to the trip.

On the flipside, what is incivility? One study describes it as a low intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm (Anderson and Pearson, 1999). Other studies define it more thoroughly as bad or rude behavior, with diminished use of basic courtesies such as please and thank you, abrupt and curt language, especially when using technological communication, a lack of respect for leaders and colleagues, with behaviors including belittling, interrupting or ignoring others, spreading rumors or gossip, and sending nasty grams to co-workers. (Akella and Johnson, 2018, citing many other studies.)

Many employees appear to be under the impression that they have an absolute First Amendment right to say or send whatever they want to in the workplace. This is simply not true, especially in the private sector. Employers have the right and under some circumstances the duty to expect their employees to act toward one another with basic respect and courtesy. Unfortunately, email and social media have removed many of the filters that were previously in place in terms of the lack of ability to make an immediate and often not thought-out response, and that unfortunately has bled over to in-person communications. There are now unlimited opportunities for knee-jerk reactions that are not thought through before hitting the SEND button.

SHRM and other reputable sources report that numerous studies show that incivility in the workplace leads to lower production, higher turnover, lower profitability, poorer customer service and decreased morale.

So how might employers rein in on such behavior in the interest of maintaining a desirable workplace culture and mitigating liability?Some employers have addressed the problem of incivility by instituting Codes of Conduct designed to advise employees what is expected of them in terms of their interactions with one another. Of course, such Codes are not worth the space they take up on a network unless they are accompanied by commitment from leadership to communicate, train and enforce the Codes, and truly reflect the mores and values of the organization. Ideally, supervisors, who after all are responsible for enforcing Codes of Conduct on the front lines, should be involved in their creation and in all cases should be thoroughly trained regarding their contents and what to do in the event of a violation.

Codes of Conduct sometimes include other matters such as conflict of interest, gifts and gratuities, and use of Company resource policies, and are generally enforced through the Companys disciplinary procedures.

From a legal standpoint, incivility is not generally regarded as in and of itself constituting illegal harassment or illegal conduct under discrimination laws, although it could and should be regarded as behavior which could easily escalate to that level if unchecked.

The coming days and weeks will tell us a lot about how people handle the inevitable fallout from the election, and of course a lot of that conversation will occur at the workplace. Its important, even vital, to workplace harmony and even more important, to the fiber of who we are as a civilized nation to have those conversations in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

2020 Davis|Kuelthau, s.c. All Rights ReservedNational Law Review, Volume X, Number 325

Read the original post:

A Divisive Election & First Amendment Rights in the Workplace - The National Law Review

(Sviatlana Lazarenka/Getty Images)New research illustrates how public opinion, often misinformed, has served as a basis for courts to bless the restriction of First Amendment liberties.

You may think the Bill of Rights safeguards our liberties from the whims of public opinion. After all, as Justice Robert Jackson observed in the 1943 case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, [t]he very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.

Well, youd be wrong, as were reminded by David M. Primo and Jeffrey D. Milyos latest work, Campaign Finance and American Democracy: What the Public Thinks and Why It Really Matters. In this welcome addition to the discourse on the countrys campaign-finance system, the authors research illustrates the ways in which public opinion, often misinformed, has served as a basis for courts to bless the restriction of First Amendment liberties.

The Constitution says: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. Yet the Supreme Court carved out an exception, allowing such a law if it deters the appearance of corruption spawned by the real or imagined coercive influence of large financial contributions. That exception comes from Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark 1976 case in which the Supreme Court struck down key provisions in the Federal Election Campaign Act while upholding others, including contribution limits.

Thus, the extent to which the First Amendment protects Americans ability to speak out about politics whether publicly or privately; whether singly, in groups, or through the corporate form is limited by the Courts deference to peoples views about campaign finance and American democracy.

Primo and Milyo, distinguished professors of political science and economics, respectively, have conducted what they rightly call a relentlessly empirical investigation of that public opinion. (Primo and Milyo are unpaid academic advisers of my employer, the Institute for Free Speech, but the IFS was not involved with this book.)

The book is straightforward even blunt and data-driven, enlightening readers about the publics views on corruption, campaigns, and money in politics. By avoiding the manifesto-style rhetoric that such books often employ, Primo and Milyo have not only taken the temperature of the public but cooled down a debate where there is often more heat than light.

It turns out that Americans do about as well in answering questions about campaign-finance law as a blindfolded monkey throwing darts at possible answers. While that finding may be as shocking as Captain Renaults discovering gambling in Ricks Caf, it is nevertheless alarming to learn just how misinformed the public is about this body of law, particularly as courts rely on public opinion to justify restrictions on core First Amendment rights.

Americans attitudes toward political expression change based on how it is described. They approve of political activity framed as speech, but they disapprove of the money that funds said speech. No doubt this discrepancy accounts for the common assertion that money isnt speech. Even more shocking: Primo and Milyos survey of campaign-finance experts in the academy reveals that they largely self-identify as liberal Democrats and believe that campaign-finance laws will work.

Other findings simply baffle. Over 20 percent of Americans believe an officeholder is acting corruptly when he takes an unpopular policy stand because it is morally right or in the best interest of the country. Its unclear if this means one-fifth of Americans are majoritarians or just nihilistic.

Still other results can only be described as disheartening. Americans are willing to sacrifice the speech rights of those they disagree with, and they think political activity is corrupting if done by an ideological opponent but not when the identical activity is done by an ally. Likewise, Americans generally support donor-disclosure requirements, but that support dramatically falls when they are asked if their own donations should be public.

In a particularly troubling finding, the authors report: No matter how we slice the data, we find a remarkably robust relationship: support for campaign-finance restrictions isincreasingin the belief that these laws are used by government officials to harass political opponents. That is to say, theres an unmistakable correlation between a persons support for campaign-finance reform and her belief that such laws are used for retribution. Primo and Milyo pose the inevitable question: Is it because, deep down, Americans are OK with using regulations to go after opponents?

Another of the authors findings is perhaps an illustration of this fear of abuse: The Federal Election Commissions requirement that donors report their address and employer information is incredibly unpopular. Just 8.1 percent of Americans approve of required disclosures of home address.

Primo and Milyos showstopper finding, however, based on a meticulous analysis of survey data over 30 years and in all 50 states, is that there is no scientific evidence that campaign-finance reforms actually increase public trust in government. Having conducted the largest and most comprehensive scientific study of the question to date, they found that campaign finance reforms do not increase public trust and confidence in government in any meaningful way.

In other words, campaign-finance laws do not reduce the appearance of corruption, the very concern stated in Buckley 44 years ago. More research is needed to confirm and expand on this finding, and in fact Primo and Milyo alert the reader that they are already on it. But for now, this book strongly suggests that the basis for over four decades of Supreme Court rulings on campaign-finance laws is fatally flawed.

Primo and Milyo appear to have found that, at least when it comes to our bloated and complicated political-speech laws, some Americans are confused, cynical, and, perhaps because of their confusion, willing to trade away the rights of others. And there is no upside: The promise of reforms ushering in a more trustworthy government is a false one.

Perhaps we should pay renewed attention to the words of Justice Jackson.

The rest is here:

Stunning Findings on Campaign-Finance Law - National Review

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Wauwatosa police have arrested a 15-year-old Milwaukee boy who theybelieve opened fire at Mayfair mall Friday afternoon, sending eight to the hospital.

Police Chief Barry Weber said the suspectwas arrested Saturday night and that the shooting was the result of an altercation between two groups of people at the mall.

"We do know there was some sort of altercation, and that's when the bullets started flying," Weber said during a Sunday news conference.

Police had said Friday that witnesses described the shooter as a white man in his 20s or 30s. But Weber described the suspect as a 15-year-oldHispanic boy. His firearm was recovered during the arrest.

Four innocent bystanders were among those who received non-life-threatening injuries during the shooting.

"There were several members of those groups that were injured during this altercation," Wauwatosa Police Public Information Officer Abby Pavlik said of the two groups involved in the altercation.

The teen left the mall as other patrons were running out, according to Wauwatosa police.

Weber said officersarrived within 30 seconds of the first call to police at 2:49 p.m. The shooting occurred near Macy's on the lower level of the mall.

Officers were unaware that theshooter had left the mall when they entered. The shooterleft the property on foot, based on video surveillance.

Police said severalother arrests have been made relatedto the shooting.

Weber said the initial information that was put out on the suspect was "erroneous." Hesaid that later Friday evening police started to develop leads that led them to believe the shooter was younger than first thought.

Weber said heviewed surveillance video and that helped find the shooter. The Police Departmentdid not release surveillance to the public when they suspected the shooter was a minor.

Witness Jill Whitfield-Wooley, who was inside Mayfair mall, recounts shooting Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Witnesses inside the mall Friday reported hearing multiple gunshots about 3 p.m. that sent people fleeing for the exits or to other locations where they could safely shelter in place. Reporters at the scene and news helicopters captured video of at least four people being loaded into ambulances in the parking lot.

The mall was closed Saturday but reopened at 11 a.m. Sunday.

A rally for President Donald Trump was held outside Mayfair mall while it was closedSaturday. Some of those at the rally were carrying guns.

Mayor Dennis McBride said he wished they would not have held the rally there so close to the shooting.

"That rally, as I understand it,was planned a week ahead of time. I think it was unfortunate they decided to come with what happened theday before," McBride said.

"I dont think people should come to political rallies with guns," he said. "I respect the First Amendment rights of everybody for political rallies and protests. If it were up to me, I would have said, please do not come, do not bring guns, honor the fact that our community is suffering right now."

Wauwatosa Mayor Dennis McBride addresses the media during a news conference at the Wauwatosa Police Department on Sunday after Police Chief Barry Weber announced a 15-year-old male has been arrested in connection to the shooting Friday at Mayfair mall. McBride encouraged residents to continue shopping at the mall, saying "it's a safe place."(Photo: Mike De Sisti / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

McBride encouraged residents to continue shopping at Mayfair mall.

As soon as I leave here, Im off to Mayfair, McBride said at the news conference. I have no problems whatsoever shopping at Mayfair. I never have and I never will. Its a safe place. The holidays are here and I hope to see you all shopping at Mayfair.

The mayor said he plans to speak with Mayfairs general manager Monday. He was not sure if all the stores were back open.

Evan Casey can be reached at evan.casey@jrn.com. Follow him on Twitter @ecaseymedia.

Our subscribers make this reporting possible. Please consider supporting local journalism by subscribing to the Journal Sentinel at jsonline.com/deal.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.jsonline.com/story/communities/west/news/wauwatosa/2020/11/22/mayfair-mall-shooting-15-year-old-arrested/6384531002/

Original post:

A 15-year-old boy has been arrested in connection with the Mayfair mall shooting - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel