Monthly Archives: February 2017

The First Amendment is stronger than ever, and is being exercised more freely and aggressively than at any time in our nations history.

That may seem a surprising conclusion based on the handwringing from Big Media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, the Washington Post and others who claim that the First Amendment is under attack from President Trump. But it is nevertheless true.

The Big Media outlets are doing their best to conflate themselves with the First Amendment, i.e., an attack on CNN, they say, is an attack on freedom of the press. That is a lie, as CNN would quickly label a dubious assertion by the president. CNN is merely an organization that takes advantage of First Amendment rights to do its job. CNN is not the embodiment of the First Amendment. Neither is The New York Times or the Washington Post.

What really bothers Big Media is that they are not as relevant, respected or necessary as they once were. But they want to be treated as if they are, as if its still 1950 or 1960 or even 1990. They want to be the exclusive filter through which news and information flows, but they are no longer that, and it is that fact that leads to their frequent hissy fits.

In this internet age, there are tens of thousands of alternative sources for news and information when it comes to national events, at least several hundred of which are regularly consulted by the masses on a daily basis. Most of these newer, alternative news sources are firmly planted in one ideological corner or the other, and their credibility is often suspect but unfortunately the same can be said for CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, the Washington Post and countless additional metropolitan newspapers.

The cratering of respect and credibility for the once powerful Big Media outlets is not the fault of President Trump. It is the fault of the media outlets themselves. Their low standing is the result of their own irresponsible choices, culminating in their outrageously biased coverage of the 2016 presidential election.

Trump is off the mark when he criticizes certain outlets for delivering fake news. The news itself the content is real enough. Its the delivery that is flawed. The problem is not fake news. The problem is horrible journalism.

Understanding good journalism does not require an advanced degree. Good journalism is accurate. It is fair. It does not have an agenda. It is not out to get someone. It presents facts as completely as human beings are capable of gathering them. It does not seek out only the negative or the positive about the subjects that are covered. It follows the facts where they may lead, without a preconceived end result. Virtually none of the Big Media outlets follow these simple precepts anymore.

The First Amendment states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

What a thing of beauty. So much is covered in so few words. But for todays purpose, our focus is on free speech and the press. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

The First Amendment does not say, The president shall not criticize the media or call it fake news. It does not say, Certain media outlets above others will have rights of access and the front row at press briefings. It does not say, The president shall always call on CNN for a question during press conferences. None of those examples, when they happen or do not happen, threaten, harm or violate the First Amendment.

When he or his staff holds a briefing or event, the president of the United States can handpick any group of media outlets he desires and exclude any he wants to keep out. Doing so violates no ones First Amendment rights. The only way CNNs First Amendment rights could be violated is if Congress passed a law taking CNN off the air.

Everyone associated with the news media, big or small, has gone through battles with various public officials, whether local, state or national, over access and inclusion. There are always cases where some officials or organizations or groups invite some media outlets to an event and not others, or send press releases to one while not sending to the others, or provide information later to others while getting it into a preferred outlets hands first. These are age-old games that are as ancient as the written word.

When it happens, it is not a violation of anyones First Amendment rights. In some cases, open record or freedom of information laws might be violated, but First Amendment rights are not. Nothing is preventing a media outlet from exercising its First Amendment rights, both by complaining loudly about the treatment and by pursuing the information through a less convenient avenue than having it handed over on a silver platter.

But meanwhile, the First Amendment itself is being exercised in this internet age so freely, so aggressively, so without boundaries that it could be mistaken for being on steroids. Anyone with internet access and a blog, anyone with email, anyone with a Facebook or Twitter account both media members and non-journalists has a worldwide platform to exercise their freedom of speech, even the worst kinds of free speech (anonymous and therefore irresponsible). Far from inhibiting the exercise of free speech and a free press, President Trump, intentionally or not, is demonstrating that the jealous entitlement CNN and other Big Media outlets have had on the First Amendment is a thing of the past.

The only way the traditional Big Media outlets can recapture their special claim on the First Amendment and the respect they once enjoyed is by doing what they are most unlikely to do return to a form of journalism that is fair and unbiased, tough but respectful. Short of that, their standing and influence will continue to diminish. The fault will be theirs, not the presidents.

Reach Gary Abernathy at 937-393-3456 or by email at [emailprotected]

http://timesgazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/web1_Gary-Abernathy-CMYK-10.jpg

.

See the rest here:
1st Amendment stronger than ever - Hillsboro Times Gazette

First Amendment

Posted Feb 27, 2017 08:31 am CST

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Lawyers and First Amendment advocates joined a New York congresswoman on Saturday in blasting President Donald Trumps exclusions of some news organizations from a White House press briefing the previous day.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney held a news conference with the experts outside the headquarters of the New York Times, one of the news organizations banned from the press briefing, report Newsday, the New York Daily News, the Observer and the Associated Press.

Civil liberties lawyer Norman Siegel, the former leader of the New York Civil Liberties Union, called for a lawsuit by the news media that challenges the exclusion as prohibited viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment.

You give censors an inch, Siegel said, and then they take a yard, and then they take a mile, and then you wake up one morning, and you dont have your rights anymore,

Press secretary Sean Spicer said during the briefing that were going to aggressively push back. Were just not going to sit back and let, you know, false narratives, false stories, inaccurate facts get out there.

A press release announcing the briefing cites a 1977 federal appeals court decision, Sherrill v. Knight, in which the Nation sued for denial of a press pass. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in that case that arbitrary or content-based criteria for issuing press passes is barred under the First Amendment.

Besides the New York Times, news organizations banned from the Friday press briefing were CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Daily News, Politico, BuzzFeed, BBC, the Huffington Post and the Guardian. Time and the Associated Press boycotted the briefing to show support for the banned media.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told the New York Times that all the news media was represented because pool reporters were invited. We decided to add a couple of additional people beyond the pool. Nothing more than that, Sanders said.

Siegel said he was also troubled by the Obama administrations decision to exclude Fox News from press access for a brief period in 2009. According to the Washington Post, the incident involved an attempt to bar the news organization from interviews with pay czar Kenneth Feinberg. Other media outlets protested the exclusion.

Original post:
Did White House exclusion of press violate First Amendment? Norman Siegel says suit should be filed - ABA Journal

Fort Worth Star Telegram

Appeals court: First Amendment gives public right to video police Fort Worth Star Telegram A witness, Brandon Brooks, uploaded this video of the incident to YouTube. In a recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Justice Jacques Wiener wrote: Protecting the right to film the police promotes First Amendment principles. Brandon Brooks YouTube.

Excerpt from:
Appeals court: First Amendment gives public right to video police - Fort Worth Star Telegram

Lauren Holst, Cedar Falls, Letter to the Editor 5:40 p.m. CT Feb. 27, 2017

Handguns at a shooting range in Boone, Iowa, in January 2016.(Photo: William Petroski/Des Moines Register)Buy Photo

Iowa Sen. Jake Chapman, R-Adel,has found yet another creative way for more Iowans, children and adults alike, to be shot.

A long list of professionals licensed by the state should take note.Chapman has just introduced Senate File 254, A person licensed to practice a profession under this (Code) chapter (147) shall not inquire about or otherwise request information about a patients or clients ownership or possession of firearms.

We should all be concerned about this foolhardy bill that does nothing to support Americans Second Amendment right to a well-regulated militia. It is time voters roar a reminder that the preamble to the Constitution makes clear the purpose of government includes the responsibility to insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare. Also, the First Amendment is explicitly clear that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Apparently Chapmans budgetary concerns do not extend to using our tax dollars to entangle Iowans in lawsuits on constitutionality.

All Iowans and, most directly, the following professions are affected: physician and surgeon, podiatric physician, osteopathic physician and surgeon, physician assistant, psychologist, chiropractor, nurse, dentist, dental hygienist, dental assistant, optometrist, speech pathologist, audiologist, pharmacist, physical therapist, physical therapist assistant, occupational therapist, occupational therapy assistant, orthotist, prosthetist, pedorthist, respiratory care practitioner, practitioner of cosmetology arts and sciences, practitioner of barbering, funeral director, dietitian, marital and family therapist, mental health counselor, respiratory care and polysomnography practitioner, polysomnographic technologist, social worker, massage therapist, athletic trainer, acupuncturist, nursing home administrator, hearing aid specialist, or sign language interpreter or transliterator.

What kind of society are our elected officials and the voters of Adel creating for us? And why?

Lauren Holst, Cedar Falls

Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2mxW4XO

Read the original:
New gun legislation violates First Amendment - DesMoinesRegister.com

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday morning over the First Amendment rights of sex offenders in North Carolina. The justices will consider a North Carolina law that forbids offenders from accessing Facebook and other social media.

In 2002, Lester Packingham pleaded guilty to taking indecent liberties with a child in Cabarrus County. In 2008, state lawmakers banned sex offenders from using social networking websites that minors frequent. Two years later, Packingham was arrested in Durham in relation to a Facebook post in which he praised God for the dismissal of a traffic ticket.

The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that law does not violate the First Amendment right to free speech. The state court noted that Packingham could still use other websites, and that the law furthered a governmental interest of protecting children.

Packingham's attorneys appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that's "an alarming departure from our legal tradition" and an "obvious and flagrant violation of the First Amendment." They'll try to convince the justices to strike the law down. They say the ban also applies to amazon.com and nytimes.com, although the state disputes that.

North Carolina's attorneys argue the ban does not burden speech any more than necessary to achieve its purpose. Attorneys general from 13 other states, including South Carolina, filed a brief in support of the law.

Go here to see the original:
US Supreme Court Hears Arguments Monday Over First Amendment And NC Sex Offenders - WCQS