Category Archives: First Amendment

Editorial note: A shorter, word-length-appropriate version of this opinion column was submitted to the Washington Post. It was rejected. Every outlet always and should always have the right to accept or reject material according to their own editorial standards. Yet under the circumstances, with the subject at the White House Correspondents Dinner being the First Amendment and with Washington being at the very center of a dispute between the media and President Trump, it would seem a column addressing the subject with fresh, newsworthy comments from three prominent conservatives Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and The American Spectators own R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. would be newsworthy. The Post disagreed. Which my own editorial comment here should highlight yet again just why the rise of conservative media and why President Trump gets applauded at rallies by so many Americans who, like the President, believe the mainstream media to be dishonest in its coverage.

The banner was hard to miss.

Hanging high above the head table of the White House Correspondents Dinner, underneath the name of the group was this line in all caps:

CELEBRATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Not to be an impolite guest (I was present courtesy of CNN) but the question that I had when I saw this banner was: Really?

In the course of the evening Watergates journalistic heroes Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein spoke, with Woodward saying Mr. President, the media is not fake news. Bernstein made a point of saying that what was always needed was The best obtainable version of the truth, adding Yes, follow the money, but follow, also, the lies. This latter theme was also that of the WHCA President Jeff Mason of Reuters, who said this in addressing the absent President Trump directly: We are not fake news, we are not failing news organizations and we are not the enemy of the American people.

Meanwhile a 100 miles north in Harrisburg, President Trump was speaking to an arena-full of Americans who cheered him on when he attacked the incompetent, dishonest media and said: If the medias job is to be honest and to tell the truth, the media deserves a very, very big fat failing grade.

What caused me to question the message on that banner, and understand instantly why the Presidents audience cheered him on when he attacked the media, was the absence of two words from anyone on the podium. Those two words: Ann Coulter.

For the better part of a couple weeks Coulter, the conservative columnist, author, and Trump supporter, had been at the very center of a drama that went right to the heart of the First Amendment. Invited to speak at the University of California at Berkeley, she was unable to do so because of the very real threat of violence from the American Left. Let me say that again. An American columnist was denied her First Amendment rights with threats to her physical safety (and that of anyone considering attending her speech) and there was not word one about this from Messrs. Woodward and Bernstein or Mason.

How could such an obvious omission happen? To this conservative the reason was clear. What was on display all evening was not support for the First Amendment but rather support for liberals and their use of the First Amendment.

I decided to ask three prominent conservatives all of whom have had their First Amendment rights targeted over the years whether they have received support from the White House Correspondents Association when they were under attack.

Rush Limbaugh responded to my question as follows:

Of course not. Clinton called me a racist for defending Janet Reno after she was criticized by John Conyers. Rush only defended her because she was being attacked by a black guy. I was at the USA Today table. There was a huge reaction in the whole room. Disbelief and shock. Some embarrassed laughter, mostly groans. Chris Matthews approached me at the end of the dinner and said I could not let that stand, the president of the United States calling you a racist cannot stand.

He (Clinton) also agreed that I was a Big Fat Idiot while honoring Frankens book.

Sean Hannitys response was equally blunt:

1) Not one liberal. Not one speaks vs the weapon of Boycotts used vs conservatives to silence them. I call it Liberal Fascism. An organized and well funded effort to silence political opposition.

2) The media ran with a CHEAP HEADLINE last Saturday and Sunday about me after a false charge was made by a woman who has a nearly 15 year history of telling proven lies about me. 2 days after OReilly fired, she says for the first time ever that in 2003 that I invited her to a hotel room in Detroit.

You would think the media would do just a simple, basic, rudimentary, fundamental GOOGLE SEARCH and not run with such a slanderous headline.

3) Has anyone in the media ever spoken out about the payments being made to individuals to monitor EVERY SINGLE CONSERVATIVE radio and TV host in the hopes the hosts say something that can be used to boycott and silence them? Do they care to examine where these funds come from?

4) Has any liberal ever stood up for any conservative thats been silenced on a college campus?? How many liberals spoke out for Coulter?

I also made the query to the founding editor ofThe American Spectator,where I am a columnist. Long before I began writing for theSpectator,R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. and theSpectatorwere engaged in numerous investigations of then-President Clinton. One dealt with the Presidents relationships with various women. (It was theSpectatorwhich first brought to light the relationship between then-Governor Clinton and a state employee named Paula later revealed as Paula Jones.) The otherSpectatorinvestigation dealt with assorted charges made about Clinton political dealings in Arkansas. The latter resulted in a recommendation from then-Deputy U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that The American Spectator itself be investigated by a special prosecutor, an investigation that lasted fourteen months and was a considerable expense in legal fees for a political magazine. There was, Tyrrell tells me, not a word from the White House Correspondents Association defending theSpectators First Amendment rights.

What are these three conservatives saying? In short and they are not alone in the conservative world there is a real belief that support for the First Amendment is situational with liberals and with the White House Correspondents Association. (Or am I repeating myself?)

Whether it is Ann Coulter at Berkeley or left-wing efforts to get Limbaugh and Hannity off the air or the use of the Department of Justice to investigateThe American Spectator or countless incidents on college campuses across the country in each and every case and so many more it seems to be liberals communicating to conservatives that what they really believe is the First Amendment for me but not for thee.

Following the WHCA dinner, the groups president, Mr. Mason, appeared on Tucker Carlsons Fox show to discuss the dinner. The conversation, in part, included this:

Turning to the ideology of the press, Carlson cited astudy published by Politico, which revealed that no registered Republicans were part of the White House press corps.

If you had a White House press corps that was 100 percent middle-aged white men, Carlson told Mason, there would be a full-blown outcry about the lack of diversity and I bet you $100 you would weigh in and say, Youre right, this doesnt look like America.

Do you think its OK that there are zero registered Republicans in the White House press corps? the host asked.

I think whats important is that we have a press corps thats made up of journalists who report the truth and who robustly report on the president of the United States, Mason answered.

Carlson wrapped up the discussion by asking Mason, Is political diversity important to you?

Is diversity important? Of course, Mason said. Is it my job to talk about what journalists in the White House press corps do? Yes. What they do is report the news regardless of what political party controls the White House.

I wish I believed that, Carlson answered. I dont.

That Saturday night at the Washington Hilton I too heard nothing to abuse conservatives of that view. To borrow from my CNN colleague Carl Bernstein, when it comes to the best obtainable version of the truth on liberal support for the First Amendment, for conservatives that support seems far too often to be situational at best.

Which in turn makes it easy to understand exactly why President Trumps attacks on the media received cheers at that rally in Harrisburg.

See the original post here:
The White House Correspondents' Association and the First Amendment - American Spectator

Idaho Education News won the Idaho Press Clubs First Amendment Award during the annualjournalismbanquet Saturday night in Boise.

Editor Jennifer Swindell and data and policy analyst Randy Schrader won the award for catching the Caldwell School Districts board of trustees violating the states open meeting law when it hired superintendent Shalene French.

The First Amendment Award is given for work by Idaho journalists, in any medium, that advances the cause of freedom of information in Idaho in the public interest.

Kevin Richert also earned an honorable mention in the First Amendment category for a separate story that caught the State Board of Education violating open meeting laws.

Idaho EdNews was honored withseveral other awards Saturday. Journalist Clark Corbin won second place for reporter of the year in the all media category, and Richert was named honorable mention for reporter of the year.

Multimedia journalist Andrew Reed won a first place award for best use of interactivity for his first day of school photo content, and Idaho Education Trends won a first place award in the special purpose website category.

A complete list of awards and winners is available online at the Idaho Press Clubs website.

Read more from the original source:
Idaho EdNews wins First Amendment Award - Idaho EdNews

First Amendment rights rudely dismissed at UB

Fascists on the political left have once again invaded the University at Buffalo. The schools own independent student publication, the Spectrum, said it all in the headline of a May 2 article: A Campus Divided: Robert Spencers visit met with chaos and opposition.

All kinds of folks, draped dramatically in their own vacuous definitions of supposed rights and alleged abuses, bristled at the prospect of Spencer even being on campus. Yet, notwithstanding an official invitation to speak, his First Amendment rights were rudely dismissed and abused by trolls living in droves under the bridges of modern-day academia. As the article described it, the constant heckling from the crowd made it near impossible for him to complete a full sentence. The vaunted values of inclusion, tolerance, fairness and free speech clearly do not exist on this hate-filled campus.

Let these fascists and their obsequious faculty supporters reap the whirlwind they have sown and dwell in the place for which they clamor. So long as Americans vigorously defend their Constitution, however, such pernicious vermin will not find it here. Caveat civis!

Lee C. Broad

Amherst

Originally posted here:
Letter: First Amendment rights rudely dismissed at UB - Buffalo News

Sacramento Bee

Here's a different reason Trump's new travel ban violates the First Amendment Sacramento Bee Two federal courts of appeals this week will hear oral arguments about the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's travel ban. They should conclude that the ban violates the First Amendment, but not for the reason the federal district courts ... Trump's revised travel ban faces legal challenges in courtrooms on both coastsChicago Tribune Trump's Refugee Order Back In Federal Court This WeekThe Daily Caller Trump's immigration travel ban faces familiar foe in appeals courts: TrumpUSA TODAY all 46 news articles »

See original here:
Here's a different reason Trump's new travel ban violates the First Amendment - Sacramento Bee

Is the First Amendment Under Attack?

Updated: 3:16 PM CDT May 5, 2017

The first amendment is being challenged on all sides freedom of religion is being tested in the Supreme Court, protests are keeping conservative pundits away from liberal campuses, and the White House is threatening a crackdown on the press. Over thirty tweets bashing the media have been sent out by President Donald Trump since inauguration. Besides condemning mainstream media as fake news, he also suggested the loosening of libel laws, something he called for on the campaign trail. But does the president have that authority or influence? First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams says no the federal government has no power over libel laws which differ for each state. Abrams, best known for his defense of the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, has published his latest book, The Soul of the First Amendment. He joins Soledad OBrien to explain the intersection of free speech and the right to protest, the beginnings of the First Amendment, and the case a former president could have against the current one.

WEBVTT SOLEDAD: I'M SOLEDAD O'BRIEN.WELCOME TO "MATTER OF FACT."THE 45 WORDS THAT MAKE UP THEFIRST AMENDMENT ARE BEING TESTEDBY THE 140 CHARACTERS OFTWITTER.AT LEAST, THE PRESIDENT'STWITTER.PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ANTI-MEDIAPOSTS AND CHIEF OF STAFF REINCPRIEBUS' ADMISSION THAT THEWHITE HOUSE IS LOOKING INTOOPENING LIBEL LAWS COULD POSE ATHREAT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS,SUGGESTING RETALIATION FOR NEWSCOVERAGE CONSIDERED SLANTED.ONE LEGAL SCHOLAR SAYS THEPRESIDENT'S TRAIL OF TWEETSCOULD ACTUALLY PROTECT THE MEDIAPROVING HIS INTENT TO PUNISHJOURNALISTS BY USING THE LEGALSYSTEMFLOYD ABRAMS HAS WRITTEN A NBOOK.IT IS CALLED "THE SOUL OF THEFIRST AMENDMENT," TO RE-EDUCATEUS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OFPROTECTING SPEECH -- EVEN WHENWE FIND IT OFFENSIVE.ABRAMS ARGUED AT THE SUPREMECOURT ON BEHALF OF THE "NEW YORKTIMES" IN THE PENTAGON PAPERSCASE DURING THE NIXONADMINISTRATION AND HAS BEEN BACKIN COURT MANY TIMES SINCDEFENDING REPORTERS AND EDITORS.IT'S NICE TO SEE YOU, SIR.THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. YOU START THE BOOK WITH FASCINATING LOOK AT OUR NATION'SFOREFATHER1787, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THEWENT BACK AND FORTH ON THEPHRASING. ORIGINALLY, THEY TALKED ABOUTTHE PEOPLE'S RIGHT ANDEVENTUALLY IT SHIFTED TO WHATCONGRESS COULDN'T DO. WHY DOES THE NUANCE MATTERFLOYD: IT MATTERS BECAUSE THELANGUAGE WE WOUND UP WITH --EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING -"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWCONGRESS LATER BECAME THEPRESIDENT ALSO AND THE STATESALSOBUT IT BECAME CLEAR A BAN, ABAR, A LIMITATION ON GOVERNMENT,WHICH IS THE STUFF OF LAW. THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS A LAWIT IS NOT A POEM, NOTASPIRATIONAL, NOT JUST A HOPEFOR THE FUTURE. IF YOU PHRASE IT THE OTHER WAY,IF YOU SAY PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BEDENIED THEIR RIGHTS, IT SOUNDAS IF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING --WOULDN'T THAT BE A GOOD IDEA?SO THEY DELIBERATELY MADE ITSTRONGER, BY MAKING IT NARROWER."CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECHOR OF THE PRESS."SOLEDAD: YET WE ARE CONSTANTGOING BACK AND FORTH ABOUTWHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING ISPROTECTED BY THE FIRSTAMENDMENT, FOR SOMETHING THATWAS SUPPOSED TO BE KIND OFSTRONG. DO YOU WORRY ABOUT PRESIDENTTRUMP, WHO HAS MADE HIS DISTASTEFOR BOTH JOURNALISTS AND THEFIRST AMENDMENT PRETTY CLEAR?FLOYD: WELL, YES I AM WORRIEDABOUT IT. I THINK SOME AREAS HE'S TALKEDABOUT HE REALLY CAN'T AND WON'TBE ABLE TO GET INTO, LIKE LIBELLAW. HE HAS SAID HE WANTS TO LOOSENTHE LIBEL LAW. BUT THERE IS NO FEDERAL LIBELLAW. THERE IS NO UNITED STATES LIBELLAW. WE HAVE 50 STATES, THEY HAVELIBEL LAWS. THERE IS NO ROLE FOR THEPRESIDENT OR THE CONGRESS ABOUTLIBEL LAW. AND OF COURSE, IT IS THE FIRSTAMENDMENT WHICH PROTECTS AGAINTHE STATE LIBEL LAWS SO AS TOMAKE IT REALLY HARD FOR APRESIDENT OR A PUBLIC OFFICIALOR A PUBLIC FIGURE TO WIN LIBEL CASE, PURPOSELY.LIBEL LAW ONLY APPLIES TO FALSSTATEMENTS OF FACT, NOT OPINION.NOW AN EXAMPLE, PRESIDENT OBAMACOULD SUE OUR PRESIDENT AND SAY,"YOU SAID I COMMITTED A CRIMINALACT BY WIRETAPPING YOU, AND ITIS NOT TRUE."THAT IS A LAWSUIT.SOLEDAD: THE FORMER PRESIDENTCOULD SUE THE CURRENT PRESIDENTFOR LIBEL? THAT WOULD BE -- FLOYD: THAT WOULD BE A GREATLAWSUIT.SOLEDAD: WOW, WOW. CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS WILL BEGOING CRAZY OVER THAT.LET'S TALK ABOUT PROTESTS ONCOLLEGE CAMPUSESMOST RECENT ONE IS ANN COULTERSUPPOSED TO SPEAK AT BERKELEY,IT SORT OF BECAME THIS BIG FREESPEECH DEBATE. EVEN THOUGH SHE NEVER SPOKE ANSHE WITHDREW, PROTESTERS MADE ITCLEAR, AND I AM ROUGHLYPARAPHRASING, THAT SHE ISCONSERVATIVE AND SHE DOESN'TDESERVE TO SPEAK HERE. PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE BERKELEY ISA PUBLIC UNIVERSITY.FLOYD: RIGHT. PUBLIC UNIVERSITY AND THEREFORESUBJECT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. WE TREAT PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ASIF THEY WERE THE CONGRESS. AND SO, IF A PUBLIC UNIVERSITREATS HER DIFFERENTLY BECAUSESHE IS CONSERVATIVE OR BECAUSESHE IS OUTRAGEOUS, THERE COULDBE A LAWSUITSOLEDAD: SO IF SOMEBODY HAS ARIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, AND WEKNOW THAT PEOPLE WHO APROTESTING, THAT IS ALSO A FORMOF FREE SPEECH AND THEY HAVE THERIGHT TO PROTEST, WHERE IS THELINE? THEY BOTH HAVE A RIGHT.FLOYD: THEY DO BOTH HAVE ARIGHT. AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO HECKLE.WHAT THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TOIS TO SHUT PEOPLE UP. THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO BE SLOUD, OR SO CONTINUING, OR SOTHREATENING THAT THE SPEECHSIMPLY CAN'T GO ON.UNFORTUNATELY, THAT IS WHAT HASHAPPENED TOO OFTEN ON COLLEGECAMPUSES AROUND AMERICWE CAN'T JUST SAY THESE COLLEGESTUDENTS DON'T KNOW WHAT THEYARE DOING. WE HAVE TO TEACH THEM IN JUNIORHIGH SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL, ANDWE DO NEED CIVICS COURSE. WE DO NEED A LESSON ON AMERICANLIBERTY ON A CONTINUING BASISFROM THE TIME PEOPLE ARE KIDS.SOLEDAD: FLOYD ABRAMS, IT IS SO

Continue reading here:
Is the First Amendment Under Attack? - KETV Omaha

Durham Herald Sun

President Donald Trump wants it both ways with First Amendment ... Durham Herald Sun Clearly, Donald Trump wants things both ways. He'd strip First Amendment protections from his media critics while claiming them for himself when others are ... Bob Davis: Libel law under the microscope - The Anniston StarAnniston Star Constitutional Connections: Can President Trump 'open up' the libel ...Concord Monitor all 4 news articles »

See the original post here:
President Donald Trump wants it both ways with First Amendment ... - Durham Herald Sun

OKLAHOMA CITY (KOKH)

The administration of Deer Creek Public Schools reports they are working directly with the ACLU to address First Amendment concerns.

Deer Creek Public Schools released a statement May 5 reporting that they "strongly support" students' First Amendment rights.

"No students were disciplined for their expression of the First Amendment. We support all students within the context of maintaining safe and orderly schools, and have policy and procedures in place to help keep all students safe." the statement said.

On May 3, the ACLU of Oklahoma claimed that an African American student from Deer Creek High School was forced to remove a shirt with the phrase "Black Lives Matter" because it was a dress code violation.

In response to the alleged incident, students planned to wear black in support of the student which led to an email to parents from Deer Creek High School Principal Melissa Jordan. The email allegedly threatened any students participating to be shown disciplinary action.

Deer Creek administration says they want a student body that is "inclusive and not divided". The district reports that all employees have gone through harassment and bullying training. Students have also gone through assemblies hoping to "further their focus on tolerance, kindness and acceptance of all students during the 2016-2017 year."

More:
Deer Creek Public Schools addressing First Amendment concerns ... - KOKH FOX25

Four California high school students who were suspended for liking and commenting on racistInstagram postshavefiled a federal lawsuit alleging administrators paraded them through the school and allowed their classmates to berate them as part of a healing exercise.

The plaintiffs were among more than a dozen students at Albany High School who were accused of liking or commenting on the posts, which showed pictures of female African Americanclassmates and the girls basketballcoach with nooses drawn around their necks. Other images showedthe girlsnext to photos of apes, according tothe Mercury News.

The posts surfaced in March, after some of the students classmates took screen shots of them and reported them to administrators at the public high school. The student who created the images not named in the lawsuit was suspended.

A complaint filed this week accuses the Albany Unified School District of going too far in suspending the other students. The lawsuit which names the school district, the school and several administrators alleges the four plaintiffswere punished in violation of their First Amendment and due process rights.

This action arises out of a private online discussion between friends that the Albany School system has pried into without authority, the lawsuit said. All conduct at issue in this matter occurred off school property, were conducted off school hours, and were otherwise completely unrelated to school activity.

Albany Unified School District Superintendent Valerie Williamssaid in a statementWednesday that the district wasreviewing the case.

The district takes great care to ensure that our students feel safe at school, and we are committed to providing an inclusive and respectful learning environment for all of our students, Williams said, as reported by the Mercury News. The district intends to defend this commitment and its conduct within the court system.

The lawsuit alleged that the plaintiffs, all juniors,were wrongfully suspended by the school in late March after some of their classmates took screen shots of the Instagram posts and reported them to administrators.

When the students returned on March 30, the lawsuit said, administrators forced them to march through the school while their peers tormented them.

School administrators allowed the student body to hurl obscenities, scream profanities, and jeer at the Plaintiffs and the other suspended students, who were all not allowed to leave what the school considered an act of atonement but was rather a thinly veiled form of public shaming, the lawsuit said.

Eventually, a parent stepped in and convinced administrators to stop the event, which was described in the complaint as a healing exercise.

Later the same day, they attended a voluntary restorative justice session organized by a community group. A few hundred students and parents gathered outside to protest. When the session came to a close, the demonstration grew tense, prompting the plaintiffs parents to ask for a police escort out, according to the complaint.

As two of the plaintiffs were leaving,an incensed demonstrator struck both of them in the head, leaving one of them with a broken nose and the other with cuts and bruises, the lawsuit alleged.

Plaintiffs have all have suffered emotional distress due to these incidents, the complaint read, including anxiety, fear, insomnia and other distress.

Thestudents want theschool to wipe their disciplinary records clean, refrain from any further punishment and allow them to make up the work they missed.

Some of the students on the receiving end of the racist posts told local media they felt threatened. The uncle and guardian of a teenage girl shown in one of the images told the Mercury Newshis nieces grades suffered after the incident.

Free speech is a fundamental right, said the uncle, who asked not to be named, but it cant be at the expense of hurting someone.

Awoman who said she was the mother of a sophomore at the school told the Mercury News:This is bullying. This is racist. This is sexist. They were attacking kids.

View post:
Does the First Amendment protect 'liking' a racist Instagram post? Some Calif. students say it does. - Washington Post

In his book Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution, Justice Stephen Breyer maintained that the primary purpose of the First Amendment goes beyond protecting the individual from government restrictions.

First and foremost, Breyer wrote, the First Amendment seeks to facilitate democratic self-government.

When it is correctly viewed, he maintained, one must understand the First Amendment as seeking primarily to encourage the exchange of information and ideas necessary for citizens themselves to shape that public opinion which is the final source of government in a democratic state.

In his dissenting opinion in the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case, relating to limitations on the total amount of contributions a donor may make to candidates for Congress, in which he was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Breyer argued similarly.

The First Amendment, he wrote, advances not only the individuals right to engage in political speech, but also the publics interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters. The First Amendment, he urged, must be understood as promoting a government where laws reflect the very thoughts, views, ideas, and sentiments, the expression of which the First Amendment protects.

These views offer a double-barreled First Amendment, one that addresses not only the risks of governmental control over speech but the desirability of a government truly responsive to the views of the public. But there is reason to doubt that the First Amendment can serve both ends.

First and foremost, after all, the First Amendment seeks to protect against the dangers of government overreaching into areas where government itself is especially dangerous freedom of religion, speech, and press. At its core, it is not about promoting collective speech but of avoiding the imposition of just such speech by the government.

One of the benefits of the First Amendment is that it generally leads to a better-informed public and ultimately a more representative government. But we surely would not allow particular speech to be suppressed because the government decided that it led the public to become ill-informed or less enamored of representative government.

That sort of censorship is the opposite of what the First Amendment is about.

The notion that First Amendment interests are served whenever laws genuinely reflect public opinion also seems to overlook the reality that the public too often seeks to suppress speech it disapproves of. Speech is sometimes ugly, outrageous, even dangerous. The understandable public response to such speech is often one of disgust, revulsion, and sometimes anger. And support for taking steps to ensure that the offending speech does not recur.

Floyd Abramsis the author of The Soul of the First Amendment(Yale University Press, 2017). He willdiscuss his book at noon Monday at the National Constitution Center. For information, visit constitutioncenter.org/debate or call 215-409-6700.

Published: May 5, 2017 3:01 AM EDT | Updated: May 5, 2017 3:13 PM EDT

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

Read the original here:
The Soul of the First Amendment - Philly.com

Reporters Krista Torralva and Natalia Contreras teamed up for a story about the days leading up to the death of Noemi Villarreal, a victim of domestic violence. The article earned them the First Amendment Award in the Defending the Disadvantaged category.(Photo: File photos)

Three Caller-Times journalists were recognized in April by the Society of Professional Journalists.

Reporters Krista Torralva and Natalia Contreras teamed up for a story about the days leading up to thedeath ofNoemi Villarreal, a victim of domestic violence. The articleearned them First Amendment Award in the Defending the Disadvantaged category. The category highlights stories that illustrate the problems of the powerless in society.

More:Six days after reporting domestic violence, Noemi Villarreal was dead

Six days after seeking help from Corpus Christi police after her boyfriend held her captive,Noemi Villarreal's naked body was foundstuffed in a trash can in a grassy field near Oso Bay.

Villarreal's income came from dancing at a strip club and a disability check. She became dependent on drugs and her boyfriend, Lance Taylor, provided her with sedatives and antidepressants, her sister,Nydia Villarreal, said to Contreras. Taylor was indicted in September for murder in her death.

Contreras saidNydia Villarreal's candid disclosure of Noemi Villarreal'ssocial blemishes epitomized a vulnerabilitythat can influence a victims' credibility, which Contreras said should never be the case.

"Your background doesn't matter," Contreras said. "You're supposed to be protected."

The Corpus Christi police Department's family violence unitclosed on the weekends when the story published. The articlehighlightedNoemi's chance of survival if that weren't the case.As of July 28, family violence detectives are rotated for weekends and after hours duty.

Caller-Times reporter Chris Ramirez was named a finalist in the award's Business News category for a story about the effects of the drop in oil prices in South Texas.(Photo: File photo)

Caller-Times reporter Chris Ramirez also was named a finalist in the award's Business News category for a story about the effects of the drop in oil prices inSouth Texas.

More:As oil jobs dry up, unemployment spikes in Coastal Bend

Using the voices ofresidents inAlice, coupled with oil price shifts and unemployment rates of area counties, the storypainted a clear picture of how South Texas townsonce economically supported by Eagle Ford Shale activity are now hurting.

Read or Share this story: http://callertim.es/2peHHrx

See more here:
Caller-Times journalists recognized for First Amendment reporting - Corpus Christi Caller-Times