Category Archives: First Amendment

The rights of Milo Yiannopoulos were violated. Angry about his politics and uncomfortable with his trolling, violent protestors kept him from delivering scheduled remarks in a public venue. His right to free speech was categorically infringed.

But that was more than three weeks ago at UC Berkley and it bears zero resemblance to the current controversy surrounding Milo's CPAC speech. In reality, there's little threat to his First Amendment rights.

For those unfamiliar with the obnoxious populist provocateur, Milo has made a career of exposing liberal double standards. The operating procedure of the Breitbart writer is pretty simple. He mocks the pieties held by many on the Left, trashing in particular the special treatment afforded to individual groups.

And Milo puts on a good show. Normally his antics are more entertaining than his arguments are incisive. But he's always aggravating on purpose. That's gotten him kicked off of Twitter and college campuses, all the while catapulting his career.

But his comments about pedophilia are beyond reprehensible. In a recently surfaced January 2016 video, Milo speaks fondly and even defends "relationships between younger boys and older men." Later he makes light of the sexual abuse that rocked the Catholic Church, quipping that he's "grateful for Father Michael" and adds that he "wouldn't give nearly such good head if it wasn't for him."

Is all of this terribly offensive? Absolutely. Is it protected speech under the First Amendment? Yes. Does that mean that CPAC will violate Milo's rights if they cancel his speech? Not at all.

As a private organization, CPAC can give a venue to whomever they please. Whether they cut or keep Milo in the speaking line-up for this week's conference in Washington, D.C., is completely up to them. Whether he speaks or is silenced, his rights won't be violated.

There's only one way the Berkley episode can be replayed this Friday. If a violent mob rips him from the stage or the government bars him from speaking. Clearly, there's little chance of that happening.

Philip Wegmann is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Yiannopoulos' book deal was worth a reported $250,000 and was expected to be released in June.

02/20/17 5:45 PM

Top Story

H.R. McMaster replaces Mike Flynn as Trump's national security adviser.

By Caitlin Yilek, Kelly Cohen

02/20/17 3:03 PM

See the rest here:
No, Milo Yiannopoulos' 1st Amendment rights aren't at risk - Washington Examiner

Just wow.

This exchange on live TV is really something.

On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace went after Reince Priebus, who is Donald Trump's Chief of Staff in the White House, regarding Trump's comments about the news media being the "enemy of the people."

And you know how it is when you're The Donald and you've lost Fox News, well, you're probably losing everybody.

Related: John McCain Calls Trump A Dictator

Watch this particular exchange, where Wallace completely calls out Trump and Priebus over the anti-freedom of the press comments (below):

WOW!

Again, that's a Fox News host not afraid to call out The Donald's awful and destructive statements!!!

Video: Trump's Ridiculous Press Conference Goes To Late Night!

The entire interview is a thing of beauty, too and Priebus gets his ass handed to him repeatedly by Wallace, who doesn't back down for a second.

Watch the full thing (below):

Brutal for Priebus. Brutal for Trump. Sad!

But great for America and we need Fox News to keep calling out The Donald just like the rest of the media has been for the last two years!!!

Related: Trump Made Chris Christie Order Meatloaf While Dining In The White House!

What do U think about these clips, Perezcious readers??

Let us know in the comments (below)!!!

[Image via Fox News.]

Tags: celebrity feuds, chris wallace, controversy, crazzzzy, donald trump, fox news, fox news sunday, politik, reince priebus, scary!, tacky and true, tv news, viral: news, wacky, white house

Read more:
Holy Shit Even Fox News Is Calling Out Donald Trump's Anti-First Amendment Comments - PerezHilton.com

Despite calls for expulsion or suspension, Oklahoma State University cant legally punish the students who posted offensive words and images on social media at the beginning of the semester, according to OSU officials.

African-American students and others who are outraged by (the incident) have every right to be outraged by this, but if youve turned the focus on punishing the speech, you dont solve the problems of the racism, said Joey Senat, who specializes in media and First Amendment law.

When you say that person should be expelled because I didnt like that persons speech, they dont understand the larger issues and what the First Amendment actually is intended to mean, he said.

On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a photo including four OSU students, two of whom were wearing a dark substance resembling blackface, wasposted on Instagram and caused uproar on social media.

About a week later another OSU studentposted a photo on Snapchat of herself wearing a mud mask with the caption, When he says he only likes black girls. The photo sparkedprotests on campus and led to a meeting between OSU President Burns Hargis and African-American Student Association members.

In both instances, Hargis issued a statementsupporting student protest anddiscouraging intolerance and discrimination at OSU.

But for some, the statements and apologies arent enough.In a recent Letter to the Editor, an individual called for the students involved to be expelled or, at least, suspended.

However, there is no justification for censoring the students speech because it did not present a true threat, Senat said. Its counterproductive, he said, to suggest students be disciplined by suspension or expulsion.

You cant stop these people from thinking what they think, he said. You can only drive them underground, but that doesnt get to the root problem of the racism. It doesnt get to the societal issues of racism. It doesnt allow for solutions and progress.

Students shouldnt rely on the university, a taxpayer-funded entity, to solve their problems, Senat said. Instead, he suggests offering counter speech to racism.

Students should be out there protesting, Senat said. Confront those ideas. Thats how you go about trying to change someones mind and show them the error of their ways. They should be out there making it known this is not acceptable in their community, but thats a far cry from government being involved.

Senat said students and others who want these individuals disciplined need to keep in mind that next time it could be their speech someone wants punished or censored because it was offensive.

We cant expect government to step in and punish everyone because were offended or we justifiably disagree with someone elses speech, Senat said.

Lee Bird, vice president for student affairs, said the university is working to provide educational opportunities for students and has started a dialogue with the students responsible for the social media posts.

Theres a legal, right way to approach (the incidents), Bird said. The institution just cant say, Well, you cant do a blackface again, or, You cant do this.

Bird, who co-wrote a handbook for universities regarding the First Amendment, said restricting what students can say on campus through speech codes violates the First Amendment. A speech code is a regulation that prohibits expression normally protected under the First Amendment, according to FIRE, a nonprofit organization concerned with free speech on university campuses.

People think, Lets just write a code and prohibit it, Bird said. Well, thats not how the First Amendment works.

Bird said she, along with other university officials, has spent several hours meeting with the students involved, encouraging them to educate themselves and looking ahead at how the institution can proceed.

The students involved were ignorant, she said, which is the bigger issue.

What we learned from this case is we have a lot of students that are completely uninformed, ignorant about many race issues, Bird said. I think we need to help encourage students to educate themselves and where the institution may have to realign diversity classes or those requirements to help make sure that our students really do understand more about diversity.

Laura Arata, an OSU professor who specializes in the history of race, said the recent incidents are reflective of what she sees in the classroom.

Each semester, Arata said she asks her Survey of American History students whether racism is still a problem today.

Responses always range from No, it's definitely not, to Yes, absolutely it is," Arata said in an email to the OColly. To me, this is the clearest indication possible that there are some very important, very complicated, very deep conversations most of us need to have, even if it makes us uncomfortable.

Arata advocates having conversations that go beyond defining right and wrong. She said this is an opportunity to talk about why the actions are hurtful.

We are a diverse country and, of course, we're going to experience different things in all kinds of different ways, but that doesn't mean we don't need to acknowledge them and consider different viewpoints, she said.

Bird said she acknowledges knowing the university cant legally take action might not be comforting for victims. She believes OSU students need to understand the effects their actions can have and should be more thoughtful of those in their community, she said.

People need to understand that all these behaviors have an impact on our community, affect institutional reputation, make it harder to recruit, and I think the Cowboy nation is better than that, she said. I would hope that students would not be bystanders to hate, but they would be personally involved. If it was (an) international student, a Muslim student, an African-American student, an LGBT student, it doesnt matter hate is hate.

When you see something, say something, deal with it, speak to it.

news@ocolly.com

Read more:
Racially insensitive posts protected under First Amendment - Daily O'Collegian

Last summer, a Florida federal court reachedsome unusual conclusionsin a lawsuit filed by SEO company e-ventures, which felt Google had overstepped its bounds in delisting a lot of its links. Google defended itself, citing both Section 230 and the First Amendment. The court disagreed with both arguments.

As to Section 230, the court found that Googles delisting efforts werent in good faith. The reason cited was e-ventures claim that the delisting was in bad faith. So much for this seldom-used aspect of Section 230: the Good Samaritan clause which states no third-party company can be found liable for actions it takes to remove content it finds questionable. And so much for viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Apparently, Googles long history of spam-fighting efforts is nothing compared to an SEO wranglers pained assertions.

The court also said Google had no First Amendment right to handle its search rankings however it saw fit, which is more than a little problematic. While it admitted Googles search rankings were protected speech, its statements about how it handled search engines werent. And, for some reason, the court felt that Googles ads undermined its First Amendment protections because its desire to turn a profit somehow nullified its editorial judgment.

It was a strange decision and one that suggested this court might be considering getting into the business of telling service providers how to run their businesses. It also suggested this court believed the more successful the business was, the fewer rights and protections it had. These dubious conclusions prevented Google from having the case dismissed.

Fortunately, this wasnt the final decision. As Eric Goldman points out, last years denial only delayed the inevitable. After a few more rounds of arguments and legal paperwork, Google has prevailed. But theres not much to celebrate in this decision as the court has (again) decided toroute around Googles Section 230 Good Samaritan defense.

Regarding 230(c)(2), the court says spam can qualify as harassing or objectionable content (cite toe360insightwith a but-see to theSong Ficase). Still, the court says e-ventures brought forward enough circumstantial evidence about Googles motivations to send the case to a trial. By making it so Google cant even win on summary judgment, rulings like this just reinforce how Section 230(c)(2) is a useless safe harbor.

Had it ended there, Google would be still be facing e-ventures claims. But it didnt. The court takes another look at Googles First Amendment claims and finds that the search engine provider does actually have the right to remove spammy links. Beyond that, it finds Google even has the First Amendment right to remove competitors content. From theorder[PDF]:

[T]he First Amendment protects as speech the results produced by an Internet search engine. Zhang v. Baidu.com, Inc., 10 F. Supp. 3d 433, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). A search engine is akin to a publisher, whose judgments about what to publish and what not to publish are absolutely protected by the First Amendment. See Miami Herald Publg Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974) (The choice of material to go into a newspaper . . .whether fair or unfairconstitute[s] the exercise of editorial control and judgment that the First Amendment protects.) The presumption that editorial judgments, no matter the motive, are protected expression is too high a bar for e-ventures to overcome.

And the court walks back its earlier conclusion the one that seemed to find profit-motivated editorial judgment to be unworthy of First Amendment protections.

Googles actions in formulating rankings for its search engine and in determining whether certain websites are contrary to Googles guidelines and thereby subject to removal are the same as decisions by a newspaper editor regarding which content to publish, which article belongs on the front page, and which article is unworthy of publication. The First Amendment protects these decisions, whether they are fair or unfair, or motivated by profit or altruism.

The case is now dismissed with prejudice which bars e-ventures from complaining about Googles delisting efforts in federal court. e-ventures has gone this far already in hopes of seeing its terms-violating content reinstated, so it will likely attempt to appeal this decision. But it really shouldnt. Its unlikely another set of judges will help it clear the First Amendment hurdle. Not only that, but this area of law should be well-settled by now, as Goldman points out:

Of course Google can de-index sites it thinks are spam. Its hard to believe were still litigating that issue in 2017; these issues were explored in suits likeSearchKingandKinderStartfrom over a decade ago.

The plaintiff was given a long leash by the court, which should have tossed last year. Even with the extra time and the court doings its Section 230 circumvention work for it, e-ventures still couldnt prevail.

Court Says Google Has A First Amendment Right To Delist Competitors Spammy Content

Dangerous: Judge Says It Was Objectively Unreasonable For Cox To Claim DMCA Safe Harbors Trump Tops Obama, Hands Over Full Torture Report To Court Previous Administration Refused To Apple Wants To Stop You Fixing Your iPhone And iPad: Source Says It Will Testify Against Right To Repair Legislation

See the article here:
Court Says Google Has A First Amendment Right To Delist Competitor's 'Spammy' Content - Above the Law

Yesterday, the 11th Circuit issued its en banc opinions in Wollschlaeger v. Gov. of the State of Florida, AKAthe Docs v. Glocks case. As previously discussed here, here, and here, the case concerns whether Florida can prohibit doctors from asking their patients about their gun ownership or possession unless the question is directly relevant to a patients care. The issue is controversial because many doctors, especially pediatricians, often routinely ask patients (or their parents) questions about potential hazards in the home, be it swimming pools, poisons, or guns.

The primary legal issue before the 11th Circuit was whether the Florida law restricted speech based on its content and the speaker, and if so, what level of scrutiny should be applied to determine if the restriction is unconstitutional. Last year, PLF filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that all content-based speech restrictions should receive strict scrutiny, regardless of whether the speech is made in a professional setting. The second issue in the case (which PLF does not take a position on) concerned the anti-discrimination provision of the law. The Court upheld that provision narrowly: a move that even the doctors were amenable to,as indicated during oral argument.

In the first of its majority opinions*, the Court easily determined that the challenged law restricted speech based on its content and speaker. Next, the Court declined to apply deferential review under the professional speech doctrine. As discussed at length in PLFs brief, the professional speech doctrine is unprincipled and unsupported by a majority of the Supreme Court, so the 11th Circuits rejection of that standard in this case is most welcome. Finally, applying the U.S. Supreme Courts 2011 decision inSorrell v. IMS Health,the Court held that the law could not survive heightened scrutiny, so it declined to decide whether strict scrutiny was warranted. In short, the Court thoroughly dismantled the States justifications for the speech-restricting provisions, generally holding that the State offered insufficient actual evidence to justify restricting the speech of doctors.

There are also some additional things worth mentioning from the two concurring opinions. The first concurrence, written by Judge Wilson, would have applied strict scrutiny to strike down the speech-restricting portions of the law. This is particularly noteworthy because Judge Wilson was on the original panel that wrote three separate opinions before the case was taken en banc. Judge Wilson penned dissents to all three of those opinions, but with his concurrence yesterday he announced for the first time his conclusion that strict scrutiny is appropriate in light of the Supreme Courts 2015 decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert.Second, the concurrence written by Judge William Pryor and joined by Judge Hull, reiterates that this case does not create a clash between the First and Second Amendments. While Docs v. Glocks is certainly catchy, it never accurately described the legal and constitutional issues presented in the case.

Even though the 11th Circuit did not go on to apply strict scrutiny to content- and speaker-based speech restrictions in a professional context, this case is certainly a strong win for the vindication of the right to free speech protected under the First Amendment. Doctors and speech advocates should certainly celebrate that.

*With an unusual move, the Court issued two majority opinions. I consider the opinion of Judge Jordan to be the primary opinion, though, and in any event Judge Jordans opinion is the one that announces the bulk of the Courts opinion on the First Amendment questions of interest to PLF.

Original post:
Major First Amendment victory in Docs v. Glocks case - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) (press release) (blog)

If youre at all a fan of the First Amendment, there was plenty to like about todays decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down a Florida law that prohibited doctors from asking whether there are guns in the home (heres the full law in question).

But lets focus on the concurring opinion of William Pryor, who was on the short list to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Pryor is a conservative, so he took great pains to point out that the decision is not about the Second Amendment; its about the First.

And much of his opinion was aimed strictly at conservatives, apparently anticipating their criticism.

Heres some examples.

If we upheld the Act, we could set a precedent for many other restrictions of potentially unpopular speech. Think of everything the government might seek to ban between doctor and patient as supposedly irrelevant to the practice of medicine. Without the protection of free speech, the government might seek to ban discussion of religion between doctor and patient. The state could stop a surgeon from praying with his patient before surgery or punish a Christian doctor for asking patients if they have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior or punish an atheist for telling his patient that religious belief is delusional.

Without the protection of free speech, the government might seek to censor political speech by doctors. The state might prevent doctors from encouraging their patients to vote in favor of universal health care or prohibit a physician from criticizing the Affordable Care Act. Some might argue that such topics are irrelevant to a particular patients immediate medical needs, but the First Amendment ensures that doctors cannot be threatened with state punishment for speech even if it goes beyond diagnosis and treatment.

Pryor said doctors already discuss highly controversial topics with patients. Whether to play football, or telling teenagers to abstain from sex, and recommending organ donation.

He called the very idea a thought experiment and then lowered the boom with this beautiful piece of prose:

If today the majority can censor so-called heresy, then tomorrow a new majority can censor what was yesterday so-called orthodoxy.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion . . . . Our decision applies this timeless principle to speech between doctors and patients, regardless of the content. The First Amendment requires the protection of ideas that some people might find distasteful because tomorrow the tables might be turned.

Todays decision was not close. The vote was 10-to-1.

The one belonged to Gerald Bard Tjoflat, who is 87 years old and is the longest-service justice in the U.S. Court of Appeals system.

He does see the case as a Second Amendment question:

The majority and I agree that Florida possesses a substantial interest in protecting both Floridians reasonable expectation of privacy during medical treatment and the full exercise of their Second Amendment rights. If that is so, then it is hard to imagine a law more precisely tailored to advance those substantial state interests than the one presently before us. The Act does not categorically restrict the speech of medical professionals on the subject of firearms. Instead, it simply requires an individualized, good faith judgment of the necessity of speech related to firearm ownership to provide competent medical care to a patient.

a constitutional right is a right to be free of governmental restrictions on the exercise of the right it is not a right to be free of private criticism for the exercise of the right, much less private questions about the exercise of the right, law professor Eugene Volokh in his Washington Post column analyzing todays decision. A doctor no more violates your Second Amendment rights by asking you about whether you own a gun than the doctor violates your First Amendment rights by asking you how much TV your children watch, or your Lawrence v. Texas sexual autonomy rights by asking you whether youve been having sex with multiple partners.

Heres the courts full opinion:

Bob Collins has been with Minnesota Public Radio since 1992, emigrating to Minnesota from Massachusetts. He was senior editor of news in the 90s, ran MPRs political unit, created the MPR News regional website, invented the popular Select A Candidate, started the two most popular blogs in the history of MPR and every day laments that his Minnesota Fantasy Legislature project never caught on.

NewsCut is a blog featuring observations about the news. It provides a forum for an online discussion and debate about events that might not typically make the front page. NewsCut posts are not news stories but reflections , observations, and debate.

View original post here:
First Amendment survives challenge from Florida gun law - Minnesota Public Radio News (blog)

To the editor:

The forefathers of our country were very intelligent and insightful people. They were able to see how important freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly were to the survival of a democratic government. Both of these ideals were incorporated within the First Amendment.

After watching the riots at Berkeley University over the speaker Yiannopoulos last week, I am highly concerned how easily we are willing to discard the First Amendment.

I listened to some of the students at Berkeley proclaim victory because the speaker was not able to give his presentation. When a student was asked by a reporter if stopping the speaker was not a violation of our freedom of speech as outlined in the Constitution, her reply was that his was not free speech, but hate speech.

I scratch my head and wonder how we have arrived at a point where you are only allowed to speak when other people consent and agree with your point of view. If you do not agree with a presenter, you have options. You can choose to boycott, peacefully assemble to protest or totally dismiss and ignore the ideas of the speaker and go watch a ballgame with some friends.

You are not entitled to keep the presenter from speaking!

The First Amendment, in addition to free speech, also gives you the right of peaceful assembly. It seems that some of the protesters also missed that part of the Constitution. You do not have the right to vandalize ATM machines, break windows, throw bricks, throw firecrackers, spray pepper spray, punch people and set public property on fire. In the name of political correctness, the protesters had the audacity to spray paint fascists on some of the buildings in the riot zone.

Fascisim restricts free speech, yet the protesters wish to restrict who may speak. Now, I ask you who is the real Fascist? One of the core values of a university and its students should be free speech!

When I was principal at ECHS, I had a situation where a group of students had protested the Christian religion in the parking lot. Most of the student body was very upset with this small group.

Concerned, I called the school attorney, who by reputation was one of the top attorneys in the state dealing with school law. He asked me how I felt about what the students had done, and I told him that I as shocked by their actions (Shocked is a school law term). The attorney told me that I had to remember that the First Amendment is not a light switch which can be turned on and off at my or anyone elses discretion. Just because you dont like it, you dont agree with it or you dont consider it politically correct, people are allowed to express their ideas without hindrance.

The wise words of the attorney have stuck with me over the years, and I often think of them during turbulent times and how they apply!

This letter is my First Amendment right to express myself. I thank God that I live in a country that says I have that right..

This issue is not about being a Democrat or Republican. I couldnt give a hoot about this particular speaker, as I am not familiar with his ideas, but I do care about the First Amendment. As a former teacher of the U.S. Constitution, I do recognize that curtailing any aspect of our right to freedom of speech is a slippery slope. The real issue of my concern is that once you start deciding what people can say, where do you stop? Under the guise of political correctness, you now have made yourself judge, jury and executioner of the First Amendment.

A sad epitaph to the Berkeley riot is that the students think they won, but what did they really lose?

Stan Struckmeyer

Albion

Continued here:
Our First Amendment rights are quickly slipping away - The Navigator

ABC News analyst Matthew Dowd accused President Donald Trump Tuesday of shutting down part of the First Amendment because of his pattern of calling on conservative media outlets at White House news conferences.

Trump has held three news conferences in the last week alone as he welcomed three different world leaders to the White House: Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The president took two questions from American media at each of those three events, the majority being conservative outlets.

During Trumps joint news conference Friday with Japanss Abe, he called on reporters from the New York Post and Fox Business Network, both of which are owned by conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch. In his second joint press conference Monday with Canadas Trudeau, Trump answered questions from WJLA-TV, the local ABC affiliate in Washington, D.C., and the Daily Caller. Then, during his appearance Wednesday with Netanyahu, Trump called on the Christian Broadcast Network and Townhall.com.

WJLA-TV is owned by Sinclair Broadcasting, the company with which President Trumps son-in-law, Jared Kushner, struck a deal during the campaign that gave Sinclair stations, many of which were in swing states, more access to then-President-elect Trump, Politico reported.

Trumps decision to force mainstream media outlets to take a back seat caused a number of reporters and analysts at CNN, MSNBC and the three broadcast networks to voice their frustrations on air.

I think theres no other way to describe it but the fix is in, CNNs Jim Acosta said Wednesday, Hot Air reported. This White House, this president does not want to answer questions, critical questions about his associates, his aids contacts with the Russians during the course of that campaign just as his national security adviser is being run out of this White House on a rail.

They may think that this is being cute or they may think that this is strategic in terms of trying to shield the president from questions, but those questions can only be shielded for so long, Acosta added.

Acosta was referring to the New York Times report that members of Trumps campaign were in frequent contact with the Russian government. Namely, a Washington Post report revealed that Gen. Michael Flynn, who Trump named as his national security adviser, had called the Russian ambassador to the U.S. multiple times, which Flynn then lied about to Vice President Mike Pence, a move that ultimately led to Flynns resignation.

Acosta wasnt the only one who took issue with Trumps selection of media outlets, though. Dowd told theABCs George Stephanopolous that by not calling on mainstream media outlets, Trump was shutting down part of the First Amendment.

Noting the strategy behind Trump not calling on mainstream media reporters, Stephanopolous said the White House probably [doesnt] mind the fact that the mainstream press is shouting about it, referring to reporters shouting their questions at Trump he left the room after Thursdays joint news conference with Israels Netanyahu.

But how long can that last? Stephanopolous asked.

Dowd said he was struck by Trump only calling on conservative outlets.

This is two democracies, two important democracies in the world. And basically, the president of the United States is shutting down part of the First Amendment by not taking questions that are in any way antagonistic in this, Dowd said.

I think he thinks relying on his Twitter feed, and sending it out to the millions of people that subscribe to it, and then dealing with very cozy press in this is going to be the way to get through this, Dowd added.

(H/T: Daily Caller)

Read more from the original source:
ABC News analyst: Trump 'shutting down' part of First Amendment by not calling on mainstream outlets - TheBlaze.com

President Donald Trump used his press conference about his new labor nominee to launch an attack on the First Amendment by blaming the free press for reporting on his campaigns Russia connections.

We need unity, Trump said just minutes before he began launching missiles at the First Amendment from the bully pulpit in an attempt to discredit the source of his Russian connections.

In the East Room of the White House, Trump called for unity and then devolved into a campaign type speech during a press conference that needed to stay on message if it were to work as a pivot. Trump left Alex Acosta behind as he stumbled his way through trying to silence the press.

Many of our nations reporters will not tell you the truth, Trump said. The press is out of control. The level of dishonesty is out of control.

Trump accused reporters of speaking not for the people, but for special interests. The press has become so dishonest.

Trump claimed that Reince Priebus has to put out fake fires.

Asked about Flynn, Trump said he asked for Flynns resignation, but Flynn did nothing wrong, I dont think he did anything wrong. If anything, he did something right.

What went wrong with Flynn wasnt Flynn talking to Russia, it was the medias reporting on Flynns activities, Trump claimed.

Trump claimed the Russia stories were fake news. Later in questioning, Trump tried to explain that the leaks were real but the news is fake because the news is fake.

This was followed up later when Trump claimed that the tone was such hatred. He repeated this again, the tone is such hatred. Fox and Friends are very honorable people But they have the most honest morning show. The tone, the hatred, I mean.

Trump complained about the hatred and venom from almost exclusive anti-Trump people. Trump said, When I go to rallies they start screaming about CNN.

Trump ranted about how the press was publishing classified information, which he said was illegal.

I called, as you know, Mexico All of a sudden, its out there for the world to see. Its classified, Trump claimed, as he tried to build his case for silencing the leaks that are revealing his Russian connections.

Some of the information Trump was talking about was not actually classified, but that isnt even the point since Trump gleefully used leaks that came from a hostile, aggressive foreign country against Hillary Clinton. Trump claimed that was okay because it wasnt classified. He justified Wikileaks saying they didnt publish classified information.

That is also inaccurate.

Trump would not answer the question about whether or not his campaign was in contact with Russia during the campaign. He pivoted, ranted, and moved the goal posts but would not say definitively that they had not.

Trump said he has no loans in Russia and no deals in Russia. He asked if anyone thought Clinton would be tougher on Russia than him. (The answer to that is everyone who is being honest thinks that including most importantly Putin.)

Then Trump pivoted to whining about how no one reported on Hillary Clinton allegedly cheating on debates by a heads up about questions in advance (a thing that Trump also did, according to Megyn Kellys book).

CNNs Jim Acosta pointed out that when Trump calls news Fake news, he is attacking the First Amendment and undermining the free press.

Trump got lost in weeds of trying to explain that hes there, and he wants an honest press. He couldnt actually point out anything inaccurate. Trump kept falling back on the idea that the people dont believe the press anymore, which of course, has been a result of his campaign against the press.

Kelly ODonnell pointed out that Trump actually has good relationships with some journalists, What is hard for public to see @POTUS criticizes media broadly but has some good relationships with journalists he knows.

Trumps press conference was all about how to silence and control the free press because he has no other response to reality.

What Trump doesnt realize is that he has no control over the First Amendment.

Trump attacking the press is meant to make the press the issue, instead of his contacts with Russia. Trump is trying to make the public doubt the reports about his activities with Russia by smearing the sources.

Trump refused to answer what he was going to do about the Russian spy ship off of the coast of Connecticut, claiming he doesnt announce actions in advance of doing them.

Trump doesnt think Putin is asserting himself with that ship. If Trump believes that, Vice President Pence should step in immediately.

Trump attacks the First Amendment at press conference, Trump first amendment, Trump press conference

Read the original post:
Trump Attacks the First Amendment to Discredit The Facts About His Russian Connections - PoliticusUSA

Last summer, a Florida federal court reached some unusual conclusions in a lawsuit filed by SEO company e-ventures, which felt Google had overstepped its bounds in delisting a lot of its links. Google defended itself, citing both Section 230 and the First Amendment. The court disagreed with both arguments.

As to Section 230, the court found that Google's delisting efforts weren't in "good faith." The reason cited was e-ventures' claim that the delisting was in "bad faith." So much for this seldom-used aspect of Section 230: the "Good Samaritan" clause which states no third-party company can be found liable for actions it takes to remove content it finds questionable. And so much for "viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Apparently, Google's long history of spam-fighting efforts is nothing compared to an SEO wrangler's pained assertions.

The court also said Google had no First Amendment right to handle its search rankings however it saw fit, which is more than a little problematic. While it admitted Google's search rankings were protected speech, its statements about how it handled search engines weren't. And, for some reason, the court felt that Google's ads undermined its First Amendment protections because its desire to turn a profit somehow nullified its "editorial judgment."

It was a strange decision and one that suggested this court might be considering getting into the business of telling service providers how to run their businesses. It also suggested this court believed the more successful the business was, the fewer rights and protections it had. These dubious conclusions prevented Google from having the case dismissed.

Fortunately, this wasn't the final decision. As Eric Goldman points out, last year's denial only delayed the inevitable. After a few more rounds of arguments and legal paperwork, Google has prevailed. But there's not much to celebrate in this decision as the court has (again) decided to route around Google's Section 230 "Good Samaritan" defense.

Regarding 230(c)(2), the court says spam can qualify as harassing or objectionable content (cite to e360insight with a but-see to the Song Fi case). Still, the court says e-ventures brought forward enough circumstantial evidence about Googles motivations to send the case to a trial. By making it so Google cant even win on summary judgment, rulings like this just reinforce how Section 230(c)(2) is a useless safe harbor.

Had it ended there, Google would be still be facing e-ventures' claims. But it didn't. The court takes another look at Google's First Amendment claims and finds that the search engine provider does actually have the right to remove "spammy" links. Beyond that, it finds Google even has the First Amendment right to remove competitors' content. From the order [PDF]:

[T]he First Amendment protects as speech the results produced by an Internet search engine. Zhang v. Baidu.com, Inc., 10 F. Supp. 3d 433, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). A search engine is akin to a publisher, whose judgments about what to publish and what not to publish are absolutely protected by the First Amendment. See Miami Herald Publg Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974) (The choice of material to go into a newspaper . . .whether fair or unfairconstitute[s] the exercise of editorial control and judgment that the First Amendment protects.) The presumption that editorial judgments, no matter the motive, are protected expression is too high a bar for e-ventures to overcome.

And the court walks back its earlier conclusion -- the one that seemed to find profit-motivated "editorial judgment" to be unworthy of First Amendment protections.

Googles actions in formulating rankings for its search engine and in determining whether certain websites are contrary to Googles guidelines and thereby subject to removal are the same as decisions by a newspaper editor regarding which content to publish, which article belongs on the front page, and which article is unworthy of publication. The First Amendment protects these decisions, whether they are fair or unfair, or motivated by profit or altruism.

The case is now dismissed with prejudice which bars e-ventures from complaining about Google's delisting efforts in federal court. e-ventures has gone this far already in hopes of seeing its terms-violating content reinstated, so it will likely attempt to appeal this decision. But it really shouldn't. It's unlikely another set of judges will help it clear the First Amendment hurdle. Not only that, but this area of law should be well-settled by now, as Goldman points out:

Of course Google can de-index sites it thinks are spam. Its hard to believe were still litigating that issue in 2017; these issues were explored in suits like SearchKing and KinderStart from over a decade ago.

The plaintiff was given a long leash by the court, which should have tossed last year. Even with the extra time and the court doings its Section 230 circumvention work for it, e-ventures still couldn't prevail.

Read more:
Court Says Google Has A First Amendment Right To Delist Competitor's 'Spammy' Content - Techdirt