Podcasts about first amendment

"The war for our minds (con'd)." The colonization of independent media.    Patrick Lawrence THE SCRUM  Oct 21       21 OCTOBER—Watch and listen, O you with open eyes and ears. The national security state's long, very long campaign to control our press and broadcasters has taken a new turn of late. If independent media are what keep alive hope for a vigorous, authentic Fourth Estate, as argued severally in this space, independent media are now subject to an insidious, profoundly anti-democratic effort to undermine them. The Independent Consortium of Investigative Journalists, Frances Haugen, Maria Ressa: Let us consider this institution and these people. They are all frauds, if by fraudulent we mean they are not what and who they tell us they are and their claim to independence from power is bogus. The Deep State—and at this point it is mere pretense to object to this term—long ago made it a priority to turn the mainstream press and broadcasters to its purposes—to make a free press unfree. This has gone on since the earliest Cold War decades and is well and responsibly documented. (Alas, if more Americans read the many excellent books and exposés on this topic, assertions such as the one just made would not arrive as in the slightest outré.)    But several new realities are now very evident. Chief among them, the Deep State's colonization of corporate media is now more or less complete. CNN, filling its airtime with spooks, generals, and a variety of official and formerly official liars, can be counted a total takeover. The New York Times is prima facie government-supervised, as it confesses in its pages from time to time. The Washington Post, owned by a man with multimillion-dollar CIA contracts, has turned itself into a comic book. For reasons I will never entirely fathom, corporate media have not merely surrendered their legitimacy, such as it may have been: They have actively, enthusiastically abandoned what frayed claim they may have had to credibility. The national-security state incorporates mainstream media into its apparatus, and then people stop believing mainstream media: The thrill is gone, let's say.  In consequence of these two factors, independent media have begun to rise as … independent media. They accumulate audiences. A little at a time, they acquire the very habits of professionalism the mainstream press and broadcasters have let decay. Gradually, they assume the credibility the mainstream has lost. The media ecosystem—horrible phrase but there it is—begins to take on a new shape.  Certain phenomena engendered by independent media prove popular. There are whistleblowers. People inside Deep State institutions start to leak, and they turn to independent media, most famously WikiLeaks, to get information out. While the Deep State's clerks in mainstream media keep their heads down and their mouths shut as they cash their checks, independent media take principled stands in favor of free expression, and people admire these stands. They are, after all admirable. Those populating the national-security state's sprawling apparatus are not stupid. They can figure out the logical response to these developments as well as anyone else. The new imperative is now before us: It is to colonize independent media just as they had the mainstream in previous decades. There are some hopelessly clumsy cases. I urge all colleagues to stop bothering with The Young Turks in any capacity. Those running it, creatures of those who generously fund it, are simply infra-dig. As Matt Taibbi pointed out over the weekend in a piece wonderfully headed, “Yes, Virginia, There Is a Deep State,” they've now got some clod named Ben Carollo proclaiming the CIA as an accountable force for good, savior of democracy—this in a video appearing under the rubric “Rebel HQ.” As an East European émigré friend used to say, “Gimme break.” Democracy Now! is a subtler instance of colonization. The once-admirable Amy Goodman drank the Russiagate Kool-Aid, which I counted the first indication of covert intervention of one or another kind. Then she caved to the orthodoxy on the chemical-weapons scam during the Syrian crisis, and lately—you have to watch to believe—Goodman has begun broadcasting CNN “investigative” reports with unalloyed approval. The debate in this household is whether Ms. Goodman had a long lunch in Langley or her donors started threatening to delay their checks. I have no evidence of either but tend to the latter explanation. The three recent phenomena suggested at the top of this piece are indications of the Deep State's latest tactics in its assault on independent media and the culture that arises among them. It behooves us to understand this.  Two weeks ago, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists published “The Pandora Papers,” a “leak” of 12 million electronic documents revealing the tax-fiddling, money-hiding doings of 300–odd political figures around the world. “The Pandora Papers” followed publication of “The Panama Papers” in 2016 and “The Paradise Papers” a year later. There are many useful revelations in these various releases, but we ought not be fooled as to the nature of the project. Where did the ICIJ get the documents in “The Pandora Papers,” and how?  Are they complete? Were names redacted out? They have been verified? Explaining provenance, authenticity, and so forth is essential to any investigative undertaking, but ICIJ has nothing to say on this point. Why, of all the people “The Pandora Papers” exposes, is there not one American on its list? As Moon of Alabama notes in an analysis of this release, it amounts to a list of “people the U.S. doesn't like.” The ICIJ vigorously insists on its independence. But on close inspection this turns out not to be so by any serious understanding of the term. Among its donors are the Ford Foundation, whose longtime ties to the CIA are well-documented, and the Open Societies Foundation, the (in)famous George Soros operation dedicated to cultivating coups in nations that fall outside the fence posts of neoliberalism.  The group was founded in 1997 as a project of the Center for Public Integrity, another institution dedicated to “inspiring change using investigative reporting,” as the center describes itself. Among its sponsors are Ford, once again, and the Democracy Fund, which was founded by Pierre Omidyar, bankroller of The Intercept (another compromised “independent” medium). Omidyar is, like Soros, a sponsor of subversion ops in other countries masquerading as “civil society” projects. ICIJ's other sponsors (and for that matter the Democracy Fund's) are comprised of the sorts of foundations that support NPR, PBS, and other such media. Let us be crystal clear on this point. Anyone who assumes media institutions taking money from such sponsors are authentically independent does not understand philanthropy as a well-established, highly effective conduit through which orthodoxies are enforced and public discourse circumscribed.  What are we looking at here? Not what we are supposed to think we are looking at, certainly. I will return to this question. There is the case of Maria Ressa, which I considered briefly in a previous commentary. Ressa is the supposedly courageous, speak-truth-to-power co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize this year, a Filipina journalist who co-founded The Rappler, a web publication in Manila. The Nobel committee cited Ressa for her “fight for freedom of expression.” Who is Maria Ressa, then, and what is The Rappler? I grow weary of writing this sentence: She and her publication are not what we are supposed to think they are. Ressa and The Rappler, each insisting on independence just as the ICIJ does, are straight-out lying on this point. The Rappler recently received a grant of $180,000 from the National Endowment for Democracy, a CIA front—this according to an NED financial report issued earlier this year. None other than Pierre Omidyar and a group called North Base Media own nonvoting shares in the publication. Among North Base's partners is the Media Development Investment Fund, which was founded by George Soros to do what George Soros likes to do in other countries. Does a picture begin to emerge? Read the names together and one will. You have to figure they all party together. Nobel in hand, Maria Ressa has already declared that Julian Assange is not a journalist and that independent media need new regulations, as in censorship. Henry Kissinger got a Nobel as a peacemaker: Ressa gets one as a defender of free expression. It's a fit. This brings us to the case of Frances Haugen, the former Facebook exec who recently appeared before Congress waving lots of documents she seems to have secreted (supposedly) out of Facebook's offices to argue for—what else at this point?—increased government regulation of social media, as in censorship. Frances Haugen, you see, is a courageous, speak-truth-to-power whistleblower. Never mind that her appearance on Capitol Hill was carefully choreographed by Democratic Party operatives whose party simply cannot wait to censor our First Amendment rights out of existence.  It is hard to say who is more courageous, I find—the ICIJ, Maria Ressa, or Frances Haugen. Where would we be without them? The culture of independent media as it has germinated and developed over the past decade or so gave us WikiLeaks, and its effectiveness cannot be overstated. It gave us all manner of gutsy journalists standing for the principles of a genuinely free press, and people listened. It gave us whistleblowers who are admired even as the Deep State condemns them.     And now the national-security state gives us none other than a secret-disclosing crew of mainstream hacks, a faux-independent journalist elevated to the highest honors, and a whistleblower who was handed her whistle and taught how to toot it—three crowd-pleasers, three simulacra. These are three frauds. They are to independent journalism what McDonald's is to food.  There is only one defense against this assault on truth and integrity, but it is a very good one. It is awareness. CNN, Democracy Now!, the ICIJ, Maria Ressa, Frances Haugen—none of these and many other media and people are properly labeled. But the labels can be written with modest efforts. Awareness and scrutiny, watching and listening, will prove enough.

Photo:   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. CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor CBS Audio Network @Batchelorshow  First Amendment failure on campus. @VerodeRugy @Mercatus https://www.creators.com/read/veronique-de-rugy/10/21/fighting-illiberalism-in-higher-education .. Addenda: Texas A&M University Introduces First Amendment Website New digital resource emphasizes the magnitude of First Amendment freedoms on campus, including expressive activity

On this episode of “The Federalist Radio Hour,” Andrew Langer, president of the Institute for Liberty, joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss the tension between the First Amendment right to free speech and what is often labeled “dark money.”

On this episode of “The Federalist Radio Hour,” Andrew Langer, president of the Institute for Liberty, joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss the tension between the First Amendment right to free speech and what is often labeled “dark money.”

Ever heard of a "Free Speech Zone?" While they keep propping their heads up all over college campuses, they are some of the MOST unconstitutional things to have developed across public universities. Join @theIsabelBrown and hear how these "free speech zones" are nothing less than anti-First Amendment areas!

This is the second of a two-part interview with Maj Alan Serrano on the First Amendment. In it, we discuss the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of religion within the military. We tackle some of the most hot-button issues, including the interplay between free speech and the use of social media, how commanders grapple with curtailing certain types of speech, what constitutes an extremist group, and how the military typically handles requests for religious accommodations.

Interview Joshua calls this a Special Feature and we will just agree with him.  He asks Taylor a bunch of questions and you listen. Again. Contact us at: https://giantmonstermessages.com/GiantMonsterMessages@gmail.com Twitter Main Theme and Stingers Written by Matthias Fluor https://mfluor.ch/ Art by Laser 'lizard' Lluis Special Thanks to: Teachers everywhere Authors of the First Amendment

The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment. The 18th Amendment was adopted in 1919 and made manufacturing, transporting, and selling alcohol illegally at the federal level. The amendment proved unenforceable, and even increased crime in the United States, so it was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. This is the reason why. Podcast Show Notes https://ancestralfindings.com/the-twenty-first-amendment-the-constitutional-amendments/  Genealogy Clips Podcast https://genealogyclips.com/  Historical Postcard Giveaway https://ancestralfindings.com/postcard-giveaway/  Free Genealogy eBooks https://ancestralstuff.com Hard To Find Surnames https://ancestralfindings.com/surnames Follow on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/AncestralFindings Support Ancestral Findings https://ancestralfindings.com/donation #Genealogy #AncestralFindings #GenealogyClips

A lot of folks would plead the First Amendment last week, and it was all nonsense. Yale Law School's Federalist Society advertised an event by throwing a whole mess of racist stereotyping at the wall just to see what would stick and when other students asked how this fit within the private school's standards for student organizations... First Amendment! Conspiracy theorists are convinced that Merrick Garland is using the Justice Department to enrich himself by silencing parents just because they threatened school officials... First Amendment! And Virginia public school teachers want the right to refuse to use a student's personal pronouns... First Amendment! Nope. Nope to all of it. Special thanks to our sponsors, Lexicon and Nota.

A lot of folks would plead the First Amendment last week, and it was all nonsense. Yale Law School's Federalist Society advertised an event by throwing a whole mess of racist stereotyping at the wall just to see what would stick and when other students asked how this fit within the private school's standards for student organizations... First Amendment! Conspiracy theorists are convinced that Merrick Garland is using the Justice Department to enrich himself by silencing parents just because they threatened school officials... First Amendment! And Virginia public school teachers want the right to refuse to use a student's personal pronouns... First Amendment! Nope. Nope to all of it. Special thanks to our sponsors, Lexicon and Nota.

Can Twitter remove your tweet? How are current events such as Black Lives Matter and mask mandate protests challenging Americans' rights to protest? Just how much does the average American know about the First Amendment, anyway? The ongoing fight over the First Amendment, its rights and responsibilities, and common misconceptions is the focus of this chat with featured guest Gene Policinski, Senior Fellow for the First Amendment for the Freedom Forum. Policinski contributes to the weekly “First Five” commentary on First Amendment issues, responds to news media inquiries, and participates in Freedom Forum programs. He is one of the founding editors of USA Today and also is a trustee of the First Amendment Museum being developed in Augusta, Me. A longtime proponent of diversity as an essential element of a free press, he is a member of the board of directors of Journal-isms, a regular report on diversity in the news media. Policinski writes, lectures, and is interviewed regularly on news media and First Amendment issues. He is co-author, with Professor Emeritus Robert Bickel of Stetson University, of a multi-media academic course, The First Amendment and the Civil Rights Movement. He is a contributor to “Whistleblowers, Leaks and the First Amendment,” published by the American Bar Association. providing a chapter on First Amendment issues and a free press, and has been published in a number of law review journals. FMC Fast Chat is the podcast of the Fair Media Council. The 30-minute podcast is hosted by Fair Media Council CEO & Executive Director Jaci Clement. FMC is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. Find out more at www.fairmediacouncil.org Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

ENTER OUR BOOK GIVEAWAY HERE: https://www.aaronshamp.com/contest Over the last several years, we have repeatedly heard or said that this is a culturally divided age. Politics, culture, and even evangelicals appear to be more and more polarized over key moral issues. Societal disruption and breakdown are present all around our country. However, we might forget that this past decade is not the only time that Americans have been divided. The 1960s counter-culture was also filled with confusion, chaos, and deep divisions. Os Guinness returned to the podcast to discuss the re-release of his book The Dust of Death: The Sixties Counterculture and How It Changed America Forever. Os shares the story behind the book including his time at L'Abri with Francis Schaeffer. We discussed his analysis of the sixties counterculture and his position that he calls Christian Realism. Finally, Os helps us to think about how to move forward in this culture. Os Guinness (DPhil, Oxford) is the author or editor of more than thirty books, including The Dust of Death, The Call, Fool's Talk, Carpe Diem Redeemed, The Magna Carta of Humanity, Last Call for Liberty, Impossible People, Unspeakable, and Time for Truth. A frequent speaker and prominent social critic, he has addressed audiences worldwide from the British House of Commons to the U.S. Congress to the St. Petersburg Parliament. He is a senior fellow at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and was the founder of the Trinity Forum. Born in China to missionary parents, he is the great-great-great-grandson of Arthur Guinness, the Dublin brewer. After witnessing the climax of the Chinese revolution in 1949, he was expelled with many other foreigners in 1951 and returned to England where he was educated and served as a freelance reporter with the BBC. Since coming to the U.S. in 1984, he has been a guest scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Studies and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. He was the lead drafter of the Williamsburg Charter, celebrating the First Amendment, and has also been senior fellow at the EastWest Institute in New York, where he drafted the Charter for Religious Freedom. He also co-authored the public school curriculum Living With Our Deepest Differences. Guinness has had a lifelong passion to make sense of our extraordinary modern world and to stand between the worlds of scholarship and ordinary life, helping each to understand the other—particularly when advanced modern life touches on the profound issues of faith. He lives with his wife, Jenny, in McLean, Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Check out the full show notes for highlights and resources from this episode: https://tinyurl.com/yva3km99 SUPPORT THIS PODCAST: PayPal: https://paypal.me/AaronShamp?locale.x=en_US Venmo: @AaronShamp Cash App: $AaronShamp –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Track: Perseverance — Land of Fire [Audio Library Release] Music provided by Audio Library Plus Watch: https://youtu.be/Ue48lJLVA30​Free Download / Stream: https://alplus.io/perseverance​–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Across the US, many states are considering laws that prohibit online platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, etc. from enforcing rules against what we call “lawful but awful” online content. Lawmakers are motivated to do this because they think laws are needed to prevent social media platforms from censoring conservative viewpoints. As with many laws though, the unintended consequences of these laws could prove to be much more harmful than the behavior the law was intended to regulate. To help us navigate the craziness of what would and would not be allowed if these laws go through, our guest today is Elizabeth Banker, VP of Legal Advocacy for Chamber of Progress. Chamber of Progress is also a sponsor of this show. Elizabeth Banker is Vice President of Legal Advocacy for Chamber of Progress. Elizabeth brings twenty-five years of in-house, law firm, and trade association experience on intermediary liability, Section 230, and online safety. Most recently, Elizabeth was Deputy General Counsel at Internet Association where she directed policy on consumer privacy and content moderation. While at IA, Elizabeth conducted a review of 500 Section 230 decisions and testified twice before the Senate on efforts to reform Section 230. Elizabeth has first-hand experience responding to the challenges that face online services as a veteran of both Twitter and Yahoo!. She was Vice President and Associate General Counsel for Law Enforcement, Security and Safety at Yahoo! Inc. for more than a decade.  More recently she was Senior Director and Associate General Counsel for Global Law Enforcement and Safety at Twitter.  Elizabeth spent five years as a shareholder at ZwillGen, a boutique law firm focused on privacy and security in Washington, D.C. Elizabeth began her career in government with the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection during the Clinton Administration. Hate Speech and Bully Speech Would Stand Many of the laws being proposed would actually tie the hands of social media platforms on some of the regulations that they currently have in place about harassment, bullying, and threatening behavior. These are all types of content that no social media platform wants to see on their platforms. Currently, the social media providers have rules and regulations that they currently enforce across their platforms to keep users free from hateful, bullying speech and harassment.  These new laws would add many complexities to enforcing the rules and it will open them up to the constant appeals process for users who have their content removed, etc.  100 Bills and Counting So far in 2021, we have seen over 100 bills proposed in state legislatures all across the nation. There will probably be many more before the end of the year. The Amicus Brief that Chamber of Progress files was a way to explain to the court the real world implications of these laws, should they be passed and hold up to the legal battles ensuing. Objections Being Filed The TX law that is currently under consideration was one in which we filed our objections in the amicus brief.  We believe that all platforms should be able to moderate harmful content in order for consumers to be healthy and safe on their platforms. Additionally, these platforms should be inclusive and widely accessible. Here are the main objections we have to this TX law: It prevents platforms from removing content that is not illegal, such as harassment, hate speech, misinformation, suicide, etc. The law undermines the current content moderation efforts by forcing platforms to basically publish a playbook about how they detect illegal content. This means child abusers, terrorists, spammers, identity thieves, and other bad actors would have enough information to evade detection. So this will lead to more illegal content online. This law places an undue burden on content moderation. If content is removed, the platform has to go through lots of additional steps that will discourage the company from actually removing content that should actually be taken down. So again, the net effect is that consumers will have more harmful content to wade through in order to enjoy a platform. Should Parents Be Worried? The TX law actually prevents platforms from taking the content moderation steps that they currently take. When it comes to content directed at children, there are many areas that fall under the awful, but lawful heading that would probably be left on the platform. For example, content glorifying suicide, or self-harm, or promoting eating disorders, etc. are all types of content that platforms would no longer be able to regulate. Cyber bullying is another area where the current protections would be removed. So, school fight videos that are normally removed, would still be accessible. Non-consensual intimate images, called revenge porn would not be taken down, as well as other types of harassment that could be very harmful to teens.  So parents have every right to be worried, especially if you've already been through dealing with these sorts of problems, because under this law, they will only worsen. Misconceptions About Free Speech The First Amendment does not apply to private companies. It only prohibits government regulation and restriction. Each social media platform has their own First Amendment concerns about what they allow on their platforms too. The argument that social media platforms are violating a person's right to free speech just doesn't hold water. Misunderstanding Section 230 Section 230 plays a critical role in allowing the platforms to remove harmful content without being sued. The platforms rely on this protection.  Recently a Russian foreign influence campaign sued because their content was removed. The lawsuit failed because of Section 230.  It's important for us to fight to keep both the First Amendment and the Section 230 protections for content moderation strong in order to keep consumers safe while they enjoy these online platforms. Resources: Progress Chamber Website Follow Elizabeth on Twitter: @elizabethbanker

This week, Mehdi opens his show discussing the latest threats to American democracy, from attacks on voting rights to Republican gerrymandering with President of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee Kelly Ward Burton. Former President Trump's lawsuit against his niece Mary Trump with Mary Trump's attorney and First Amendment lawyer Ted Boutrous. For Mehdi's "60 second rant" he shines a light on President Biden's supreme court commission that was tasked with rebalancing the court. Then, actor Kumail Nanjiani joins us to talk about his upcoming film 'The Eternals', his role as the first South Asian superhero, and he weighs in on President Biden's immigration crisis. Mehdi take a look inside a teacher training session in Texas who is being told to explore historical issues from "diverse and contending perspectives".....including the holocaust. Mehdi ends the show with a chat with fellow MSNBC host Ayman Mohyeldin about Jon Stewart's recent comments criticizing the media. 

Guest Host: Author, radio talk show host, and entertainer, Karen Kataline. Karen  is passionate about...

What did Alexander Hamilton tell the Marquis de Lafayette on July 21, 1780? Probably not that his letter would be the subject of a civil forfeiture case. Yet that came to pass in the First Circuit, and IJ attorney Bob Belden explains why it turns out the family that owned the letter were throwing away their shot. Meanwhile in the Second Circuit a fire on a movie set turns into a First Amendment retaliation claim. Kirby Thomas West joins us not to warn of the dangers of shouting fire, but what a fire chief who is your boss might do to you if you speak up on other topics. Specht v. City of New York, https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/69832f88-a75b-4fd5-b4ef-89041b7ff601/1/doc/20-4211_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/69832f88-a75b-4fd5-b4ef-89041b7ff601/1/hilite/ United States v. Letter from Alexander Hamilton to the Marquis de Lafayette Dated July 21, 1780, http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-2061P-01A.pdf Kirby Thomas West, https://ij.org/staff/kirby-thomas-west/ Bob Belden, https://ij.org/staff/bob-belden/ Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/ iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCqDbZTI7kIws11kEhed/overview Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice/short-circuit Google: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iz26kyzdcpodkfm5cpz7rlvf76a Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org

Kyle sits down with Rutgers Law School's very own Distinguished Professor of Law Carlos A. Ball to discuss Professor Ball's newest book, Principles Matter: The Constitution, Progressives, and the Trump Era   (Oxford University Press, 2021).  The two discuss many topics, including progressive activism, separation of powers, federalism, the First Amendment, and how our current Congress's abdication of legislative powers isn't healthy for our democracy.Pick up a copy of Principles Matter, ISBN: 9780197584484, online or at your favorite bookstore.This episode is for educational and entertainment purposes only.Walk Me Through It was created by and is hosted, edited and produced by Kyle Kilkenny. Follow Kyle on Twitter, Instagram, & TikTok @kylejkilkenny!New episodes every other Friday! Please follow, subscribe, rate and review wherever you listen!If you have a question, comment, topic or guest request for the show, email Kyle at kylejkilkenny@gmail.com.To support the show and to keep it ad-free, visit buymeacoffee.com/kylejkilkenny. Supporters will be listed in the episode description!Co-Produced by Patrick Johnson.Our Creative Consultant is Chris Dollesin.Theme Music by Stephen Smith.Special Thanks:Alexa-- for her accompaniment, love and grace.Carl from Buy Me a Coffee for supporting the podcast!My parents, Kerry & Ken-- for giving me life and some podcast equipment.All of you-- for listening!Support the show (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/kylejkilkenny)

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen's recent testimony before Congress has set in motion a renewed cycle of outrage over the company's practices—and a renewed round of discussion around what, if anything, Congress should do to rein Facebook in. But how workable are these proposals, really?This week on Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Jeff Kosseff, an associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy, and the guy that has literally written not just the book on this, but two of them. He is the author of “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet,” a book about Section 230, and he has another book coming out next year about First Amendment protections for anonymous speech, titled “The United States of Anonymous.” So Jeff is very well positioned to evaluate recent suggestions that Facebook should, for example, limit the ability of young people to create what users call Finstas, a second, secret Instagram account for a close circle of friends—or Haugen's suggestion that the government should regulate how Facebook amplifies certain content through its algorithms. Jeff discussed the importance of online anonymity, the danger of skipping past the First Amendment when proposing tech reforms, and why he thinks that Section 230 reform has become unavoidable … even if that reform might not make any legal or policy sense.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode we talk about the first amendment battle between Jerry Falwell and Hustler Magazine publisher Larry Flynt.

This is part one of a two-part interview with Maj Alan Serrano on the First Amendment. In it, we discuss the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of religion within the military. We tackle some of the most hot-button issues, including the interplay between free speech and the us of social media, how commanders grapple with curtailing certain types of speech, what constitutes an extremist group, and how the military typically handles requests for religious accommodations.

Dom Giordano, WPHT host and former teacher, has dedicated much of his daily show toward parents who are taking it into their own hands to push back against school boards that have a negative impact on their children. This has culminated in a weekly podcast on education, Readin', Writin', and Reason, which has allowed wonderful relationships to develop between Giordano, educators, and parents throughout the country who are speaking out against overbearing school boards. This week, Dom spends time speaking with those in the know, people who have experienced much of what we're seeing first-hand before, and have fought back in their own ways. This week, Dom is first joined by Denisha Merriweather, Director of Public Relations at the American Federation for Children and Founder of Black Minds Matter. Merriweather joins Readin', Writin', and Reason to discuss a piece she penned in support of school choice for the Washington Examiner. The issue, which has been used as a wedge issue in the realm of political debate on racial topics, is often talked down upon by Democrats and has been eluded to as outright racist. Merriweather explains the benefits that advancing such a political cause would bring to communities of color, and offers why she believes the push against school choice remains consistent. For more from Denisha Merriweather, head to BlackMindsMatter.net. Then, a listener favorite, Simon Campbell returns to Readin', Writin', and Reason for an update on the school board situation in Pennsbury, PA. Campbell, along with other citizens and the Institute for Free Speech, has filed suit against his local school board for overbearing tactics and First Amendment violations by board leaders and their solicitor. Campbell provides an update, and tells what his group hopes to accomplish in bringing the new lawsuit. For more on the lawsuit, head to IFS.org. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

- Special Guest: Newsmax's Rob Finnerty, host of “Wake Up America,” shares his thoughts on the current state of the nation - The same disappointing percentage of job growth returns again this month thanks to the Biden Administration - Mitch McConnell invites everyone to “get on board the ‘ol debt train (with a new song parody!) - Joe Biden fumbles and bumbles his way through another incoherent speech in Illinois - More Americans lose their jobs to unconstitutional mandates which will inevitably return to haunt Washington D.C. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Elana Fishbein, CEO of No Left Turn for Education, rejoins the Dom Giordano Program to give her thoughts on the letter sent by the National School Board Association to the Biden administration requesting federal enforcement at school board meetings. The NSBA alleges that violent threats and harassment have gotten to such a level that it is necessary for law enforcement to intervene, which groups like No Left Turn instead see as deterrents for parents to express their First Amendment right. In addition, Fishbein gives an update on No Left Turn in Education, and tells what the organization is doing to push back against school administrators who prioritize radical ideologies and the needs of outside influences over parents. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On September 17-18, 2021, The Federalist Society's Texas chapters sponsored the seventh annual Texas Chapters Conference at the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas, Texas. This panel covered "Big Tech and the Future of Section 230."Featuring:Brian W. Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLCJeff Kosseff, Assistant Professor of Cybersecurity Law, The United States Naval AcademyKate Tummarello, Executive Director, EngineProf. Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of LawModerator: Judge Brantley Starr, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L., a case which concerned whether the First Amendment prohibits public school officials from regulating off-campus student speech. Justice Breyer authored the majority opinion in the 8-1 decision, holding that “while public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome the student's interest in free expression in this case.” Justice Thomas offered the lone dissent in the decision. Joining me today to discuss this decision is Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School.

On June 17th, 2021 the Supreme Court unanimously decided Fulton v. City of Philadelphia for petitioners. The issue before the court was whether the government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency's ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency's religious beliefs. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court, which held that the refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Joining us today to discuss this decision is Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Professor of Law at Catholic University.

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, a Special Counsel needs to be appointed to look into the financial conflicts of interest of Attorney General Merrick Garland and his families and their role in publishing critical race theory curriculum for public schools. The American people will not be intimidated by Garland or any other public official who received a pension, salary, or benefit package from the tax dollars we pay. We are not servants, and won't allow our children to be brainwashed. We the people will be damned if we are going to pay for the demise of our children, our culture, and our country being indoctrinated by the leftwing politics of this administration. Garland was silent when innocents were murdered, businesses were burned by arsonists, and robbed by looters during the summer of 2020. We will peacefully and loudly protest against these tactics of harassing and intimidating parents from speaking their minds at public school meetings. Whether it's the left within the teachers' unions, the DOJ, Big Tech, or Big Media, they detest dissent and free-thinking. This Attorney General's attacks on federalism and the First Amendment do not represent the people of this great country, we have ceded nothing to these American Marxists. Later, it was only a matter of time before Mitch McConnell buckled on the debt limit. The debt ceiling does not need to be raised to pay the debt service, nor do you have to interrupt social security checks from going out. Afterward, new research from the Barna research group finds that Americans are picking up Marxist principles without even noticing. Race has erroneously been used to justify inequity of all kinds, a view that's become mainstream to many in Congress.

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, a Special Counsel needs to be appointed to look into the financial conflicts of interest of Attorney General Merrick Garland and his families and their role in publishing critical race theory curriculum for public schools. The American people will not be intimidated by Garland or any other public official who received a pension, salary, or benefit package from the tax dollars we pay. We are not servants, and won't allow our children to be brainwashed. We the people will be damned if we are going to pay for the demise of our children, our culture, and our country being indoctrinated by the leftwing politics of this administration. Garland was silent when innocents were murdered, businesses were burned by arsonists, and robbed by looters during the summer of 2020. We will peacefully and loudly protest against these tactics of harassing and intimidating parents from speaking their minds at public school meetings. Whether it's the left within the teachers' unions, the DOJ, Big Tech, or Big Media, they detest dissent and free-thinking. This Attorney General's attacks on federalism and the First Amendment do not represent the people of this great country, we have ceded nothing to these American Marxists. Later, it was only a matter of time before Mitch McConnell buckled on the debt limit. The debt ceiling does not need to be raised to pay the debt service, nor do you have to interrupt social security checks from going out. Afterward, new research from the Barna research group finds that Americans are picking up Marxist principles without even noticing. Race has erroneously been used to justify inequity of all kinds, a view that's become mainstream to many in Congress.

Former President Donald Trump has sued Twitter trying to get back on the platform. His suit says Twitter violated his First Amendment rights and that they broke a new Florida law that purports to prohibit social media companies from being banned in a manner inconsistent with the companies' internal policies. The thing is, the First Amendment applies to the government restricting free speech and Trump's theory is that Twitter is a state actor. When would a private entity be considered a state actor? Is there a case to be made that Dominion Voting Systems is a state actor? One group of people thinks so, and they've filed a new class action lawsuit against Dominion Voting Systems that says the cease and desist letters the company sent them after the 2020 elections are RICO. Ken, is it RICO?! Plus: a detailed report on whether Trump is really at risk of state charges in Georgia, Matt Gaetz's legal team, Dan Scavino evades a subpoena from a congressional committee.

Law enforcement is increasingly using facial recognition, AI and other technologies despite numerous studies and real world examples of such tech falsely identifying criminal suspects. Along with concerns over how this tech will disproportionately impact Black and Brown communities, experts are raising concerns over First Amendment implications and what it means to live in a society in which we're constantly surveilled. News Beat is a multi-award-winning podcast brought to you by Morey Creative Studios and Manny Faces Media. Audio Editor/Sound Designer/Producer: Michael "Manny Faces" Conforti Editor-In-Chief/Producer: Chris Twarowski Managing Editor/Producer: Rashed Mian Episode Art: Jeff Main Executive Producer: Jed Morey Support the show: https://www.paypal.com/donate/?token=EYkdQRkbZ6vNTGfNSGWZjx7_15orqqDl8vkmrAg3TkxLprft1OguFwxlheC3tAkNd-KVPG&country.x=US&locale.x=US See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Screw the Prime Directive! I've had it up to here! During a geological survey headed up by young Wesley of a system where the planets "live hard and die young" (Thanks Riker!) Data strikes up a conversation. That leads to the A plot of the crew debating whether to intervene and save young guest star Nikki Cox's people, while the B plot is Wesley managing the difficulties of managing. It all works out in the end, but not before we get some choice lines from Worf and Pulaski. Jimmie hosts this episode full of laughs, Greg keeps calling the Prime Directive the First Amendment, Kate really likes Picard's jodhpurs, and Erik discovered Monster Squad and you should too. Monster Squad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjNKsQ7HDXw.   We'd love to receive more feedback or questions we can read aloud and answer on episodes in the future so feel free to email letsReengage@gmail.com or message us on Twitter @ReEngageTNG! Host: Jimmie G (@thejimmieg on IG & Twitter)  Panel: Erik Gratton (@erikfallsdown on Twitter & IG), Greg Tito (@gregtito on Twitter, @greg_tito on IG), and Kate Jaeger (@jaegerlicious on Twitter and IG) Audio Editor: Greg Tito (@gregtito on Twitter, @greg_tito on IG) Logo artwork: @mojojojo_97 on Twitter, mojo97.com Theme music: Ryan Marth   Next up is "Q Who" s2e16 hosted by Greg with special guest Aliza Pearl (@alizapearl on Twitter & IG)!

The Morning Crew discusses the whether the mechanisms in the Constitution will preserve the Republic, Ben's birthday, and the First Amendment.

The Morning Crew discusses China, Joe Biden, the infrastructure bill, Jim's faith in the Constitution, Ben's birthday, the First Amendment, "big tech" censorship, the U.S. economy, China, and Taiwan. 

The Supreme Court today continues to vigorously debate the scope of religious exemptions—which allow individuals or organizations to be exempt from following certain laws that they say burden their religious beliefs—in high-profile cases such as Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021). This episode dives into the current and historic debates over religious exemptions in a panel featuring Douglas Laycock, author of the five-volume series The Collected Works on Religious Liberty; Vincent Phillip Muñoz, author of God and the Founders; and Kathleen Brady, author of The Distinctiveness of Religion in American Law. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program is presented in partnership with the University of Notre Dame's Center for Citizenship & Constitutional Government. Check out additional programming about religious exemptions at https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library?amendment=14909 and below: We the People episode, "The Future of Church and State at SCOTUS" https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/podcast/the-future-of-church-and-state-at-scotus On Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021): We the People episode, "Religious Groups, Foster Care, and the First Amendment" https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/podcast/the-future-of-church-and-state-at-scotus Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Giant Monster Messages: Legend of Dinosaurs and Monster Birds (1977) We discuss cryptids and bad scientists for our episode of the 1977 film Legend of Dinosaurs and Monster Birds. Time 01:45 History 10:55 Plot 15:46 Talking Points 26:10 Messages 31:17 Final Thoughts 33:25 Listener Feedback References Fish dying due to heat Contact us at: https://giantmonstermessages.com/GiantMonsterMessages@gmail.com Twitter Main Theme and Stingers Written by Matthias Fluor https://mfluor.ch/ Art by Laser 'lizard' Lluis Special Thanks to: Teachers everywhere Authors of the First Amendment

We are getting crushed with totalitarian mandates on our bodies, genocidal policies on COVID, thousands of unvetted refugees, thousands of criminals released, and now the federal government is criminalizing our First Amendment rights to protest critical race theory. Through it all, where are the red-state elected officials? When will this all trigger a cathartic moment and induce them to finally fight back? Also, I discuss the genocide taking place in the hospitals with staff purposely denying any care that will save the patient.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An image of a young mother in a short dress on a New York City subway raised ethical questions and the ire of some commentators on Twitter. Some found the "award-winning" photo to be stunning, while others questioned the photographer's methods – sitting across from the woman for 45 minutes while holding his camera on his lap.Unlike the conversation around "newsworthy" images and the First Amendment, street photography often occupies a much creepier and ethically ambiguous space. But what exactly made this image so objectionable? Sarah and Allen discuss.Also on the show: Emily Ratajkowski tries using the Fair Use defense in her copyright infringement suit, World Press Photo shifts to a regional model, and photographer/director Joshua Kissi says LinkedIn is the real social network for pros. 

Vaccine mandates, love them or hate them, they are most likely affecting you in some shape and form. But what exactly does the constitution have to say about mandates? On this episode, your political host, Will Wright, talks with Constitutional Professor Eric Berger about the constitutionality of vaccine mandates. Then they discuss a Supreme Court case that is often cited to justify mandates, Jacobson v. Massachusets, and lastly Will finally gets his chance to flex his knowledge of OSHA to the professor! Guest Bio:Professor Berger clerked for the Honorable Merrick B. Garland on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He then practiced in Jenner & Block's Washington, D.C. office, where he worked on litigation in several state and federal trial and appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court. Professor Berger's matters there included cases involving lethal injection, same-sex marriage, the detention of foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay, and internet obscenity. Professor Berger teaches Constitutional Law I (structure), Constitutional Law II (rights), Constitutional History, Federal Courts, First Amendment, and Statutory Interpretation. He also teaches a class for undergraduates on Legislation and Regulation. He has been voted Professor of the Year by the upperclass law students six times. He has also received the College Distinguished Teaching Award (in 2010), the Law Alumni Council Distinguished Faculty Award (in 2018), and the John H. Binning Award for Excellence (in 2019). Professor Berger's scholarship focuses on constitutional law.  Much of his work explores judicial decision making in constitutional cases, with special attention to deference, fact finding, rhetorical strategies, and other under-theorized factors that help shape judicial opinions in constitutional cases.  His article Individual Rights, Judicial Deference, and Administrative Law Norms in Constitutional Decision Making, 91 B.U. L. REV. 2029 (2011), was named the 2011 winner of the American Constitution Society's Richard D. Cudahy Writing Competition on Regulatory and Administrative Law.  Professor Berger has also written extensively about lethal injection litigation.   Professor Berger has testified in the Nebraska legislature about a variety of constitutional issues, including free speech, lethal injection, and the process for amending the U.S. Constitution.  He is also the faculty advisor to the Law College's chapter of the American Constitution Society and to the Community Legal Education Project, which sends law students into Lincoln public schools to teach about the Constitution.Professor Berger served as Associate Dean for Faculty from 2016 to 2020.Support the show (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/faithpolitics)

Professors Robert Post and Jack Balkin join President Salovey for a conversation about the spread of misinformation in the information age.

Tune In 2 In Tune w/hosts TOOTS SWEET, JEWELS JONES & special guest L. LIN WOOD - LIVE candid & unedited without all the mainstream bias, censorship & spin. 

September 25 was First Amendment Day in America — the anniversary of the date in 1789 when Congress approved 12 amendments to our Constitution, including what we today call the Bill of Rights.  On today's episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we discuss the origin story and history of America's First Amendment and its five freedoms. To do so, host Nico Perrino is joined by Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University Akhil Reed Amar. Amar is the author of “The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840” and the host of the podcast “Amarica's Constitution.” Show notes: “The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840” by Akhil Reed Amar “The First Amendment's Firstness” by Akhil Reed Amar “How America's Constitution Affirmed Freedom of Speech Even Before the First Amendment” by Akhil Reed Amar www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Isn't it interesting how, during the past year and a half, we've all been trained to classify people by profession, stigmatize the sick and now to demonize the noncompliant? Jeffrey A. Tucker says the purges have begun and a new kind of medical puritanism is taking shape. The Biden vaccine mandates are getting more pointless by the day. Watch for more and more aspects of our lives to become subject to further mandates as everything becomes a "public health emergency" that justifies claiming even more government control. It's astonishing how hard the political class is pushing to consolidate its power over the people. It's bad enough when these power-seekers and opportunists are trying to dominate foreign countries. As Mike Maharrey warns, Washington D.C.'s power over the states is looking more imperial by the day. I'm sad to say that First Amendment Day has come and gone and I didn't formally celebrate it. Jan Neuharth reminds us that while we may say we cherish the First Amendment's protections, few Americans could name the five freedoms specifically protected.     Sponsors: Monticello College Lifesaving Food (use the coupon code "HYDE" at checkout for a 20% discount) The Heather Turner Team at Patriot Home Mortgage Leave me a voice message with your feedback

PETA is fighting NIH to modernize science in America with protests and lawsuits. Last week, demonstrators paid a visit to an experimenter's neighborhood in the DC area.  In court, PETA filed two lawsuits against NIH one on First Amendment grounds for blocking key words on Facebook and Instagram. Another suit alleges NIH spent millions of dollars on sepsis research while knowing the hideous animal experiments would not be successful. Dr. Emily Trunnell, PETA senior scientist talks to Emil Guillermo. Find out more on PETA.org The PETA Podcast PETA, the world's largest animal rights organization, is 6.5 million strong and growing. This is the place to find out why. Hear from insiders, thought leaders, activists, investigators, politicians, and others why animals need more than kindness—they have the right not to be abused or exploited in any way. Hosted by Emil Guillermo. Powered by PETA activism. Contact us at PETA.org Listen to the very first PETA podcast with Ingrid Newkirk Music provided by CarbonWorks. Go to Apple podcasts and subscribe. Contact and follow host Emil Guillermo on Twitter @emilamok Or at www.amok.com Please subscribe, rate and review wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening to THE PETA PODCAST! (Originally published Sept. 29, 2021). Copyright 2021

In this episode of Real College Podcast we have a hodge-podge of various topics starting with discussions of the online learning revolution, conversations with international students here at the U, part one of a two part series about metaphysical practices here in the Twin Cities, an in-depth look at a dope band, lessons on why the First Amendment is important, a dive on the Paralympics, and the first installment of our new series getting to know Radio K!

Freedom of speech and the press are values vital to American democracy. But the First Amendment doesn't really define free speech, and plenty of expressions are restricted. Learn all about the ins and outs of this cherished right in this classic episode. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

A cheerleader's vulgar post on social media lands her in trouble with the school, but judicial precedent from the 1960s and the First Amendment protects her right to free speech.