Mass Communication Law Blog @alilacey-blog - Tumblr Blog

Campomaggi Leather Bags | Norway

Built with quality and style, this bag is the perfect relationship between leather and canvas. An enclosing zipper on the top and an adjustable strap makes for convenient traveling.

The oversized tote in surf stripe // Madewell

Shown in antique cream stripe

The freedom of 'religion'

On his radio program, Focal Point, Byran Fischer of the American Family Association said that the First Amendment should only protect Christianity.

Fischer said that the founding fathers never intended for Islam or any other religion to be protected by the First Amendment and that “religion” referred only to to Christianity.

He says, “At the time of the founding [of the United States], 99.8 percent of the population of the colonies were Christians. The other 0.2 percent were Jews.” He goes on, “But the point is, by ‘religion’ the founders were thinking of Christianity.”

He says that this is why Satanists can’t seek to erect a monument at the Oklahoma statehouse grounds. He says that if the founding fathers meant for only Christianity to be protected by the First Amendment, then it is okay to tell the Satanists that they can’t build. Reversely, he says, “But if by ‘religion’ you mean any system of belief, whether it is Christian or not, then you have no way to tell the Satanists you can’t have your monument.”

This was a really surprising thing to come across. It’s almost hard to believe that there are people who think that the founding fathers really intended for some people to have more rights than others. The founding fathers left England to be able to promote freedom of religion, not suppress it for most.

While most of the colonists were Christians when they settled, I don’t think that it’s fair for Fischer to claim that they only intended to protect their own religion. Why would they want to put others through the persecution that they had escaped from? Christianity in itself is not (or at least should not be) a religion that eliminates choice or freedom.

Source: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/11/right-wing-radio-host-bryan-fischer-says-first-amendment-only-protects-christians/

The value of a free press

Vice President Joseph R. Biden spoke in China on Thursday about the freedom of the press.

Biden said, “Innovation thrives were people breathe freely, speak freely, are able to challenge orthodoxy, where newspapers can report the truth without fear of consequences.” The idea of a free press is extremely powerful, especially in a society that doesn’t have a role for freedom of the press.

Biden spoke to American businesspeople living and working in China, but the message was surely heard by China’s leaders. The New York Times said that Biden’s speech was the first time a “high-ranking United States official had spoken publically about the professional plight of journalists seeking to fully report on China.”

The article then related Biden’s speech with the testimony of Alan Rusbridger, editor in chief of The Guardian. Rusbridger is being questioned about The Guardian’s coverage of the national security material that was leaked by Edward J. Snowden.

In the trial, Rusbridger said, “One of the things I love about this country is that we have the freedom to write, and report, and to think and we have some privacy.” Rusbridger said that he, along with other major news sources, decided that the leaks made by Snowden were of vital global significance.

The article ends saying, “Whether it’s in Beijing or Britain, it might be a good time for governments to stop trying to prevent the news media from doing its job and address what the work has revealed.”

This situation ties in with the New York Times v. U.S. (also known as the Pentagon Papers case). I like the way the New York Times ended the article, as it addresses a really good point: the government should not be focusing on whether or not the press should be free—freedom of the press is essential for any functioning democracy. Rather, they should be focusing on the information that the press wants to publish. In the Pentagon Papers case, had the government not given a reason for concern, Daniel Ellsberg wouldn’t have leaked the information on the Vietnam War and the Johnson administration.

Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/business/media/where-freedom-of-the-press-is-muffled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

The Pledge

The pledge of allegiance has long been an issue in the United States. Most recently, State of Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed legislation in October 2012 that gives all Michigan students the right to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school classrooms. This timeline provides “Fast Facts” of the history of the Pledge of Allegiance.

The long-time problem presented with the Pledge is the “one nation under God” phrase. President Dwight D. Eisenhower added this phrase in 1954. In 1998, Dr. Michael Newdow filed suit against the school board of Broward County in Florida to get the phrase “under God” removed. Newdow brought the same case against the Elk Grove school system in California. The case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court, who dismissed the challenge because Newdow didn’t have any legal standing.

Since then, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on the Pledge of Allegiance on multiple occasions. They have ruled that students cannot be forced to recite the pledge and they cannot be punished for not reciting it.

While this may appear to be a quick fix for the “one nation under God” issue, I agree with the Supreme Courts decision to leave the phrase and allow the children to decide for themselves. It is true, however, that most children will just recite the pledge without thinking about what it means—both as they pledge their allegiance to America and when they say that America is a nation under God. Most likely, the only way this wouldn’t be the case is if a parent told their child to not recite the pledge with the rest of the class. I think this is a good outcome, though I’m sure it wasn’t what the Court intended. These conversations should happen between parents and children, and if people don’t want to say the pledge or refrain from saying “one nation under God” I think its good for them to know why they believe what they believe.

Santorum and the AFA

Rick Santorum said that President Obama is imposing his beliefs by making businesses provide birth control coverage in health care.

This comes a week after the Supreme Court agreed to visit a case by Hobby Lobby Corporation. Hobby Lobby has Christian owners who feel that their rights have been violated in the Affordable Care Act mandate that requires corporations to offer birth control on their health plans.

Santorum believes that corporations should have the right to decide whether or not they want to provide a birth control option on their plans. This especially affects businesses with religious affiliations that oppose birth control and contraceptives.

I agree with Santorum’s argument here. I think that corporations with religious affiliations shouldn’t be forced into offering something they are morally opposed to. Women considering employment at such places should take this into consideration when seeking health coverage.

Santorum’s argument focuses on religious freedom, not whether or not women deserve to have birth control in their plans. The First Amendment speaks directly toward the freedom of religion, and new plans should not interfere with that freedom. Employers should have the right to not offer birth control if it’s against their religious beliefs.

This could, however, go both ways. Just because an employer believes something about birth control doesn’t necessarily mean that the employee should be punished for that.

While Santorum’s argument may have some holes in it, I think it’s something to be considered when looking at the new health care plan.

Source:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/01/santorum-denying-women-birth-control-coverage-is-a-first-amendment-right/

A recent lawsuit involving the Beastie Boys and GoldiBlox brings up issues of copyright infringement. A video put out by GoldiBlox shows a spin on the Beastie Boys’ song “Girls.” The Beastie Boys feel that this reenactment infringes on the rights granted to them by the copyright on the song.

GoldiBlox, an upstart toy company, is being threatened by representatives from the Beastie Boys, saying that they will be taking legal action because of the copyright infringement. GoldiBlox is defending their song, saying that it’s use of the song was fair. They changed the lyrics and it isn’t replacing the original Beastie Boys song. They say that the video is obviously a parody. Because of that, I don’t think that the lawsuit will work out in favor of the Beastie boys. The Beastie Boys do have the purpose of the use prong in their favor, as the song was used for commercial purposes. I would argue, however, that no reasonable person would purchase the GoldiBlox version of the song and think that it was the original Beastie Boys version.

The source can be found here.

Should Google be exempt from copyright laws?

Should Google be exempt from copyright laws? The results from a decade-long lawsuit doesn’t think so. A U.S. Circuit Court judge in Manhattan found that Google digitally copying books for online searches dos not violate copyright law.

The Authors Guild sued Google when it began copying books in 2004 to enhance its search optimization. Many of the books were from living authors and from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford libraries. Google didn’t make the entirety of the books available online, just portions relevant to the user’s search. Google claims that they were acting as a “card catalog for the digital age.”

The Authors Guild plans to appeal the decision, as Google profits from the copyright works by selling ads alongside the content.

The Copyright Act protects “original works of authority fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” I would argue that Google putting only searchable portions of the material online is not a tangible medium of expression, as the whole work isn’t offered. It’s tricky, however, because the copyright law of those publications were still protected, as Google was generally offering publications that the authors were still alive and, therefore, it was most likely within 95 years from its first publication or 120 years within its creation date.

source: http://www.npr.org/2013/11/15/245343043/judge-googles-book-copying-doesnt-violate-copyright-law

Judge forces parents to change child's name

The United States has always had strict freedom of religion laws through the First Amendment. Tennessee Child Support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew is making the court question whether a judge has the right to make a parent change the name of his or her child.

The parents of Messiah Deshawn Martin are being ordered to change the child’s first name to “Martin” instead of Messiah, as “Messiah is a title reserved only for Jesus Christ,” according to Judge Ballew.

Jaleesa Martin, Messiah’s mother, brought the child and his father to the Cocke County Chancery Court on Thursday when they couldn’t reach an agreement on the last name of the child. Judge Ballew ruled that the parents change Messiah’s name to “Marin DeShawn McCullough,” as it includes both of the parents’ last names. However, this name change leaves out the child’s birth name: Messiah.

Martin appealed Bellow’s ruling and the case went to the appellate court on Sept. 17. Judge Ballew has since been cited with violations with the Board of Judicial Conduct. This case seems to violate the fundamental freedoms mentioned in the First Amendment, as the ruling has infringed on the parent’s right to name their child as they please.

Read the article here.

Should the First Amendment protect controversial tweets?

A University of Kansas professor was placed on leave because of a post that he made on Twitter, said Fox News.

Journalism professor David Guth sent out a tweet aimed at the National Rifle Association after the Navy Yard shooting on September 16th.

His tweet read: “The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.”

During the backlash from the harsh tweet, Kansas legislative leaders told the University that they would not continue to fund the University if Goth wasn’t fired. The University replied that Guth spoke as a private person, and that they would take no responsibility for what was said.

Guth was placed on leave because of the disruption that could rebound from the comments, “not because of the nature of the professor’s comments, regardless of how controversial they may be.”

Although highly offensive, Guth’s tweet is protected by the First Amendment. Though they don’t agree with his comments, many professors from the school—especially from the Journalism school—are standing up for Guth’s right to free speech.

I feel that this is an appropriate response that initiates an ideal marketplace of ideas. While Guth couldn’t be punished by the government, being punished by the public is just as effective, in this case. The scrutiny facing Guth is causing professors, students and the rest of the public take a second look at reactions regarding gun violence—good or bad.

The First Amendment & the Government Shut Down

American’s that are upset over the government shut down are using their First Amendment rights to defy the government, the Washington Post reported

It started with veterans pushing their way into the World War II Memorial. Following this example, American’s are tossing aside the barricades to get into shut down spaces. “Civil disobedience has become a sensation,” the Washington Post said

The Washington Post details many instances in which citizens are taking advantage of their First Amendment rights in order to defy barriers. For example, a man is South Carolina is taking matters into his own hands and cleaning trash at the Lincoln Memorial, where National Park Service employees are falling short due to the lack of government funding.

In an essay for Boston’s National Public Radio station E.M. Swift, former Sports Illustrated writer, said that these protestors are regular, law-abiding citizens. “They are willfully, determinately, civilly disobeying the law of the land,” Swift said.

Generally, authorities have been ignoring these trespassers. Rangers told Grand Canyon visitors that they couldn’t interrogate or deny entry to anyone that was exercising their First Amendment rights, saying that the First Amendment “trumps all.”

The sign to the monuments on the Mall say that the parks are closed, “except for 1st Amendment activities."

However, this exception only applies to some Washington and Philadelphia parks that are related to the government and its history, as those parks have a “long history of hosting First Amendment events,” National Park Service spokesman Michael Litterst said.

I think that this First Amendment exception to the National Park shut down is a good thing. A Grand Canyon Park Service ranger told visitors at the park that the First Amendment “trumps all,” and I believe that he’s correct in saying that. I do, however, feel that it’s strange that an exception for the First Amendment would exist in such broad terms. The challenge that citizens are making seems content-neutral, as the government is telling them a place that can’t be accessed, but it also seems content-based, because only those claiming their First Amendment rights are legally allowed in the park.

Facebook and the First Amendment

A U.S. court of appeals ruled that it is in the American people’s First Amendment rights to 'like' things on Internet sites, such as Facebook, CNN reported.

The case began when six Virginia employees at the Hampton Sheriff’s Office made it known that they were voting for their boss’ opponent in an upcoming election for sheriff. They did this by 'liking' the opponent on Facebook. Two employees, Deputy Daniel Carter and Robert McCoy, said that they were fired for 'liking' the page.

Carter claimed that his boss approached him saying he would be fired after the election. The employees brought the boss to court in an as-applied challenge.

In a U.S. court of appeals, U.S. Circuit Judge William Traxler ruled that 'liking' something on Facebook was protected free speech, as this act was similar to one that the Supreme Court has already ruled as protect speech. He said that “liking” something on Facebook was the “internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in one’s front yard.”

Earlier, District Judge Raymond Jackson had ruled the opposite: that 'liking' something on the Internet was “insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection.” Judge Traxier’s decision reversed this ruling.

Posts on Facebook, Twitter, or other networking sites have long been protected speech. Judge Jackson, however, saw a difference between intentionally saying something and just clicking 'like.'

Facebook and the American Civil Liberties both got involved in the case, CNN said.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Mass Communication Law Blog