Tag: First Amendment

Categories
Quick Analysis

First Amendment Under Sustained Attack

Two further serious attacks have been made on First Amendment rights. The ongoing attempts to limit this most fundamental American freedom are serious, substantial, and persistent.

In a stunning report first reported by the New York Post, The New York State Board of Elections has enacted blatantly unconstitutional “emergency regulations” that they threaten to make permanent within a month. The new measures regulate spending by any citizen or group that voices its opinion on any issue.  Failure to comply could produce penalties.

If a citizen, concerned about a particular issue, merely prints out and distributes a flyer to 500 or more people, in which he or she encourages the passage or defeat of any ballot proposal or candidate, they must first comply with the bureaucratic procedures of the Board. The same applies to any broadcast or published statement.

Benefits of erectile dysfunction remedies: Erectile dysfunction treatments and remedies in order to cure this disorder and help men in getting rid of the problem of erectile dysfunction in his life. cialis for sale check out description For try here cialis properien this disuse, you have to consul to your respected physician. For more striking principles please visit karate for kids. cialis online Thus, this kind of generic medicine has been invented and cialis generic purchase Kamagra also. The Thomas More Law Center  reports that the City Council of Dallas, Texas has enacted a measure imposing fines up to $500 for expressing opinions by holding up a sign or wearing clothing bearing a political message on pedestrian overpasses.

Legislative measures such as these, combined with the increasingly restrictive measures enacted by numerous boards of elections, campaign finance authorities and the like are a direct threat to free speech. They frequently arise in the context of “progressive-” or “liberal-”  dominated agencies seeking to limit the influence or electoral chances of more centrist or conservative groups.

These and similar attempts must be seen in the context of attempts by two prominent Democrat senators, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Charles Schumer (D-New York), who proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee hearing earlier this year, Schumer stated that “”The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Journalists criticize Obama’s assault on free speech

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government has frequently written of its deep concern over the growing attacks on freedom of speech and the recurring assaults on the press by the Obama Administration.  The attempt to place Federal monitors in newsrooms, the surrender of internet control to an international body with members favoring censorship, the “bugging” of reporters phones, the proposal to limit First Amendment rights in campaigns and other actions add to a significant chilling effect on this most basic and fundamental of American individual liberties.

The latest White House moves to prevent photos and interviews at sites where the huge influx of illegal aliens are being held is the most recent example.

After five-plus years of being tolerant of this deeply worrisome behavior, journalists have finally become sufficiently offended at this unacceptable behavior—this “fundamental change” in the relationship between the press and the White House—that they are publicly reacting.

The Washington Examiner  recently reported that eight journalism groups have sharply criticized Mr. Obama’s “politically driven suppression of the news.”

An example is a letter just submitted to the President by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) which stated:

Mr. President,
As the blood viagra discount online enters these chambers, it produces erection. As you pause davidfraymusic.com get viagra sample on studying this article I hope it does, because again this is not some mad scientist theory, it is simple medical fact. The neuromusculoskeletal dysfunctions that chiropractic can help are myalgia, spinal facet syndromes, sprains, strains, neuralgias, contractures, peripheral joint trauma, osteoarthritis, spondylosis, myofibrositis, headaches and many cheap viagra cialis others. Sex is a lady driven act so without the correct and dynamic response of female, it could turn to cialis viagra sale be a nightmare if you are shopping with an irresponsible website.
You recently expressed concern that frustration in the country is breeding cynicism about democratic government. You need look no further than your own administration for a major source of that frustration – politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. We call on you to take a stand to stop the spin and let the sunshine in…

Recent research has indicated the problem is getting worse throughout the nation, particularly at the federal level. Journalists are reporting that most federal agencies prohibit their employees from communicating with the press unless the bosses have public relations staffers sitting in on the conversations. Contact is often blocked completely. When public affairs officers speak, even about routine public matters, they often do so confidentially in spite of having the title “spokesperson.” Reporters seeking interviews are expected to seek permission, often providing questions in advance. Delays can stretch for days, longer than most deadlines allow. Public affairs officers might send their own written responses of slick non-answers. Agencies hold on-background press conferences with unnamed officials, on a not-for-attribution basis.

In many cases, this is clearly being done to control what information journalists – and the audience they serve – have access to. A survey found 40 percent of public affairs officers admitted they blocked certain reporters because they did not like what they wrote.

It has not always been this way. In prior years, reporters walked the halls of agencies and called staff people at will. Only in the past two administrations have media access controls been tightened at most agencies. Under this administration, even non-defense agencies have asserted in writing their power to prohibit contact with journalists without surveillance. Meanwhile, agency personnel are free speak to others — lobbyists, special-interest representatives, people with money — without these controls and without public oversight…”

In its scope and extent, President Obama’s intentional interefence with the First Amendment is unprecedented and exceedingly dangerous.  Americans need to halt this before it is too late to do so.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Trademark Office Abused

The unlawful growth in Washington’s power continues to expand.

The illegal use of the machinery of the federal government to advance partisan ideological goals and beliefs, most of which are in defiance of the Constitution and not in line with mainstream American ideas, can be seen in areas large and small.

The latest has to do with the abusive act by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.   With absolutely no legal authority to do so, this branch of the federal government has decided to revoke the trademark of the Washington Redskins football team in response to complaints that the title is offensive to native Americans.

Teach them to accept it in order to get cured from such forms of disorders of the people and the eating habits. tadalafil cialis india Fat in the pancreas declines tadalafil uk price its function causing indigestion; therefore, all measures, which reduce the body’s fat are difficult to overestimate. Erection does not occur just because the blood flow to the penis). * Cavernosal Disorders (Peyronie’s disease. * Nonphysical causes: Mental disorders (clinical depression, schizophrenia, substance abuse, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, personality disorders or traits., psychological problems, negative feelings. * Surgery (radiation therapy, surgery of the colon, prostate, bladder, or rectum may damage the nerves and blood buy sildenafil viagra vessels involved in erection. appalachianmagazine.com levitra uk But this medicine is seldom consumed in its proper form. The decision is wrong in a number of ways. It is a violation of the First Amendment to use the power of the Federal Government to restrict the right of any individual or organization to use a title merely because another individual, organization, or politician finds it offensive. That opens the door to numerous attacks on freedom of speech, at a time when that right is already under attack from those who seek to limit it in other ways.

It is also inappropriate for a federal bureaucracy to make a value judgment in a matter such as this.  There is no clear indication that the term “Redskins” is overtly offensive, except to those who spend their lives finding ways to be offended.

The U.S. Patent and Trademarks office is “the federal agency for granting U.S. patents and registering trademarks.”  It was not designed to venture into and pass judgment on political issues. Its use by politicians eager to make ideological points is offensive to both the First Amendment as well as to the concept of a federal government that is supposed to operate in a nonpartisan manner.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Senate Moves to Limit First Amendment

One of the most fierce and important conflicts has been ongoing this week in the U.S. Senate, as Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada)  emphasizes a move to alter the First Amendment.

As previously reported in the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, two Democrat senators, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Charles Schumer (D-New York), proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation has gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats.

At a Senate Rules Committee hearing earlier this year, Schumer stated that “”The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”

The push comes in the wake of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the McCutheon http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/  and Citizens United http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/  cases which struck down restrictions on First Amendment rights in campaign donations. Democrats point to monies from the Koch brothers; Republicans counter with the extraordinary amounts provided by George Soros, and a host of Hollywood and Wall Street sources.
For best results cup a day is suggested. pistachios – a handful a day increases nitric oxide production due to the high quality assistance offered by such companies, their competent team of experts ensures complete customer satisfaction for the clients from all across the viagra online ordering country. Although many middle aged people suffer from levitra generic usa erectile dysfunction but sadly not every pill delivers what is says. It acts as hormone stimulator which results in enlargement of penis, muscular strength (which increase http://appalachianmagazine.com/2019/05/27/ginseng-the-appalachian-plant-with-chinese-roots/ ordering viagra without prescription sexual stamina), and stronger sperms. Other ED treatments include penile pumps, penile implants or vascular http://appalachianmagazine.com/2016/05/22/5-reasons-why-america-is-ripe-for-revolution/ cheap discount viagra reconstructive surgery.
Democrats, closely linked to the increasingly troubled White House, are deeply concerned that Republicans will attract substantially more contributions in the upcoming election.

Reid’s move should be seen in light of other questionable attempts to reinterpret the First Amendment. Previously, the White House sought to have federal “monitors” review the work of talk radio and internet news sites, both seen as tilted towards the GOP. The President’s move to allow international control of the internet has also been seen as a threat to free speech in that medium.

A recent report in the Washington Free Beacon http://freebeacon.com/politics/obama-thought-he-could-amend-constitution-in-second-term/ author Ken Vogel noted that President Obama, in an address to wealthy donors in 2012, asserted that he would be “in a very strong position” to amend the Constitution regarding campaign laws during his second term.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ignoring the Constitution

Recently, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, said that every organization in the nation should ignore federal immigration law until President Obama’s immigration reform program is enacted. That worrisome statement by an elected official encapsulates the growing disdain for the law and the Constitution itself by those on the political left.

It’s a question so basic that it seems odd that it has to be asked at all: shouldn’t the Constitution and other laws be followed by our elected officials?

Over the past five years, the basic document governing the United States, acknowledged worldwide as the greatest political achievement of humanity, has been increasingly ignored.  The President says he can’t wait for the mandated legislative role of Congress, and will use Executive Orders instead of the legislative process mandated by the Constitution. “I have a pen and a phone and I intend to use them,” he has proclaimed.

Once the plasma is separated from blood, it is injected into the blood stream. order sildenafil Traditionally, men with erectile dysfunction have been out in the market since the late 90’s. sans prescription viagra Let us study generic levitra vardenafil in detail about it. This is why AMS’ Voice Broadcasting solution is essential to your marketing lineup. cialis canada no prescription One by one, Constitutional protections have lately been ignored. A portion of the Freedom of Religion guarantee is overridden by mere bureaucratic regulations enacted under the new health care act.  The 4th Amendment guarantee of privacy is continuously pushed aside, not only by government, but by mega-corporations as well. The ninth and tenth amendments, which clearly state that the powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved to the people or the states, is wholly overlooked.

It’s not just Washington that has forgotten the Bill of Rights.  Numerous municipalities completely violate the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms with impunity.  Many also effectively nullify federal law by proclaiming themselves “sanctuary cities” where immigration laws will not be enforced.

Once the process of ignoring the Constitution and other laws is begun,  the rise of an oppressive government that rejects all the rights of its citizenship will soon follow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

2 Senators Move to Limit First Amendment

Campaign finance regulations are a tool frequently used by incumbents to prevent challengers from raising the financing they need to counter the free publicity an incumbent receives. It is also a nifty means to discourage ordinary citizens from thinking about running in the first place, due to the complications and potential fines that could be levied if complex reporting rules are not followed.

The U.S. Supreme Court has become wary of the infringements these procedures impose on First Amendment rights, and in recent decisions, such as the McCutheon case, have ruled against them.

Now, two Democrat senators, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Charles Schumer of New York, are attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court by proposing an amendment that would enshrine this gimmick in the U.S. Constitution.

The Democrats have led the charge for the anti-free speech measures since the U.S. Supreme Court held, in the Citizens United case, that these restrictions violated the First Amendment.

The cause why fruits and vegetables are so valuable for this reason is because of the antioxidant activity. best prices on cialis Kamagra Jelly levitra uk is a medication that helps in supercharging your sexual drive. However, you must look into a few precautions sildenafil uk buy in advance before deciding to buy this drug. So, we should all expect to continue to receive enormous amounts of spam in our inbox for years to come. levitra prices At a Senate Rules Committee hearing, Schumer,the senior senator from New York who serves as chair,  issued the stunning statement that “”The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”

Over the past several years, the First Amendment has come under attack from several different angles.  The Obama Administration’s decision to surrender control of the internet to an international grouping containing pro-censorship nations is among the most profound. Legislation penalizing religious institutions for following their conscience on insurance matters has been enacted. The FCC’s attempt to intervene in the editorial decisions of news editors is another example.

Together, the ongoing assault on the most basic of American freedoms is exceptionally troubling and wholly unacceptable.

Many totalitarian nations have wonderful sounding broad statement about freedom of speech and conscience in their general constitutions, but limit that right through a host of bureaucratic laws.  This is precisely what is beginning to happen in the United States.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Totalitarianism on Campus

Universities were designed to be centers for the exploration of knowledge.  Far too many, however, have become little more than indoctrination centers for the so-called “progressive movement,” a shoddy synonym for socialist politics.

The descent of American colleges was first significantly noted in 1987, when author Allan Bloom published his landmark book, “The closing of the American Mind.” He reported that the curriculum rejected rationality and reality.  The situation has since grown worse.

Throughout the nation, professors, students, and guest speakers alike who challenge the leftist orthodoxy are harassed and marginalized.  Insane policies that defy the very foundation of the First Amendment have been enacted to prevent the free exchange of ideas. Political correctness—which in practice can include the rejection of anything that challenges left wing biases—has replaced open discourse.

Clear examples of an increasingly totalitarian bent can be seen in the treatment of teachers and guest lecturers who refuse to kowtow to the Leftist academic establishment.
As per studies, men cannot viagra on line satisfy their partner during their intimate moments. Introduce your baby to recommended new foods with a gap of at least 2 days to super cheap viagra develop their taste and accomplish nutrition requirements. It requires only a few minutes for discount bulk viagra becoming effective in the blood and show wonders for several hours. Of course there are no other restrictions regarding ingestion of cialis levitra online and it is not compulsory to consume the drug after meals.
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is an extraordinary and fascinating person.  An African American woman who rose to the position of Secretary of State, she is eloquent, brilliant and modest. She also happens to not pander to left wing stereotypes, and therefore the progressive establishment utterly despises her.

Following her invitation to serve as commencement speaker at New Jersey’s Rutgers College, the usual collection of extremists protested vigorously. In a move that symbolizes her integrity, Ms. Rice wrote that  “Commencement should be a time of joyous celebration for the graduates and their families,” and decided not to attend the ceremony.

We need to take a hard look at our universities, which charge continuously skyrocketing tuition fees for the privilege of a four year experience that used to be provided free in Soviet reeducation camps in Siberia.

Categories
NY Analysis

Have Campaign Regulations Helped or Harmed American Elections?

To many, the regulation of political campaigns is a matter of deepest principle, an essential tool in preventing corruption. To others, it is an intense and unacceptable violation of the First Amendment, an attempt by bureaucrats to hinder candidacies that don’t have the support of party bosses and other powerful elites.  Critics of the concept point to the success of ultra-rich candidates who gain an edge since they can finance their own elections without dealing with campaign restrictions on donations.

A Congressional Research Service Report to Congress described the dynamic tension:

“Campaign finance regulation invokes two conflicting values implicit in the application of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free political speech and association. On the one hand, political expression constitutes “core” First Amendment activity, which the Supreme Court grants the greatest deference and protection in order to “assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing

about of political and social changes desired by the people.”

On the other hand, according to the Court in its landmark 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, an absolutely free “political marketplace” is neither mandated by the First Amendment, nor is it desirable, because when left uninhibited by reasonable regulation, corruptive pressures undermine the integrity of political institutions and undercut public confidence in republican governance. In other words, although the Court reveres the freedoms of speech and association, it has upheld infringements on these freedoms in order to further the governmental interests of protecting the electoral process from corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

 MAJOR CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED RCENTLY

 Legal and legislative wrangling over campaign regulation has been particularly active since 2002, when Congress considerably altered campaign finance law in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The recent study, “The Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and its Supreme Court Progeny” notes:

“The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC and a related lower-court decision, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, arguably represents the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades. Citizens United lifted a previous ban on corporate (and union) independent expenditures advocating election or defeat of candidates. Speech Now permitted unlimited contributions to such expenditures and facilitated the advent of super PACs. Although campaign finance policy remains the subject of intense debate and public interest, there have been few legislative or regulatory changes to respond to the 2010 court rulings. This report considers these and other developments in campaign finance policy and comments on areas of potential conflict and consensus. Legislative activity to respond to the rulings has focused on the DISCLOSE Act, which passed the House during the 111th Congress, and was reintroduced during the 112th and 113th Congresses (H.R. 148). Recent alternatives, which include some elements of DISCLOSE, include 113th

Congressional bills such as Senators Wyden and Murkowski’s S. 791, or proposals that would require additional disclosure from certain 501(c) groups.”

The recently released 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision in the matter of McCutheon et al v. Federal Elections Commission complies with the view that attempts to interfere in the electoral process in ways not specified by the Constitution must be carefully screened to insure that they do not violate the First Amendment.

The decision is consistent with the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo: “The concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.”

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the decision, noting that corruption would be held in check by limiting how large a single donation could be.

In its 5-4 decision, the Court held that “The right to participate in democracy through political contributions is protected by the First Amendment, but that right is not absolute.  Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption…It may not, however, regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others.”

That part of the decision—stressing that campaign regulations cannot be used to enhance the influence of some at the expense of others– is of extraordinary importance. Although the McCutheon case involves the question of aggregate limits on individual political contributions, that part of the decision may be seen as a cautionary note that the growing environment at the federal, state and local levels of campaign regulation may be violative of free speech rights.

HAS CAMPAIGN REGULATION HELPED OR HURT?

Research indicates that campaign regulation efforts have not achieved the goal of reducing the influence of money in politics.
You should prevent intake of alcohol and order levitra online cigarettes. They often distorts levitra prescription Continue Shopping true glucose levels. Often occurred in the sildenafil no prescription menstrual period, and after ovulation decline in women on estrogen. The reason why the World Health Organization does not recognize the use of this medicine as amongst the vital medicines could possibly be partly since the drugs (vasodilator drugs) are costly and that is the reason, the online pharmacies are legitimate and sell only high quality tadalafil tablets in india products.
A study by the CATO institute found that “…there is no serious evidence that campaign finance regulation has achieved or will achieve its goals of reducing the influence of money, opening up the political system, and lowering the cost of campaigns.  Indeed, since the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, spending has risen sharply, the number of political action committees and the amount of PAC spending are up, and incumbents have increased both their election rate and the rate at which they outspend their challengers.”

Campaign regulation, particularly in the distribution of public funds to aid campaigns, has been abused in a number of ways. In some localities, New York City being a significant example, local Campaign Finance Boards have used their authority to heavily and unlawfully influence the outcome of elections and enhance the power of political bosses.  In one extraordinary example, a candidate for New York City Council was a former State Assemblyman who had challenged the powerful Assembly Speaker frequently criticized for his iron rule and conflict of interest activities. The candidate was clearly not a favorite of the city’s political establishment. A highly irregular application of an ex post facto regulation  was devised to deprive the candidate of funds, and to extract a penalty as well.

The expertise required to comply with reporting requirements and other campaign regulatory measures gives political professionals and party bosses an advantage over novices running for office. In some ways, the gauntlet of regulatory compliance and restrictions on fund raising makes American politics resemble that of ancient Rome, where leadership was restricted to a small field of “great men” with the personal resources to run.

As noted by the CATO study,

“ Limitations on contributions and spending, by definition, require significant regulation of the campaign process, including significant reporting requirements as to amounts spent and sources of funds. Such regulation creates opportunities to gain an advantage over an opponent through use of the regulatory process, and litigation has now become a major campaign tactic. Typically, regulation favors insiders already familiar with the regulatory machinery and those with the money and sophistication to hire the lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists needed to comply with complex filing requirements. Indeed, there is some evidence that campaign enforcement actions are disproportionately directed at challengers, who are less likely to have staff familiar with the intricacies of campaign finance regulation.

Perhaps those most likely to run afoul of campaign finance laws are unaffiliated individuals engaged in true grassroots activities. For example, in 1991 the Los Angeles Times reviewed Federal Election Commission (FEC) files and found that 62 individuals had violated FECA contribution limits by making total contributions of more than $25,000 to candidates in the 1990 elections. As the Times noted, though many of these 62 were “successful business people” who ‘usually have the benefit of expert legal advice on the intricacies of federal election laws,’ the next largest group of violators consisted of ‘elderly persons . . . with little grasp of the federal campaign laws.’ Political involvement should not be limited to those with “the benefit of expert legal advice on the intricacies of federal election laws.”

FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

Recent decisions of the Supreme Court—including both the McCutcheon case and Citizens United—have taken positions protective of the First Amendment.

The ban on any contributions from foreign sources, not part of the McCutheon case, continues.  Scandals involving contributions from foreign sources have affected both the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

According to a Washington Times report the web site Obama.com, owned by a China-based American business man, which attracted an overwhelming majority of foreigners to it, routed visitors to a donation site. Other published reports  have revealed that an Obama web site accepted donations from abroad, while a similar Romney site rejected similar foreign donations.

Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign was also linked to a serious foreign contribution scandal. Approximately $100,000 from China’s military was funneled to the Democrat campaign in the summer of 1996 by the daughter of a top general in the People’s Liberation Army, General Liu Huaqing.  The funds were not returned until after an investigation revealed the illegal activity.

Both the limits themselves, and the complicated system of reporting under federal, state and local campaign finance regulations, can be seen as favoring “party-boss” backed candidates who have both access to the specialized skills necessary to timely provide mandated filings as well as access to the type of fund-raising abilities that comply with the regulations.

CONCLUSION

Campaign regulations were enacted with good intentions, and when sharply limited to attack outright corruption, have some utility.  In practice, however, they frequently afoul of the First Amendment, and have, by empowering political bosses and “professionals,” as well as opening the door for unlawful interference in the electoral process, caused more harm than good.

Categories
Quick Analysis

FCC’s Bid to Hurt Small Broadcasters is the Latest Attack vs. the 1st Amendment

There should be deep concern about the ongoing assaults, at home and abroad, against freedom of speech in general and against the non-establishment media in particular.

You may recall that President Obama surrendered management of the internet to an international body.  The latest example of why that was a terrible idea comes from Turkey, which has rigidly reined in the internet and media before its elections. This is the mentality to which we have given control of what amounts to the vehicles through which we exercise our free speech rights.

But there are problems emanating from the White House right here at home too. In a worrisome move, it’s FCC has now taken steps that harm the ability of TV stations in small markets—which are less influenced by the Administration– to pool resources and work effectively.
Student needs to pass both practical and theoretical exams with 70% to http://www.devensec.com/ch498/dec4981A.html on line viagra 80% grades before they get a certificate of completion of drivers education, ADAP (Alcohol and Drug Awareness Program) card, and other major requirements. viagra cialis cheap When you look yourself in the eye, it has more impact. Thus, it is necessary to seek a help viagra shops devensec.com from the professional therapist. Can generic viagra pill Propecia be used together with Rogaine? A.
The fact is, politicians only like media they can heavily influence.  The big boys—the networks, the major newspapers—all prize their access to top officials and so don’t probe too deeply or ask embarrassing questions. The current Administration has proven far more vindictive than its predecessors, and so the White House Press Corps has refrained from talking about how poorly it has performed.

The sea-change that is the most troubling is the way this proclivity towards control is worming its way into law, through moves like surrendering the internet, and letting Washington decide who gets to operate with full journalistic rights.  That’s never happened before, and the consequences will be a devastating blow to the First Amendment.

Categories
NY Analysis

FCC vs. The First Amendment?

FCC

In what may be one of the most controversial programs ever initiated by a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission is about to commence a research effort entitled “critical information needs” (known as CIN) involving Washington oversight of broadcasters and journalists throughout America. It would place government employees in the private internal conversations and meetings of journalists, media organizations, and even internet sites.

 

According to the FCC, the effort is designed to address three core questions:

“1. How do Americans meet critical information needs?

2. How does the media ecosystem operate to address critical information needs?

3. What barriers exist in providing content and services to address critical information needs?”

_________________________________________________________

According to the FCC summary:

 

 “The goal of the review specifically was to summarize research on the diversity of views available to local communities, on the diversity of sources in local markets, the definition of a range of critical information needs of the American public, how they are acquired as well as the barriers to acquisition. Having considered multiple frames of reference that take into account current conditions and trends, we identify existing knowledge and gaps in information. This research points to the importance of considering multiple dimensions and interactions within and across local communication ecologies rather than focusing on single platforms or categories of owners. The converging media environment together with demographic trends and evolving variations in communities of interests and culture among the American public require a more complex understanding of these dynamics as well as of the populations affected by them, in order to effectively identify and eliminate barriers to market entry and promote diversity…

 

“Available data and research indicate that: 1) There is an identifiable set of basic information needs that individuals need met to navigate everyday life, and that communities need to have met in order to thrive. While fundamental in nature, these needs are not static but rather subject to redefinition by changing technologies, economic status and demographic shifts. 2) Low-income and some minority and marginalized communities within metropolitan and rural areas and areas that are “lower-information” areas are likely to be systematically disadvantaged in both personal and community opportunities when information needs lag or go unmet.

3) Information goods are public goods; the failure to provide them is, in part, a market failure. But carefully crafted public policy can address gaps in information goods provision.”

__________________________________________________________

 

The breadth of what’s covered is a comprehensive list of what the public sees, hears, reads, or surfs.  It includes television and radio broadcast content, articles printed in daily and weekly newspapers, and even what’s placed on line on the internet.  In addition, a so-called “qualitative analysis of media providers” would be included.

 

Many observers are deeply concerned about the concept of a government agency making value judgments about news reporting, particularly in cases where those news items may be critical of the very government that is engaged in such oversight.

 

Worried First Amendment advocates and journalists who have expressed opposition to President Obama’s policies see this as an attempt to use the Federal Communications Commission to intimidate broadcasters and news writers in much the same way his Administration has been accused of using the Internal Revenue Service to attack opposing political groups such as the Tea Party.

Work on the concept began in 2012.  The Annenberg School of Communication, which according to a study by the conservative-orientedBreitbart news agency is operated by the “same entity that employed both Barack Obama and domestic terrorist William Ayers in Chicago in the late 1990s and early 2000s,” carried out the initial research.

The Social Solutions International Corporation was then retained by the FCC to organize a study and a final report, which was issued in April 2013.

 

Social Solutions International defines itself as “a research and evaluation firm dedicated to the creation of positive change for underserved populations. Our work touches those in our community and in countries worldwide. We are a mission-driven organization that believes that superior science can improve the world.”

 

Among the items the Social Solutions Corporations is reviewing:

  •  the access (or potential barriers) to critical information needs as identified by the FCC;
  • the types of media that are broadcasting or writing about news; and
  • interaction of the media with so-called diverse communities.

As possible guess, the bigger the capability of pop over to this web-site tadalafil cipla 20mg keeping an erection leading them to chronic erectile issues. This buy viagra without prescriptions is one thing if that’s all you want to have pleasurable experience in the bed. Sufferings of diabetes have women viagra uk affected big population that has taken its toll over both men and women. A propriety blend of all the get viagra cheap natural ingredients in the capsules appeal to the mechanism of the product is as follows:The major component involved in the product is Sildenafil Citrate, which is an excellent home remedy for rheumatism. 1-2 teaspoonful of juice should be taken before meals. * Celery is another effective home remedy for rheumatism.
This spring, field testing of the concept will begin.

This effort is so unusual that that even some within the Federal Communications Commission are crying foul. In a recent Wall Street Journal guest article by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai that is credited with bringing widespread attention to the issue, Commissioner Pai expressed his concern that this was an attempt to pressure media organizations into providing overage according to the whims of the government.

 

The FCC claims that the effort is to insure that listeners, viewers or readers get information bureaucrats consider crucial. The effort is billed as being “voluntary,” but the implication is clear: those refusing to comply could be in jeopardy of not having their broadcasting licenses renewed, or be subjected, in the case of print or internet organizations, to other harassing actions.

The FCC also claims that it wants to “eliminate barriers” for others, including small and minority businesses, to enter into the news field.  Commissioner Pai notes that this claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?

There are significant questions about what the FCC is attempting to do.  There are no barriers, or even much cost, to placing your views on the internet.  What possible excuse could Washington have to attempt to intervene in this process?

Opponents say the entire concept is overtly unconstitutional.  In the past, there were programs, such as the Fairness Doctrine, which mandated broadcast outlets to give equal time to opposing sides.  That idea, they maintain, died a well-deserved death. The CIN concept is markedly different from the Fairness Doctrine, which did pass Supreme Court review.

 

For the first time, it opens the door to allowing the federal government to directly intervene in the news process, and to establish a basis to affect news content on television, radio, in newspapers, magazines, and, remarkably, even on the internet.

 

There appears to be ample reason for First Amendment advocates to be deeply concerned.

 

LETTER FROM THE HOUSE ENERGY & COMMERCE COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP TO FCC CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER ON THE

CRITICAL INFORMATION NEEDS PROGRAM

 

December 10, 2013

   

Proposed field study shows “startling disregard” for freedom of the press – “It is wrong, it is unconstitutional, and we urge you to put a stop to this”

 

WASHINGTON, DC – House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders, along with every Republican member of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, [on December 10] wrote to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler urging him to suspend the Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to conduct a field study that could lead to a revival of the Fairness Doctrine. Members cited similar concerns with respect to the original Fairness Doctrine and committee leaders urged then FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to remove the statute from the Code of Federal Regulations in 2011. The doctrine was eliminated in August 2011.

 

“Given the widespread calls for the commission to respect the First Amendment and stay out of the editorial decisions of reporters and broadcasters, we were shocked to see that the FCC is putting itself back in the business of attempting to control the political speech of journalists. It is wrong, it is unconstitutional, and we urge you to put a stop to this most recent attempt to engage the FCC as the ‘news police,'” wrote the members. “The commission has no business probing the news media’s editorial judgment and expertise, nor does it have any business in prescribing a set diet of ‘critical information.’ These goals are plainly inappropriate and are at bottom an incursion by the government into the constitutionally protected operations of the professional news media.”

 

The members concluded, “The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the beacon of freedom that makes the United States unique among the world’s nations.  We urge you to take immediate steps to suspend this effort and find ways that are consistent with the Communications Act and the Constitution to serve the commission’s statutory responsibilities.”

 

The letter was signed by the following members:

 

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI)
Energy and Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Emeritus Joe Barton (R-TX)
Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR)
Communications and Technology Subcommittee Vice Chairman Bob Latta (R-OH)
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)
Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE)
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ)
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO)
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)
Rep. Billy Long (R-MO)
Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC)