February 28, 2017
February 28, 2017
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said restricting access to social media would mean “being cut off from a very large part of the marketplace of ideas. And the First Amendment includes not only the right to speak, but the right to receive information.”
“It is a crucially important channel of political communication,” Justice Elena Kagan said, noting that in addition to President Donald Trump, all 50 governors and all 100 U.S. senators and all members of the U.S. House of Representatives have Twitter feeds. “It is imbedded in our culture as ways to communicate and ways to exercise our constitutional rights.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy drew an analogy between social media and the public square, where free speech rights are well-recognized. Social media, he said, are “greater than the communication you could have ever had, even in the paradigm of a public square.”
Stanford Law School lecturer David Goldberg, who represented defendant Lester Packingham Jr., set the stage by asserting that “the law does not operate in some sleepy First Amendment quarter. It operates and forbids speech on the very platforms on which Americans today are most likely to communicate, to organize for social change, and to petition their government.”
- First Amendment Center
- Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide, Pippa Norris
- “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere,” Jürgen Habermas, 1973
February 27, 2017
“On April 4, 2017, almost 90 art house movie theaters across the country in 79 cities and in 34 states, plus one location in Canada, will be participating collectively in a NATIONAL EVENT DAY screening of the 80’s movie 1984 starring John Hurt. These theaters owners strongly believe in supporting the National Endowment for the Arts and see any attempt to scuttle that program as an attack on free speech and creative expression through entertainment.”
“The endeavor encourages theaters to take a stand for our most basic values: freedom of speech, respect for our fellow human beings, and the simple truth that there are no such things as ‘alternative facts.’ By doing what they do best – showing a movie – the goal is that cinemas can initiate a much-needed community conversation at a time when the existence of facts, and basic human rights are under attack. Through nationwide participation and strength in numbers, these screenings are intended to galvanize people at the crossroads of cinema and community, and bring us together to foster communication and resistance against current efforts to undermine the most basic tenets of our society.” United States of Cinema
- United States of Cinema: National Screening Day, April 4
- National Endowment for the Arts
- neafunded.us, Nega Bryant
February 26, 2017
“The films presented here make propositions or ‘escape routes’ from exhausted classical documentary forms … The overall aim is a gradual construction of an alternative history—a history that has at times been blocked, repressed, censored or hijacked … the films selected ask and often answer the complex question of how political resistance can be articulated in forms that are not only appositely representative of resistance but also embody that shape-shifting in their own diverse historical moments and contradictions.” Sherry Millner and Ernest Larsen
Watching Program 1 of Disruptive Film at a screening at Anthology Film Archives, I was taken by how the featured filmmakers, spanning fifty years of resistance to police violence around the globe, used a variety of representational practices to counter an easy, tit-for-tat retreat to revealing “real” “hard truths” in the face of either unseen or misrepresented state-sanctioned violence. This is to say that familiar realist practices employed to expose brutal truths that have been covered up through state-sanctioned censorship, deception, manipulation and repression may reveal said truths, but not the more complex, insidious systems of seeing, saying, and knowing that produce and cement the logic of violence that produces and authorizes the brutality in the first place. Filmmaking, as difficult and unfamiliar as this may be, that challenges viewers to contemplate how media (and state) “truth” is made, who owns it, how it circulates, how it pleases us, how it becomes familiar, and how to disrupt it by using other systems of seeing, showing, and knowing, may be a most necessary strategy of resistance in these, just as in other times.
- F is for Phony: Fake Documentary and Truths Undoing, edited by Jesse Lerner and Alexandra Juhasz
- Avant-Doc: Intersections of Documentary and Avant-Garde Cinema, Scott MacDonald
- “Redefining the Documentary: Experimental Forms Explore New Territory,” Mark Johnstone
- “The Last Word: To unite filmmakers and film critics,” Ernest Larsen and Sherry Millner, 1979
February 25, 2017
Misinformation, and increasingly disinformation, is distorting the public’s ability to make sense of the world around them, threatening the democratic process around the globe. While not a new phenomenon, the problem is compounded by both the speed that information travels in our networked world, and the technological and cultural “filter bubbles” that we live our lives in. This problem impacts everyone.” Jeanne Brooks, James Geary, Burt Herman, Jenny 8. Lee, Phillip Smith, and Claire Wardle
#MisinfoCon is a community of people focused on the challenge of misinformation and what can be done to address it. The gathering seeks to strengthen the trustworthiness of information across the entire news ecosystem: journalism, platform, community, verification, fact checking and reader experience.
#20: stress related to immigration status in students is one result of misperceptions, #100hardtruths-#fakenews
February 25, 2017
“The context of having a parent, sibling or relative without documentation, or not being documented oneself, is a unique stressor that cannot solely be understood as generic stress or trauma. Families with members who are undocumented often “live in the shadows,” experiencing a lack of safety and fear of deportation. Because of their relationship with students and families, teachers, counselors, and other school personnel are often on the front line of dealing with mental health concerns as they arise, and should be well-informed about the challenges that immigration status issues may present.” Lisa M. Edwards and Jacki Black, Marquette University
- “Immigration Post Election FAQs,” Undocumented Students Program, UC Berkeley
- “The Dream Act, Correcting Myths and Misperceptions,” National Immigration Law Center
February 25, 2017
“Let me reiterate: White House is blacklisting outlets for printing the truth. This is chilling. Our bill of rights isn’t up for debate.” @RepBarbaraLee
“This is an undemocratic path that the administration is traveling … There is nothing to be gained from the White House restricting the public’s access to information.” Marty Baron, Executive Editor, Washington Post
The Bill of Rights
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.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.