Dear friends and family,
Greetings from wintry Austin, Texas! The Christmas season is upon us, and our house lights are now up to help proclaim the good news of this wonderful season. To me, Christmas is always a season of hope, no matter how cold and dark it is. May this Christmas season be a blessing to you.
As many of you know, Square Pegs is available for rental or purchase on Amazon Prime. For those who have not seen it and wish to do so, here is the link: https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B0CW57JFSH/ .
LOGLINE: When animosities between a pastor and his bartender daughter result in a lawsuit between them, a mediating judge orders them to swap roles at work for a week before pronouncing judgment.
The film has already won twelve film festival awards, including “Best Picture” and awards for best screenplay. For a writer like me, this is one of the best “presents” of all, and I am so grateful film festival judges have acknowledged the movie for its storytelling merit and timely message of reconciliation. As one person took time to write, “This is a wonderful story of hope that is packed with emotional depth, healing, humor, and some beautiful performances.”
For those who have already watched the movie on Prime, please leave your “star” rating on Amazon using that same link. Just click the “DETAILS” tab beneath the rent or buy options, and you will be taken to the page where you can rate (or even review) the movie. Rating the movie should take you no more than a minute, so PLEASE rate it if you have not already done so. It really helps Amazon feature the movie as a suggested choice. For our Aussie friends and family (or others living outside the US or UK, where Prime is offering the movie), you can now rent or buy the movie via this link: https://squarepegsmovie.com/ .
As far as my intrepid hero Talanov goes, my latest book, INTO THE EYE, is slated for its 2025 release after my long hiatus for Square Pegs. This political action thriller will take you into the heart of Africa on Talanov’s greatest adventure yet, where our hero again tackles human traffickers and DC corruption. Into the Eye will be the fourth book in the modern Talanov quadrilogy ... or is it tetralogy? Hmmm ...
In the meantime, have a WONDERFUL Christmas and Happy New Year. Blessings one and all.
Jim
https://www.imdb.me/jameshoustonturner
~~~
I always like to keep up-to-date on what James Turner is into--it's amazing just how much this man can get done, as you can see! Actually, I'm waiting for Talanov, a character I kinda became a super fan of Talanov with his first book, so I'm looking forward to reading the latest this year! If you haven't read any of his books, do a search on either Talanov or James Turner in the right column and get prepared for his newest... If you fall as deep as I did, you should get all of the previous books to catch up before the next one is out... Do you do that type of reading? I do! And I've got many series with reviews on my blog! Remember, books never go out of date!
By the way, now reading nonfiction book re Facebook... Will be talking about it soon... Next I'll be talking about a Magnificent Mystery!
Sorry to say, I'm not quite sure I should wish everybody a Happy New Year. Yes, I wish it would be true, but given the two attacks that occurred in the last two days, people continue to be killed, one in front of one of Trump's buildings, I have to think that it will be just like his last 4 years. Lying during the election and then not doing one damn thing unless it is forced...
First, if I may, I'd like you to, first, read yesterday's post if you haven't done so. It is heartbreaking as well as a warning! You will learn just how the government has acted when a leader chooses power over the people of this country... Given Project 25, it could be even worse beginning in January!
Anybody who knows me knows that I am/was a Biden supporter and wish it had continued in his plan to run again. He didn't have a chance when his own party started questioning him, based upon one activity! Sorry to say. Nevertheless, I continued to support the democratic party because I have seen that the republican party is, frankly, worthless at this point in time. I was an avid news watcher during the former Trump term. I really didn't think he would win again. Frankly, it set me back into a major depression that I am just now getting out of. I hope you agree with me that America MUST do something about clarifying the First Amendment! I could not set my mind to important things--I wound up watching many, too many, Christmas stories on the Hallmark Channel, which normally I only occasionally watch. I also now watch very little news after the election other than The Last Word (see below) which is a MSNBC program which I tape and then watch first thing in the morning to see what happened the previous day... When I tried to watch others, I couldn't deal with the "crap" I was hearing about who was being selected for Secretaries! Do you realize that every single individual is questionable for either experience or for past actions. Please use some time to learn more about what is happening. E.G., trying to put a young news person from Fox in as Secretary of the Defense!!! Or, check out what happened with the Attorney General and who is being recommended for FBI--whose plans are to totally dismantle the central FBI facility...and more!
I couldn't help but compare the incoming president to the Great Wizard of Oz (original). Let's face it, actors rarely make worthy presidents...
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” What does this mean today? Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances.
Although the First Amendment says “Congress,” the Supreme Court has held that speakers are protected against all government agencies and officials: federal, state, and local, and legislative, executive, or judicial. The First Amendment does not protect speakers, however, against private individuals or organizations, such as private employers, private colleges, or private landowners. The First Amendment restrains only the government.
The Supreme Court has interpreted “speech” and “press” broadly as covering not only talking, writing, and printing, but also broadcasting, using the Internet, and other forms of expression. The freedom of speech also applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, burning flags, wearing armbands, burning crosses, and the like.
The Supreme Court has held that restrictions on speech because of its content—that is, when the government targets the speaker’s message—generally violate the First Amendment. Laws that prohibit people from criticizing a war, opposing abortion, or advocating high taxes are examples of unconstitutional content-based restrictions. Such laws are thought to be especially problematic because they distort public debate and contradict a basic principle of self-governance: that the government cannot be trusted to decide what ideas or information “the people” should be allowed to hear.
There are generally three situations in which the government can constitutionally restrict speech under a less demanding standard.
1. In some circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that certain types of speech are of only “low” First Amendment value, such as:
a. Defamation: False statements that damage a person’s reputations can lead to civil liability (and even to criminal punishment), especially when the speaker deliberately lied or said things they knew were likely false. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).
b. True threats: Threats to commit a crime (for example, “I’ll kill you if you don’t give me your money”) can be punished. Watts v. United States (1969).
c. “Fighting words”: Face-to-face personal insults that are likely to lead to an immediate fight are punishable. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). But this does not include political statements that offend others and provoke them to violence. For example, civil rights or anti-abortion protesters cannot be silenced merely because passersby respond violently to their speech. Cox v. Louisiana (1965).
d. Obscenity: Hard-core, highly sexually explicit pornography is not protected by the First Amendment. Miller v. California (1973). In practice, however, the government rarely prosecutes online distributors of such material.
e. Child pornography: Photographs or videos involving actual children engaging in sexual conduct are punishable, because allowing such materials would create an incentive to sexually abuse children in order to produce such material. New York v. Ferber (1982).
f. Commercial advertising: Speech advertising a product or service is constitutionally protected, but not as much as other speech. For instance, the government may ban misleading commercial advertising, but it generally can’t ban misleading political speech. Virginia Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Council (1976).
Outside these narrow categories of “low” value speech, most other content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional. Even entertainment, vulgarity, “hate speech” (bigoted speech about particular races, religions, sexual orientations, and the like), blasphemy (speech that offends people’s religious sensibilities), and violent video games are protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has generally been very reluctant to expand the list of “low” value categories of speech.
2. The government can restrict speech under a less demanding standard when the speaker is in a special relationship to the government. For example, the speech of government employees and of students in public schools can be restricted, even based on content, when their speech is incompatible with their status as public officials or students. A teacher in a public school, for example, can be punished for encouraging students to experiment with illegal drugs, and a government employee who has access to classified information generally can be prohibited from disclosing that information. Pickering v. Board of Education (1968).
3. The government can also restrict speech under a less demanding standard when it does so without regard to the content or message of the speech. Content-neutral restrictions, such as restrictions on noise, blocking traffic, and large signs (which can distract drivers and clutter the landscape), are generally constitutional as long as they are “reasonable.” Because such laws apply neutrally to all speakers without regard to their message, they are less threatening to the core First Amendment concern that government should not be permitted to favor some ideas over others. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC (1994). But not all content-neutral restrictions are viewed as reasonable; for example, a law prohibiting all demonstrations in public parks or all leafleting on public streets would violate the First Amendment. Schneider v. State (1939).
Courts have not always been this protective of free expression. In the nineteenth century, for example, courts allowed punishment of blasphemy, and during and shortly after World War I the Supreme Court held that speech tending to promote crime—such as speech condemning the military draft or praising anarchism—could be punished. Schenck v. United States (1919). Moreover, it was not until 1925 that the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment limited state and local governments, as well as the federal government. Gitlow v. New York (1925).
But starting in the 1920s, the Supreme Court began to read the First Amendment more broadly, and this trend accelerated in the 1960s. Today, the legal protection offered by the First Amendment is stronger than ever before in our history.
Isn't it about time to get Civics taught in public schools again?! To restrain Freedom of Speech for politicians especially?!
No comments:
Post a Comment