A guest column by Gene Policinski of the First Amendment Center:

Give the First Amendment – and the nation – a unique gift this holiday season: On Dec. 15, "tweet" your support for this 220-year old guarantor of our basic freedoms.

And don't stop there … round out the holidays by making that 140-character pledge the first step in a New Year's commitment to better understand and defend year-round those precious 45 words that define our core freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.

What's the reason to make the First Amendment part of the season?

For one thing, Dec. 15 is the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, beginning with the First Amendment's protection of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. That's an event deserving in its own right of glitter and tinsel.

More urgently, it's a chance to challenge and maybe change a sad result of national surveys the First Amendment Center has conducted since 1997. In all that time, never more than six percent in any year could name all five freedoms unaided.

We live in times in which the First Amendment never has been more on display – or more contested.

There are the yearly Yule concerns over religious-themed songs and carols at public school holiday pageants, but also the miraculous example to the world of multiple faiths in one nation peaceably observing holy days and holidays alongside one another.

There are Occupy Wall Street demonstrators exercising their rights to speak freely, to assemble and to petition the government for change – in the manner of generations of Americans who have taken to the streets to make their voices heard.

The U.S. Supreme Court soon will decide a dispute over what we can see and hear on broadcast TV. Meanwhile, we’re all "a-Twitter" over how private are our personal facts and messages. And the fight goes on over how public are our public records.

The Internet, e-mail, Facebook and Twitter have brought new concerns about smut, identity theft and hate speech, all while also giving us an unparalleled opportunity to talk with our fellow citizens – provided that government does not get in the way.

Has there ever been a time when all five of our First Amendment freedoms were more in play?

The "Free to Tweet" initiative is an unprecedented, day-long online call to the American public to stand up on Dec. 15 for these fundamental freedoms. High school and college students nationwide, ages 14 to 22, get a bonus for participating: Expressing themselves freely with the hash tag #freetotweet on Twitter will mean an opportunity to win one of 22 scholarships each worth $5,000. (Find more details on the initiative and the competition at www.freetotweet.org).

For more than two centuries, the First Amendment has been protecting our right to speak out. Let's do just that on Dec. 15!

Gene Policinski is senior vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, 1207 18th Ave. S., Nashville, Tenn., 37212. Web: www.firstamendmentcenter.org. E-mail: gpolicinski@fac.org

A federal judge has ruled that bloggers are not afforded the same protections from defamation and libel lawsuits as professional journalists.

The ruling could have a chilling effect on so-called "citizen journalists" who have launched hundreds of millions of blogs.

The case involved Crystal L. Cox, a Montana blogger who made critical remarks about a local attorney. Hint to bloggers: Accusing a lawyer in public of criminal conduct may not be the smartest thing to do.

From The Associated Press:

U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez found last week that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets.

Although media experts said Wednesday that the ruling would have little effect on the definition of journalism, it casts a shadow on those who work in nontraditional media since it highlights the lack of case law that could protect them and the fact that current state shield laws for journalists are not covering recent developments in online media.

"My advice to bloggers operating in the state of Oregon is lobby to get your shield law improved so bloggers are covered," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "But do not expect the shield law to provide you a defense in a libel case where you want to rely on an anonymous source for that information."

Read the full story at the link below:

Federal judge: Montana blogger is not journalist

Why do liberals have so much hatred toward Israel or anyone willing to stand with Israel?

Here's the latest example of liberal fascism directed toward singer Katy Perry, who had the nerve to show her support for Israel on her Twitter account.

From Michelle Malkin:

Katy Perry is a pop singer/songwriter who churns out annoying Billboard hits ("Firework," "Teenage Dream," "Hot N Cold") that your tween-age kids love and you love to hate (yes, I speak from experience). She made news this week after tying Michael Jackson’s record of scoring 5 #1 Billboard hits off a single album.

She also made some little-noticed waves on Twitter that should be newsworthy.

In a response to a fan of hers on Monday, she tweeted:

I am! My prayers are for you guys tonight, SHALOM! RT @ luvmikapenniman: @katyperry #prayforisrael please pray with us

Over the past 24 hours, all hell has broken loose — with Palestinian, Muslim, and progressive Twitter followers lashing out at Perry for her innocuous tweet asking others to pray for Israel.

Read more at Malkin's website.

Legion Laments Supreme Court Ruling on Westboro Protests

The recent controversy involving the cancellation of a speech by conservative columnist Ann Coulter shows once again that liberals support freedom of speech only when they agree with the person doing the speaking.a

From a column by Nathalie Des Rosiers:

We are left with a bad taste in our mouths when offensive speech is silenced, no matter how distasteful or ridiculous it may be. Universities, as institutions dedicated to the pursuit of truth, the creation of knowledge and the exchange of ideas, must confront this question head-on.

In earlier days, less security-sensitive universities would likely have just held the event and dealt with the consequences. They would have been willing to gamble that neither the speaker nor students would be harmed in the process. They would have assumed that, although at times unpleasant, public events rarely turned into blood baths.

Nowadays, however, experts in risk-management would quiver at the suggestion that heading off trouble before it happens may not be the only option.

It is important to remember that not everything can be managed by security experts, who are trained to fear the worst and inevitably suggest cancellation or additional resources to deal with potential trouble. They alone should not make decisions that relate to speech because they may not be sufficiently sensitive to the loss to our democracy and to the university's mission when speech is silenced.

Indeed, it could be that universities must accept that part of their educational function is to create the space for controversial speech to occur and that unpleasantness is part of that process. A measure of discomfort and risk is inevitable in living with free speech.

Read the full column at the link below:

Freedom of speech costly but not a luxury - thestar.com

From CNSNews.com:

Anyone who posts comments on the White House's Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and Twitter pages will have their statements captured and permanently archived by the federal government, according to a plan that the White House is now seeking a contractor to carry out.

The Executive Office of the President is looking for a private contractor to capture and archive comments and information posted on social networking and new media sites where the White House has established a presence. While the Presidential Records Act (PRA) generally requires that the administration preserve information generated by the president and his staff, the White House says that in seeking to collect and preserve comments made by common citizens on social networking sites it is acting "out of an abundance of caution" to comply with the law.

In mid-August, the White House put out a "request for quotation" (RFQ)which seeks bids from private firms for the project. Under the terms stated by the White House, the contractor would have broad responsibilities in collecting information from White House related Web pages.

The RFQ for bids says the contractor is to "capture, store, [and] extract" information that will be transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for permanent storage. According to the White House proposal, the information involved will include the "capture of comments and publicly visible tags posted by users" on publicly accessible Web sites where the White House has established a presence.

Read the full story at the link below:

CNSNews.com - White House Seeks to Capture and Archive Citizens’ Comments on its Facebook, YouTube, MySpace Sites

Posted using ShareThis

A reminder to everyone who holds public office or is paid by taxpayers:

"The First Amendment doesn't exist so we can freely praise our public officials. It exists so we can freely criticize our public officials."

-- Chris Lamb,
Educator, College of Charleston, S.C.