FFRF wins Texas lawsuit; Infowars update

The FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation), was finally paid for a lawsuit it filed in 2016 against the state of Texas for taking down a state approved secular nativity scene in the state capitol. The FFRF won the case in 2017 and a final appeal by Texas in 2023:

Gov. Abbott and Texas pay $358,000 in 

attorneys fees in FFRF’s Bill of Rights case

The 8-year legal saga over censorship by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott of a Bill of Rights display has finally ended with receipt of attorneys’ fees by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Although FFRF won the lawsuit with a judgment by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals last year, disputes and delaying tactics by the governor held up the required attorney fees and costs totaling $358,073.67, which were received this week. Of that, $184,727.11 reimburses FFRF for staff attorney time.

The exhibit, designed by artist Jake Fortin, commemorates the “birth” of the Bill of Rights (adopted on Dec. 15, 1791), depicting Founding Fathers and the Statue of Liberty gazing adoringly at a manger containing the historic document. A sign by the display also celebrated the Winter Solstice. FFRF placed the display to counter a Christian nativity scene placed in the Capitol in 2014 and 2015.

Indecent, mocking and 

“contributing to public immorality”

The lawsuit began in February 2016, after Abbott ordered removal of FFRF’s duly-approved and permitted Bill of Rights “nativity” display from the Texas state Capitol. Abbott ordered the display removed only three days after it was put up on Dec. 18, 2015, lambasting it as indecent, mocking and “contributing to public immorality.”

Largely due to Abbott’s refusal to accept the ruling of the court in FFRF’s favor, the case pingponged before the federal courts and the appeals court, which ruled on it twice. The state later closed the public forum altogether.

On January 27, 2023 the 5th Circuit unanimously ruled in FFRF’s favor. FFRF is pleased that the court warned the state that closing its forum in the Texas Capitol does not mean the state has free rein to discriminate when displaying exhibits in the future.

This is the Republican Party's idea of free speech and equal protection. In their minds, Christianity is fine and most everything else is indecent, mocking and contributes to public immorality.

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

FAIR reports about how America's radical right authoritarian wealth and power movement has quietly infiltrated and subverted local news coverage:

How Sinclair Sneaks Right-Wing Spin 

Into Millions of Households

With the presidential contest in full swing, the Sinclair Broadcast Group appears to be ramping up its right-wing propaganda again.

While millions of Americans are subjected to the TV network’s electioneering, few know it. That’s because, like a chameleon, Sinclair blends into the woodwork.

 

Turn on your local news and you may well be watching a Sinclair station, even though it appears on your screen under the imprimatur of a major network like CBS, NBC or Fox.

While trust in the media has cratered in recent years, there’s a notable exception. “Seventy-six percent of Americans say that they still trust their local news stations—more than the percentage professing to trust their family or friends,” the New Yorker (10/15/18) reported.

Smartly, Sinclair leaves its affiliates alone long enough for them to develop a rapport with their audience. “In a way, the fact that it looks normal most of the time is part of the problem,” said Margaret Sullivan (CJR, 4/11/18), former public editor of the New York Times. “What Sinclair is cynically doing is trading on the trust that develops among local news people and their local audience.”

By hijacking this trusting relationship, Sinclair is able to sneak its propaganda into millions of American homes, including in presidential swing states where Sinclair owns more stations than any other network.

Sinclair does this by requiring its affiliates to air the right-wing stories it sends them. Because these segments are introduced or delivered by trusted local hosts, they gain credibility.

Mostly Sinclair’s sleight of hand goes undetected. But in 2018, the network pushed its luck by requiring anchors at stations across the country to read from the same Trump-like anti-media script. A video compilation of dozens if not hundreds of Sinclair anchors voicing the same “Orwellian” commentary went viral.

Of the 294 TV stations that Sinclair owns or operates, at least 70 of them air Sinclair’s in-house national evening news broadcast. For a year and a half, this broadcast was anchored by Eugene Ramirez, but he resigned in January, and it’s not hard to see why.

Each night Ramirez was given a list of four stories produced out of Sinclair’s Maryland’s headquarters. From these, Ramirez had to select at least three to air. Often these stories were little more than writeups of press releases from right-wing politicians and groups, as Judd Legum and Rebecca Crosby report at Popular Information (7/23/24). One recent headline read, “Trump PAC Launches New Ad Hitting Democrats on Border: ‘Joe Biden Does Nothing.’”

Sinclair frequently booked far-right guests to appear on Ramirez’s broadcast, and he was “instructed not to interrupt them,” according to Popular Information. “Many of Sinclair‘s affiliates were not in big cities,” Ramirez was told, “and the content of the broadcast had to reflect the sensitivities of those viewers.” Progressive guests rarely if ever appeared.

Q: Which came mostly first, (i) viewer's sensitivities, (ii) radical right sensitivity-fomenting right wing propaganda, including radicalizing Sinclair propaganda, or (iii) is it about a tie?[1]

Footnote:

1. From the Journal of Social and Political Psychology (2013):

The Role of the Media in the Construction 

of Public Belief and Social Change

Abstract: The media play a central role in informing the public about what happens in the world, particularly in those areas in which audiences do not possess direct knowledge or experience. This article examines the impact the media has in the construction of public belief and attitudes and its relationship to social change. .... Findings across these areas show the way in which the media shape public debate in terms of setting agendas and focusing public interest on particular subjects. For example, in our work on disability we showed the relationship between negative media coverage of people on disability benefit and a hardening of attitudes towards them. Further, we found that the media also severely limit the information with which audiences understand these issues and that alternative solutions to political problems are effectively removed from public debate. .... In our study of news reporting of climate change, we traced the way that the media have constructed uncertainty around the issue and how this has led to disengagement in relation to possible changes in personal behaviors. ....