from the [headed-to-the-ER-to-get-my-third-degree-stupid-burns-treated] dept

Grandstands and bandwagons: that's what's headed to Social Media Town. Professional victims -- far too many of them earning public money -- have produced a steady stream of stupid legislation targeting social media platforms for supposedly "censoring" the kind of the content they really like: "conservative views." Convinced by failed-businessman-turned-failed-president Donald Trump (and his herd of Capitol Hill toadies) that social media has it in for anyone but the leftiest leftists, a bunch of legislators have hacked up "anti-censorship" bills that aim to protect free speech by trampling on free speech.

The latest (but surely not the last) legislator to grab his bandstand and board the bandwagon is Wisconsin state Senator Julian Bradley. Bradley seems convinced his low Twitter polling must be due to social media companies keeping him down.

Big tech is silencing the things I say, Bradley explained Monday morning. They are silencing and shadow banning, theyre blocking any information that I am putting out.

And he has a message for Big Social Media:

"Free expression is one of the most vital components of our democratic republic. We must ensure our citizens can engage in political speech unfiltered and uncensored by Big Tech. It's time for Facebook and Twitter to consistently and fairly enforce their own rules."

How does Bradley hope to protect free speech from the censorship private companies can't actually commit? By violating their free speech rights, of course. From the bill [PDF] Bradley says he's filing but actually has yet to file [as of July 14th, anyway]:

The bill prohibits a social media platform from using post prioritization (prioritizing certain content ahead of, below, or in a more or less prominent position than others in a newsfeed, feed, view, or search results) on content or material posted by or about a candidate for state or local office or an elected official who holds a state, local, or national office.

The bill also prohibits a social media platform from knowingly censoring, deplatforming (deleting or banning from the social media platform for more than 60 days), or shadow banning (limiting or eliminating the exposure of a user, or content posted by a user, to other users of the social media platform) a candidate for state or local office or an elected official who holds a state, local, or national office.

This compelled speech that favors only certain people is shoved into the bill alongside language that says social media companies must treat everyone equally.

Under the bill, a social media platform must publish the standards it uses for determining how to censor, deplatform, and shadow ban users on the platform. A social media platform must apply censorship, deplatforming, and shadow banning standards in a consistent manner among its users on the platform.

All social media patrons must be treated equally... except for politicians and would-be politicians, who will be statutorily more equal than others. Failure to carry compelled speech or apply rules "consistently" will potentially cost social media companies hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions per claim). And "consistency" will be defined literally on a case-by-case basis since the new law would create a private cause of action against qualifying social media platforms.

Bradley doesn't seem to know or care whether his proposal is constitutional. All he knows is he's pretty sure it's ok for the government to compel speech when courts have ruled government officials can't cut off citizens from interacting with them.

Bradley is quick to point-out that judges have ruled lawmakers and other elected officials cannot block or ban people from commenting on their posts, even if those comments are negative or ugly. The courts have ruled, essentially, that social media is the new public town hall and some online speech is protected.

Bradley is right... at least as far as getting the gist of recent court decisions. But he's wrong when he clarifies his own position:

Bradley said he is using this same logic to say that social media platforms shouldn't be able to ban elected officials, no matter the language they use.

Ah. Well then. Good luck using that "same logic" in court. This isn't junior high debate class, you rube. This is the Constitution. "This same logic" doesn't apply when there are two very clear and very distinct sets of rules that govern private companies and public servants. Public servants can't prevent the public from participating in their own governance. Private companies are free to pick and choose whose content they'll host. And social media services have cut elected officials a lot of slack over the years, keeping accounts alive that would have been shut down much earlier if platforms enforced rules consistently.

Bradley wants to create a carve-out for public officials in both the Constitution and social media platforms' terms of service. That's utter bullshit and shouldn't be tolerated by either his government cohorts or the people he's supposed to be representing.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, julian bradley, section 230, social media, wisconsin

Read this article:

Wisconsin Senator's Social Media Bill Aims To Save The First Amendment By Violating The First Amendment - Techdirt

Justice Thomas signals the potential for regulation of social media platforms and their power over speech.

In early April, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute. The ruling was largely insignificant, as the Court held that the case was moot. The concurrence issued by Justice Clarence Thomas, however, sent both the legal world and many parts of the internet abuzz. In his opinion, Justice Thomas issued the first words from the Supreme Court concerning the current debate around the power of social media platforms, writing:

Todays digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.

Although most Americans agree that social media companies have too much political power, consensus on the appropriate government response has been far more elusive. Some states have already begun to take some degree of action against perceived biases in online platforms. In Texas, for example, a proposed law would treat social media companies like common carriers and prohibit deplatforming based on viewpoint. Also, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has proposed a law that would protect political candidates from being banned on social media.

Justice Thomass concurrence appears to favor a position similar to the proposed Texas law. In his opinion, he cited the 1994 case Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, in which the Court required cable operators to carry broadcast signals. Discussing Turner, Justice Thomas questioned whyif telephone companies are required to act as common carriersdigital platforms could not be treated in a similar fashion.

In addition, even accepting the private property arguments made by opponents of social media regulation, some form of regulation would not be unprecedented. In his opinion, Justice Thomas cited PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, in which the Court concluded that a state could require a shopping mall to allow protesters to engage in advocacy on private mall property. Similarly, the Court or a legislature could find that citizens have a constitutional right to voice their opinions on social media platforms, despite the private nature of these platforms.

If states begin to pass legislation requiring social media platforms to host any speaker under the reasoning of PruneYard, they could set up a legal battle with the platforms that have used Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a justification for free reign in curating the users of their services. In analyzing Justice Thomass opinion, law professor Eugene Volokh of the University of California, Los Angeles wrote that the justice is anticipating what might be done through legislation, and whether new state laws that do treat platforms as common carriers (more or less) are going to be seen as blocked by the First Amendment or Section 230. Volokh predicts that is an issue the Court will likely have to deal with in coming years. Unless something changes dramatically in how social media companies operate or in the state of political discourse, it seems almost inevitable that this debate will come to a head in the courts.

Much of the current debate echoes similar discussions throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s about the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine required broadcasters that devoted a portion of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest to also air contrasting views on those matters. The fairness doctrine was at the center of the case Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission. It was upheld by the Supreme Court but the FCC abandoned the doctrine in 1987. Some commentators have noted that Justice Thomass opinion sounds like a call for a revival of some form of the fairness doctrine.

As a concurrence, Justice Thomass opinion does not set any precedent. But it signals that at least one justice is concerned with the current state of the First Amendment. After decades in which online platforms have relied on the protections afforded them by Section 230, is some form of platform regulation possible?

It seems unlikely that a majority of the Court will decide in the foreseeable future to curtail the independence of social media platforms. Law professor Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas at Austin noted that the bigger story behind Justice Thomass opinion is that no other member of the Court chose to join him.

For now, the Court is not likely to move one way or another on social media regulation. If, however, some of the proposed state legislation on the matter becomes law, the Court may not have any choice but to address the issue.

Eric Cervone is a lawyer who writes about issues relating to free speech.

Read more:

What Is the Future of Social Media Regulation? - The Regulatory Review

DALLASIt comes at no surprise that disdain for mainstream media was a common theme among both attendees and speakers at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference, held last weekend in Dallas, Texas.

I love CPAC because it blows up the fake news narrative of the liberal media time and time again, Kimberly Guilfoyle said in a speech to the crowd on Friday afternoon.

Jeff Johnson, an attendee who sells large-print copies of the Declaration of Independence, echoed the sentiment. The liberal media is glossing things over and were just being destroyed, Johnson said. Were being destroyed by evil.

But skepticism and disdain of the press at CPAC has drifted and found a surprising targetone of the major sponsors of the event, Fox.

Richard Hedges, who drove from Houston to the Dallas confab, said he hasnt watched Fox News since November, when he said the outlet became increasingly anti-Trump. While Hedges said he occasionally watches NewsMax, he said he mostly reads things he finds online.

The far-right Gateway Pundit picked up on the CPAC trend, boasting in an article that attendees are removing their lanyards because Fox News streaming service, Fox Nation, is listed as a marquee sponsor.

Fox Nation sponsored the whole CPAC, and then theyre deplatforming Ivory [Hecker] when shes talking at CPAC with Project Veritas, said Beth Anne Keller. Its horrifying. Its like we are in Communist China screw you Murdoch.

On Saturday, The Daily Beast witnessed Ivory Hecker accusing a Fox staffer of censorship. You cut the live feed while I was speaking on stage last night, Hecker said. He later posted a video of the confrontation on Twitter.

A spokesperson for Fox Nation said the feed was never cut and that the service had already stopped streaming the event.

Hecker previously worked for the local Fox outlet in Houston until she was fired after interrupting a live on-air report to accuse the station of muzzling her.

Several women in Heckers videos said they dont watch Fox. I will never watch Fox. I watch One America News Network, one said. Thats all I watch.

While the majority of Republicans still say they regularly watch Fox News, according to two recent polls in March, the same polls suggest a growing core of conservatives are increasingly gravitating toward far-right outlets like Newsmax or One America News Network.

This shift occurs at a time when the share of Republicans who trust the media is at an all time low. As of 2020, only 10 percent of Republicans say they trust the media a great deal, compared to 73 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of independents.

These changes in media habits appear to be reflected in the media habits of CPAC attendees. Out of dozens of attendees that were asked by The Daily Beast, fewer than half said they regularly watch Fox. Most said they dont trust mainstream media at all.

Carl Lautenschlager, who came in from Washington state, felt similarly. He said he never watches Fox and occasionally watches Newsmax. Lautenschlager said he mostly reads things he finds on Telegram channels or CloutHub. CloutHub is a social networking app similar to Parler that has become popular among conservatives as fringe-right influences have been banned from Twitter and Facebook.

For those who said Fox News was a part of their regular media diet, some emphasized that it was a decreasingly significant part.

Sometimes I watch Fox, but I dont like it anymore, said Jamie Honeycutt, a resident of a suburb of Dallas. Honeycutt said she likes The Epoch Times, but also relies on Ground News, an app that allows her to compare news stories from different sources.

While Honeycutt said she occasionally watched Newsmax, she said wasnt as much of a fan of outlets like OANN, which she believes are too divisive. It depends on what your end goal is, Honeycutt said. Do you want a civil war, or do you want to bring the country together?

Grizzly Joe, a conservative podcast host who made headlines on CNN for saying that Trump lost the election, said that he does still watch Fox News, and that those who no longer do are upset over Foxs decision to call the election for Biden.

A lot of those people are people who got angry because Fox called the election too early, podcast host Grizzly Joe said. The people who say dont watch Fox News are very set in their beliefs and are not interested in hearing other views.

According to research by FiveThirtyEight, Republicans who get their news from OANN or Newsmax tend to be more extreme in their beliefs. Those who prefer OANN and Newsmax are more likely to believe in QAnon theories, to oppose getting vaccinated, and to agree that the election was stolen.

Joe said he occasionally watches Newsmax, a growing favorite among CPAC attendees, but said that some outlets are too fringe for his taste. I cannot watch One America News Network, because if I pay to watch them, Im also supporting InfoWars, because theyre a part of the same package.

Joe said his disdain for InfoWars stems from the conspiracies they peddled after 9/11. My earliest knowledge of them and Mr. Jones is that they were 9/11 truthers who say it was a setup, Joe said. I was an NYPD officer on 9/11. I was there. I have very little patience for anybody that said 9/11 was a setup.

But plenty of attendees didnt hold the same reservations with supporting outlets that increasingly traffic in conspiracy theories.

Darrin Martin, an oil and gas executive from the Frisco area, said that he still regularly watches Fox News, and while he occasionally tunes in to CNBC and CNN, he increasingly supplements it with OANN and Newsmax.

I think theyre all good, Martin said. Just different sources.

Read more here:

CPAC Attendees Turn on Conference SponsorFox Nation - The Daily Beast

Four years after Charlottesvilles initial push to remove Confederate monuments, four plinths formerly holding icons of white supremacy and colonial oppression now stand bare. The crowds observing each removal were fairly small and supportive, cheering and chanting F**k white supremacy! as each bronze piece was lifted off its base. In 2021, its clear now that deplatformingstatues and iconoclasts of the alt-rightis an effective method of disempowering those who wish to terrorize anyone who disagrees with them and clearing space for positive change to creep in.

The monuments, all erected in the 1920s, have served as a rallying point for white supremacy since their dedication ceremonies. The Gen. Robert E. Lee statue, in particular, has been a lightning rod for conversations around race and whiteness. The park in which it stood was long called Lee Park. Its presence served as a looming reinforcement of the threat behind Jim Crow laws. In June 2017, the city renamed it Emancipation Park, but changed the name to Market Street Park in 2018.

Lets look at the three rallies and protests that occurred in response to the proposal to remove the Lee statue. First, you have May 13, 2017. This was when Richard Spencer and his goons showed up with tiki torches, shouting you will not replace us. This followed a 3-2 city council vote to remove the statues and sell them.

Then you have July 8, 2017. The KKK showed up, some 50 strong, to protest the statue removal. This followed a new statute in effect that allowed the City to recontextualize the Confederate monuments, thus altering an injunction that had stopped removal prior.

Finally, there was August 12, 2017, the one most familiar to the rest of the world. This was the Unite the Right rally, during which a neo-Nazi drove his car into protestor Heather Heyer, killing her. Each of these was centered around and in reaction to the citys ongoing efforts to remove these statues.

When I was canvassing for Gov. Northam in the fall of 2017 in Roanoke, my door-to-door conversations were often sidetracked by angry white men. They wouldnt vote for Northam, despite having voted Democrat all their lives, if he was in favor of removing Virginias monuments. This happened both in Charlottesville and Richmond, in particular.

Thats history, they said to me, over and over.

What I didnt have the time or the energy to explain has since become more commonly known: most of these statues were erected by Confederate descendents in the the early 1900s as part of the re-establishment of apartheid laws after the failure of the federal government to follow through on reconstruction efforts to protect Black Americans. The monuments in Richmond were used to signal whites-only neighborhoods around Monument Ave. These men I spoke with were right, these monuments were historybut not the kind of history they meant.

At the same time, were having a circular national conversation about critical race theory. Its wrongly framed by conservatives as an educational method designed to make white people feel guilty about their privilege. Instead, its a legal theory of understanding how racism has been intentionally woven into the fabric of our legal and justice systems. During a time like this, the monuments finally coming down feels significant.

Understanding these as symbols of a violent threat, around which terrorism against Black Americans has been rallied since their installation, is vital to understanding what kind of history these represented. They werent about the Lost Cause. They were about how the cause was reinvented and dressed up in niceties so that the violence could be shown as incidental, not deliberate and systemic.

This is why it was important to remove more than just Lee and Jackson. Its why George Rogers Clark on the UVA campus, flanked with a soldier pointing a gun at a Native woman holding an infant, had to come down too. This is why Lewis and Clark, with Sacagewea crouching behind them, had to come down too.

The mythology of an empty wilderness, the mythology of the savagethese have been just as vital as the mythology of what the Civil Wars end did and did not do to end apartheid in the US to upholding white supremacy with the fallback of performative naivete for the purposes of numbing the self against ongoing oppression.

As we celebrate the removal of these monuments, lets examine what other mythological relics weve maintained. This might feel like a triumph, but without ongoing reform of the institutions and communities that erected them in the first place, it will just become another token piece of performance art to soothe the white conscience.

Read more from the original source:

Ettinger: Virginia's Monuments Are Historical, Just Not The Way You Think - The Dogwood