One of the first things we do when we sign up for a new website or platform online is to pick a name a username, screen name or handle sometimes unrelated to the name on our government ID. Part of the fun of creating an online persona can be picking a creative or funny pseudonym.

Its not all puns and games though. Anonymity can protect privacy and keep people like whistleblowers and activists safe; it can also shield bad behavior.

How can we balance the right to hide our identity with the potential harms of anonymity?

According to Jeff Kosseff, associate professor in the United States Naval Academy Cyber Science Department and author of The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Protects Online Speech, this question is not new. Anonymous speech really is fundamental to the history of the United States.

In fact, many arguments for independence during the colonial era were made anonymously or pseudonymously with a pen name. So were arguments in support of the Constitution while it was being drafted.

In 1958, the Supreme Court protected the right to associate anonymously , saying the NAACP in Alabama could not be forced to reveal its membership lists. NAACP leaders at the time were regularly targeted with violence. Florida organizer Harry T. Moore and his wife Harriette were murdered in a bombing of their home on Christmas 1951 thought to be motivated by their anti-racist activism. Revealing the names of NAACP members would likely have endangered those members too.

Why do we need anonymity?

According to Kosseff, there are good reasons to protect anonymity. The ability to speak freely can help separate the content of the speech from the identity of the speaker. Sometimes, if people know who the speaker is, they might think differently about the message. Anonymity can lessen this bias.

More importantly, being anonymous can protect vulnerable people. People who need to have a voice but dont have the ability to associate their real name with that speech have a very good reason to want to speak anonymously, Kosseff says.

The civil rights movement provides several examples of how anonymity can help keep people safe, like the NAACP v. Alabama case. In a 1960 case, the Supreme Court protected the right of civil rights activists to call out via an anonymous pamphlet a supermarket that was discriminating against Black customers. Because of resistance to new civil rights laws, activists could have been in danger if they had been forced to reveal their identities.

This right, Kosseff says, has been reaffirmed by liberal and conservative justices . One example is a 1995 case overturning an Ohio law that required election publications to include authors names.

What about anonymity protecting bad actors?

The First Amendment protects anonymity (in most cases). It also protects the right to say unpopular or even abhorrent things (with some exceptions), anonymously or otherwise. You cant just use a subpoena to unmask someone whos been mean to you, Kosseff says. The courts have set a fairly high First Amendment standard for being able to subpoena identifying information of online posters.

Getting rid of anonymous speech online wouldnt prevent disagreeable speech, Kosseff says, because people say bad things using their real names, too. Some research shows that being able to use pseudonyms could have mixed or even positive impacts on online civility .

That said, different platforms have different policies. Some, like Facebook, technically require user profiles to use real names.

Online pseudonyms arent absolute or perfect, either. Criminals can and do get unmasked for speech that is truly beyond the protections of the First Amendment. In criminal cases or instances of speech that isnt protected , like true threats, it can be possible to pursue whos behind the screenname.

What does online anonymity look like around the world?

Kosseff says anonymity online is a spectrum. People can control what level of identifying information that they post online. So, to some extent, its up to everyone to decide if theyll provide no clues as to their identity at all or be fully transparent about who they are. Kosseff notes that its often possible for other users online to compile various facts youve shared about yourself to learn a lot about you even potentially your identity.

Theres also spectrum to how anonymity online is treated legally around the world. In Europe, privacy is a fundamental human right. Legal protections for anonymity there are more grounded in privacy than in free expression arguments. In authoritarian places, anonymity is difficult or prohibited.

Do we need a national privacy law?

One question Kosseff says we should ask is How do we better safeguard identifying information so that people can operate anonymously, and we can preserve the values that really underlie so much of our First Amendment precedent?

A national privacy law, he says, could place less burden on individual users to protect their data and provide much-needed guidance for users on how their data can be shared by companies.

First Five is a monthly column on First Amendment issues produced by The Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan nonprofit founded by Al Neuharth. First Five is an effort to inform citizens on the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

More:

First Five: How the First Amendment protects anonymous speech online - INFORUM

A bill making its way through the South Carolina legislature would place a near-total ban on abortions, prohibiting the procedure except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk.

The measure, a draft of which is currently being considered by the state senate's Medical Affairs Committee, would also criminalize helping a person obtain an abortion including providing information about how to obtain an abortion. Under the current bill draft, a person who provides information could be prosecuted if they know the information "will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used for an abortion" and could face up to 25 years in prison.

Indiana-based attorney James Bopp, general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion rights, helped draft the South Carolina bill.

National Right to Life wants to restore full legal protection to the unborn under the law, Bopp said. Since Roe v. Wade has been overturned, we can now do that.

But some legal experts think parts of the bill are on shaky legal ground and may violate the U.S. Constitution.

This particular law is constitutionally overbroad, Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who specializes in First Amendment law, said. It covers speech that is constitutionally protected.

According to Volokh, the "aiding and abetting" portion of the draft bill would have more legal standing if it was narrowly focused on illegal abortions in the state.

If abortion is illegal and Supreme Court has said that it could be made illegal, then that does allow punishing at least certain kinds of speech related to abortion just like this is true with all crimes, he said.

The courts have repeatedly decided speech that encourages or solicits a person to commit a crime is not constitutionally protected, Volokh said. Just like assisting in a robbery could carry criminal penalties, he said, assisting in someones illegal abortion could legally carry penalties, too.

Jessie Hill, a law professor at Case Western University, said the problem with the South Carolina bill is it doesnt seem to distinguish between illegal and legal abortions.

For example, there's nothing that says specifically that the abortion being facilitated or about which information is given, Hill said. It doesn't say that that has to be an illegal abortion.

That, Hill said, could lead to punishing people who provide information about how to get abortions in other states, like North Carolina, where the procedure is legal.

If the abortion services are legal in those other states, then giving information about that is not normally a crime. And it can't be, Hill said. The states can't generally apply their laws beyond their own borders in that way.

Hill said criminalizing speech about a legal procedure likely violates the First Amendment since its not inciting or encouraging someone to commit a crime.

Bopp, of the National Right to Life Committee, maintains the bill is focused on illegal abortions and is fully constitutional.

South Carolina only has authority over acts committed in their own state," Bopp said. "And this would be an illegal abortion, which means an abortion illegal under the laws of South Carolina. If an actual abortion occurred outside the state, then it's not covered and it can't be covered.

The Medical Affairs Committee has scheduled a full-day of public input on South Carolina abortion legislation post-Roe for Aug. 17. The draft measure could be changed before going before the full state Senate for a vote.

Read more:

Draft version of SC abortion bill raises concern among First Amendment experts - WFAE

UNION CITY, Tenn. A nonprofit is hosting a First Amendment Festival at Discovery Park of America.

The festival is being hosted by The Freedom Forum at the park on Sept. 24.

A news release from the park says there will be First Amendment-themed games, trivia, crafts, conversations, music from The Gatlin Brothers, and will also feature special guest Brett Baier, a Fox News anchor.

Discovery Park says admission to the park the day of the First Amendment Festival is free with registration. They say a schedule will be released at a later date.

The park adds that there will be a scavenger hunt, moments to reflect how the First Amendment has been used for you, ways to show and test your knowledge, an artwork installation, and more.

You can read the full news release here. You can register for free tickets here.

Find more local news here.

Visit link:

First Amendment Festival to be held in West Tennessee - WBBJ TV - WBBJ-TV

LocalThe American flag, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts flag, and the City of Boston flag, from left, fly outside Boston City Hall. Charles Krupa/Associated Press

By Danny McDonald, The Boston Globe

Following years of controversy and First Amendment litigation that ultimately wound its way to the nations highest court, a flag bearing a red Christian cross is slated to fly outside Boston City Hall later this week. Wednesdays flag-raising will take place three months after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the City of Boston violated the First Amendment rights of Camp Constitution, a Christian group, when city authorities refused to fly the banner outside City Hall in 2017.

In a ruling written by the since-retired justice Stephen Breyer, the high court said that Boston was wrong to deny the group, run by West Roxbury resident Harold Shurtleff, a permit to raise a white banner with a red Christian cross in connection with Constitution Day on Sept. 17, the date the US Constitution was signed in Philadelphia in 1787.

The legal organization Liberty Counsel, which represented Shurtleff in the litigation, said in a Monday press release that the flag will be raised on one of the public flagpoles on City Hall Plaza at 11 a.m. on Wednesday. Mayor Michelle Wus office confirmed Monday the flag-raising ceremony was scheduled for Wednesday, but did not immediately offer further comment.

Finish the story at BostonGlobe.com.

Read the original:

Christian flag at heart of Supreme Court First Amendment case is scheduled to fly at Boston City Hall - Boston.com

Stuart N. Brotman| Guest columnist

Tennessee Voices: A conversation with Stuart Brotman

University of Tennessee atKnoxville media law and journalism professor Stuart Brotman spoke with Tennessean opinion editor David Plazas.

Nashville Tennessean

With high school teachers nationwide now in the process of planning their return to begin a new academic term, a new piece of valuable summer homework for them is recommended. Its the survey results from the Knight Foundation Future of the First Amendment project. This is the eighth such survey conducted since 2004, and it deserves a close reading and a plan of action for when students return to the classroom.

Viewed over time, there can be a sense of optimism that both American high school students and their teachers have maintained a consistency over many years regarding the notion that people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions. Yet that view now is clouded when they are confronted with offensive or threatening speech. In these instances, the level of support drops below half. And only 57%in this survey indicated that news organizations should be able to publish without government censorship.

Its also revealing that the survey found that gender, raceand ethnicity are related to the willingness of students to say that the First Amendment goes too far. As the Knight Foundation report noted, Students in racial minority groups, women and non-binary students are less likely to feel they are protected by the First Amendment than white and male students.

Hear more Tennessee voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought-provoking columns.

Two concrete measures can be adopted now by high schools across the country that would help promote a greater understanding and appreciation for the core First Amendment values offreedom of religious thought and practice; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom of assembly; and freedom to petition governments about grievances.

First, teachers should incorporate discussion of these fundamental democratic values in a variety of social studies classes. Where possible, a structured course on the First Amendment should be added to the existingcurriculum. The Knight Foundation has found that the latter approach can be especially beneficial, since First Amendment coursework can enhance student support for free speech rights.

As schools begin to focus more on diversity, equityand inclusion concerns, they also should be aware that there may be disparities in perceptions about First Amendment freedoms, as the survey noted. Consequently, any curriculum activities in this area should reflect a level of nuance that addresses the concerns of those who feel excluded. Openly discussing these differences can be a powerful real-time demonstration of why a free speech environment is important not just to some students, but to all.

Recent headlines focus on state and local government pressure to remove certain areas of instruction and discussion from our public schools, including reading selections where uncomfortable topics or language may be included. It would be refreshing to see a comparable level of attention including by parent groups asserting greater influence in what their children are taught devoted to what might be beneficial for students to learn more about, rather than purportedly harmful.

Those who believe increasing inclusive civics education is vital to sustaining a democratic society now have a window of opportunity to voice their support for a more robust First Amendment teaching approach in the upcoming school year.

Stuart N. Brotman is the author of "The First Amendment Lives On." He is a distinguished professor of journalism and electronic media at the University of Tennessee atKnoxville.

Excerpt from:

Let's add the First Amendment to the nation's back-to-school checklist - Tennessean

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) wassued by America First Legal (AFL) to compel the release of records regarding correspondence between the federal public health agency and social media companies during the COVID-19 pandemic. AFL, a legal nonprofit run by former Trump administration officials, recently obtained documents showing that the CDC worked with big tech companies to flag and censor posts deemed as COVID-19 misinformation.

Gene Hamilton, vice president and general counsel of AFL, told The Epoch Times that seeing [then-press secretary] Jen Psaki at the White House podium last year, admitting that they were actively collaborating with social media companies to combat what the administration deemed as misinformation was great cause for alarm.

During a July 2021 press conference, Psaki said: Were regularly making sure social media platforms are aware of the latest narratives, dangerous to public health that we and many other Americans are seeing across all of social and traditional media. And we work to engage with them to better understand the enforcement of social media platform policies.

AFL immediately submitted requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for all records related to the collaboration, according to Hamilton. He wasnt surprised to have received no records from the goodwill of the Biden administration, despite the legal obligation to do so.

So, we sued them, he said.

More than a year later, Hamilton said that we finally have some of the very first records that establish precisely what Jen Psaki was talking about at the White House podium. He described the records received thus far to be incredibly illuminating because they actually show what the White House said was happening. Prior to this, no one had direct evidence of the collaboration, he said.

For example, Facebook provided the CDC with $15 million dollars worth of ad credits to be used to support the agencys COVID-19 messaging on the social media platform. According to AFL, the non-monetary gift could be in violation of the Antideficiency Acts limitation on voluntary services (31 U.S.C. Section 1342).

AFL suspects many, many more records to come, according to Hamilton.

And as time goes on, we are anticipating massive implications for the federal government and for the social media companies, he said.

According to Hamilton,there are many examples in the 286-page productionof the CDC flagging explicit posts on Twitter and Facebook that they viewed as being misinformation.

There are also examples of the federal government engaging in regular BOLO [Be on the Lookout] calls where they would coordinate, collaborate, and talk about things that they deemed as misinformation, he said.

Following a May 28 BOLO meeting, an email from CDC Digital Media Branch Chief Carol Crawford requested that those in attendance of the meeting please do not share outside your trust and safety teams.

The documents also show that the CDC was working with the Census Bureau in this effort, Hamilton noted. The CDC was collaborating with the bureau to leverage their infrastructure to identify and monitor social media for vaccine misinformation, according to one email.

Hamilton said that its absolutely shocking that federal government agencies engaged in this kind of conduct.

We have a First Amendment for a reasonthe federal government cannot get around requirements of the First Amendment by merely directing a private entity to violate it, he said.

Hamilton issued a warning to the U.S. public: We are at a point in our society where we have evidence of the federal government dictating what is truth and what is not truth to private companies.

The Biden administration fully expected the private companies involved to enforce the governments standard of truth upon the American society, he said.

And this is a level of power thats inconsistent with the Constitution and our founders vision for the limited role of the federal government in the United States, Hamilton said. Not only is it appalling, but its anti-American.

The general counsel said, The average American sitting at home needs to understand that this is just one example of this happening.

Hamilton said it has been made clear that the governments ability to deem what constitutes misinformation and disinformation is a substantial threat to the American people. And as a result, Americans should have every reason to suspect that this is occurring in other areas, too.

The federal government and these social media companies are acting complicit with one another in determining what is and is not truth; its the kind of thing that you would see in a totalitarian society.

CDC and White House officials didnt respond to requests for comment by press time.

Follow

J.M. Phelps is a writer and researcher of both Islamist and Chinese threats.

More:

CDC Collaboration With Big Tech on COVID-19 Misinformation a Threat to 1st Amendment Rights: Legal Advocacy Group - The Epoch Times

What we found in what the whistleblowers put out was that the government was actually engagedand the White Housein directly communicating with Big Tech on stories and information that they either wanted suppressed or put out, says Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry.

One of the most assertive attorney generals in the country, Landry has filed a number of lawsuits against the Biden administration over Big Tech censorship, the Biden administrations Disinformation Governance Board, COVID mandates, illegal immigration, and election integrity.

Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.

** Click the Save button below the video to access it later on My List.

Jan Jekielek:

Attorney General Jeff Landry, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Thank you for having me here today.

Mr. Jekielek:

I want to go back to May of this year, where you signed on with 19 different attorney generals, about the establishment of this Disinformation Board, what some people call a Ministry of Truth, in the U.S. government. You sent a letter saying, This kind of board cant stand. This is a big issue, correct? I want to get your thoughts on why this was so important to you back then.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Its extremely important. Its extremely troublesome when you think about the federal government creating an agency called the Disinformation Board. Thats prima facie violation of the First Amendment. Think about it. This is the government going to filter information to the American people. They are basically going to ensure that some information gets out to the American people and some information doesnt get out.

Of course, that is exactly why the First Amendment was established under our Bill of Rights. Thats exactly the kind of conduct the founders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wanted to prevent. They did not want the government censoring information to citizens.

Mr. Jekielek:

Theres a lot of disinformation out there. Everyone will certainly agree on that these days. So what do we do about that?

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Right. But theres also disinformation on a playground. The greatness about America was the fact that information could flow freely between people. The citizenry had the ability to ascertain the truth from fiction, and then come up with their own opinion, and their own decisions based upon that information. Recently, somewhere down the line the government has decided, Theres some information maybe we dont want the public to know. Thats concerning, especially when that information ends up being correct.

Thats why you saw attorney generals, like myself, go right after the government the minute they announced this, saying, That is an incorrect use of federal authority.

Mr. Jekielek:

Not too long after, you and Attorney General Schmidt in Missouri decided to launch a lawsuit looking at Big Tech and government colluding to censor. This was 19 attorney generals. Now there are only two. Why is that?

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

That lawsuit was instituted within 24 hours of that letter. General Schmidt and I believe that when the government coerces a private actor to do something, or to engage in conduct which the government is prevented from doing, that would be a violation of your constitutional rights. Like with censoring speech, if the government is actually censoring the speech, that is the government violating your First Amendment rights.

This was our theory. If the government either coerces or works with Big Tech and says to Big Tech, We want you to censor this information, and then Big Tech does that, then guess what? Big Tech now becomes a government actor and is subject to violating citizens constitutional rights. That was the legal theory that we had in play.

We werent good at convincing everybody at the time we filed that particular suit. So, Eric and I filed it in Louisiana. Not long after that, the whistleblower information came out.

Mr. Jekielek:

It was not surprising to anyone in a way, but very surprising that it was written in such intricate terms. Please tell me about that.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

It was an affirmation of what we believed. That happened some 3, 4, 5 weeks after the lawsuit was filed. We see the whistleblowers come out and basically lay out for the American people some of the theories that we had. They said, They are actually censoring information. This is the government colluding with Big Tech and telling them this is the information we want you to put out and this is the information we want you to suppress, which was the basis for our lawsuit. So, it was surprising to many, but it was affirming to us.

Mr. Jekielek:

Lets go back a little bit. What is the substance of the lawsuit? Please explain it to me.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Lets think about it in a criminal context. We all are very familiar with Fourth Amendment search and seizure. We all know that the police cant barge into your home to search for things. They have to have reasonable belief that something in your home is evidence that would lead to a crime.

Then, as part of due process, they have to go to a judge and say, Judge, under these conditions, this is the information we have. The the judge says, Okay. This is enough for a warrant to be granted. Thats a Fourth Amendment protection.

The police cant say, We dont want to go through all of that. We dont want to go to a judge. Well get your neighbor to go into your house, because we know that you invite your neighbor into your house. We will work with that neighbor and them exactly what we are looking for. We will tell them what to find, and then come back and tell us if its in your house.

That is illegal too. That is the government short-circuiting the Fourth Amendment. Its the same thing with speech, and thats what our lawsuit says. Imagine the government says, We really would like to suppress this information, or Dr. Fauci says, We dont want the American people to think that there are any therapeutic remedies that could suppress the COVID virus. But I know that as a government actor, I cant go out there saying dont print this, but print that. I cant do that because Im a government actor.

He also cant go to the press and coerce them to do that, because then they become a government actor as well. Thats what the suit says. Again, if we find this to be true, then those platforms will be liable for violating citizens rights.

Mr. Jekielek:

Okay. What examples did you give? Where were the specific areas? You suggested one area, a lot of things around COVID.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

What we found, and what the whistleblowers found, was that the government and the White House were actually directly communicating with Big Tech on stories and information that they either wanted to promote or to have suppressed.

Those are the things that we are going to find. We have a treasure trove of information that is going to come out shortly. The good news is, last week, the judge in our case granted our motion for discovery, so the subpoenas have gone out. Theyre being served. Dr. Fauci got served, along with other members of the Presidents cabinet. They have to send us the communications between them and the platforms, We believe we will find communications telling them what they should and shouldnt put out, and what what they should amplify and what they should suppress.

Mr. Jekielek:

But its not only COVID-related issues that you were looking at in this lawsuit, correct?

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

No, its not only those issues. It could be in the realm of anything. Think about it in the realm of the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop, and in Russiagate with the dossier. What we are seeing is a very disturbing pattern of the government taking information thats fictitious and then making it a fact. Then, they try to hide the cover of that false story from the American people. They use the social media platforms and the power of these Big Tech companies to limit the information the American people are getting.

Again, it doesnt just have to be COVID-related. Think about it, the federal government spied on a presidential campaign. Just that, in and of itself, is problematic. The basis for which they did so was a false document, which is the dossier. Again, when the evidence of that dossier being fictitious tried to come out, what would happen? That information was suppressed. So, this plays into all of those particular scenarios.

Mr. Jekielek:

Or like, as you said, the Hunter Biden laptop. Its highly topical right now.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Right. Senator Grassleys letter yesterday was shocking. Why? Because it was further affirmation that people inside the United States Department of Justice, and inside the FBI, specifically downplayed evidence that was in front of their face in order to tilt an election. Thats the kind of thing that happens in despotic countries, in socialist countries, and in communist countries. Thats not the kind of conduct thats supposed to happen here in this country, and certainly not inside the halls of the very institutions we rely on to uphold justice, like the United States Department of Justice.

I grew up just having such great respect for the FBI. They were the premier law enforcement agency out there. Why? Because they dispensed justice and they did their investigations in a very fair manner, by not being partisan, and not being political. Yet, as were peeling back the layers of this onion over the last six to seven years, were finding that there may be people inside of those institutions that dont subscribe to the principles those institutions were built upon. Thats problematic for the country, and for democracy.

Mr. Jekielek:

Lets switch gears now. You have a very interesting backstory. You went to law school at age 30, which is a very unusual thing. And this was after you could have just retired. You chose to go to law school of all things. Thats not a typical path. Please tell me about your background.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

I tell people that Im a slow learner. I had an interesting background growing up in a small town in southern Louisiana. I accomplished a lot because I grew up with ADD and no medication.

I was always busy. When I was in college, I started a business. That business flourished, and I had an opportunity to sell the business with a friend of mine. Then I said, Well, what am I going to do with some of that money? I was still single at the time. I said, You know what? My grandfather had always said that I should have gone to law school, so Im going to law school. So at 30, I went to law school, and then afterwards I got married. It was a big turning point in my life. After my wife stayed with me through law school, I said, Well, I better marry her.

So yes, I went to law school a bit later in life. But it was after I had gotten my undergraduate degree, and after I had run a business, and after I had worked that entire time. All of those things gave me a different perspective from the average person who goes to college, gets an undergrad, goes to law school and then becomes a lawyer. I got to have some real life experience in the business sectorcreating jobs, having a payroll, making insurance payments, and dealing with lawsuits as both a plaintiff and a defendant. So it was an interesting path.

Mr. Jekielek:

Was it your grandfather that said that you should have gone to law school? What really motivated you, aside from that inspiration from family? Its a big decision.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

It is. I thought about it. I weighed whether I was going to get an MBA or a law degree. I knew that I liked history. Im a big history buff and Ive always been interested in the Constitution and in law. So, I decided this was the direction I wanted to take.

In all honesty, I went to law school, but never intended to practice law. Yes. In fact, my wife will tease you and tell you that when I got out of law school I was ready to go back into business. She said, Youre not going to take the bar? And I replied, No. I really wasnt planning taking the bar. Shes the one who forced me to take the bar. She is the reason Im practicing law today.

Mr. Jekielek:

Thats fascinating. You passed the bar and then you actually decided to work in the field, now that you had the credentials? Whats going on at that time?

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

I passed the bar, and I had a friend of mine say, Why dont you come and do some corporate law work? Because of my business background, they felt that I had something to offer the firm. So, I did some of that work.

I then ran for the Louisiana state senate and lost. I said, Okay, that gets the politics out of me. But then I decided to run for Congress in 2010.

I came in with that big class of 2010, back when the country was really starting to change. I remember one of the things that drove me to run for Congress was the fact that we were engaged in the wars in the Middle East. I remember the Obama administration refusing to send the required number of troops to the Middle East that the joint chiefs had recommended at the time. As a veteran, that kind of insulted me. So I said, You know what? I want to run for Congress.

Then, I went to Congress, so my legal career was short. I went from practicing law to writing law and being a congressman, and after that, Attorney General of Louisiana.

Mr. Jekielek:

I want to talk about the bigger picture. You talked about this inherent prima facie threat around disinformation boards. Right now, theres much less appreciation of the value of freedom of speech than there once was. Once, it was sacrosanct. Now people are talking about balancing these things.

Part of the reason is, we have this technology where you can create big narratives of information and they can change in a moments notice. The information landscape has changed a lot. What people are arguing is that new rules are required to balance these capabilities with freedom. We wouldnt want the wrong information to capture everyones mind in an instant. There is a threat of things like that, and it has happened.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

There used to be a thing called journalistic integrity. One of the things I appreciate about The Epoch Times is that it has risen above the fray, and brought back journalistic integrity. Journalism was about writing a story based on facts and letting the reader come up with an opinion. Thats what journalism was about. Thats what the press was about. Hey, let me give you all of the facts, and then you come to your own conclusion. Thats freedom. Thats why we wanted the freedom of the press.

Unfortunately, with the expansion of the internet and the growth of just a handful of players, the Big Tech platforms have amassed so much data and so much information.

We used to have a physical public square. And in that physical public square, the press was welcome and there was freedom there. There was also the freedom of people to debate and to say things in that physical public square. What the internet created was a virtual public square, which was great. We said, Oh, this is even better. This was going to be a great marketplace for ideas. It was going to connect more people. It was going to expand the physical public square by bringing more people to it. If you wanted to go and talk in New York, now you could do it through the internet, and not have to travel all the way to New York.

Unfortunately, what happened was that the virtual public square is now controlled by just a handful of private corporationsBig Tech, as weve labeled them. Instead of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment being the gateway of that information in the physical public square, Big Tech now controls what goes in and out of the virtual public square.

Thats where Americans are finding a lot of anxiety and frustration. When the government joins in with them, you are now absolutely violating the First Amendment when it comes to information.

Thats where we are right now. What has happened is a collision of antitrust law, which is the monopolistic power of Big Tech, and what people have come to believe and trust and appreciate about the First Amendment.

The First Amendment is a great and important thing. You normally label the most important thing as number one. When you think about whats in the First Amendment, it is some of the most sacrosanct important things that hold the fabric of America togetherthe freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the freedom of assembly. Those are packed into the First Amendment.

Mr. Jekielek:

In the past, there were actually a lot fewer big media. You would have NBC, CBS, and ABC. There were just a few big media outlets. Of course, there was a ton of local media that would operate in local markets. This is before the internet. It was before this democratization of information, which is what the promise of the internet was all about.

So these big media started to lose market power, but also the power to shape ideas.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Correct.

Mr. Jekielek:

How much of this is just an attempt to reestablish the ability to create narratives like they may have had before? The internet opened things up very widely for all these new, disruptive players, like us, for example.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Lets go back even further. I would guess that at the time the printing press was invented, and as the expansion of the printing press occurred, there was some disruption in the flow of communication. It probably scared some people who were in power. Then, of course, with the printing press came books and written literature. Then, it just kept developing.

Then, we get radio, and then, we get television. All of those things were disruptive in the media sense. Sure, there is a group out there that is certainly concerned about losing their influence. Maybe thats what you are alluding to, their ability to influence and to shape American perception.

But again, lets think about where they sit inside of the government regulatory structure. At the time, when those big media outlets came out, the government said, Were going to fit them in as a utility. And they put them inside of a pretty strict regulatory structure.

Think about that. We dont think about it, because weve come to accept it, but they were packaged inside of government oversight. But the government never went in and said, Were going to tell you what you can and cant say. We just said, You have to allow everyone to have an opportunity.

Think about political advertisements on TV, or on radio. When I buy a political advertisement, those stations have to give me an affidavit telling me that they ran those ads, and they have to offer my opponent the same amount of time at the same price.

So, the internet comes out and the government does nothing. They let these corporations just buy up and gobble up and amass so much power that theyre almost bigger than the government, which again brings us back to our earlier conversation. It brings us back to the Sherman Antitrust Act. It was designed to ensure that no person or corporation got more power than the government, because once you amass more power than the government, then you have more power than the people. In America, the government is the people, or its supposed to be.

Mr. Jekielek:

Where did things go wrong?

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Things went wrong when we got this laissez-faire position on the Sherman Act. After the big trust-busters, there was a different take on the Sherman Act in the Supreme Court in the 1960s. Thats a whole other debate. When the internet came in, Section 230 proved to be problematic. I dont think the government reacted fast enough. Technology was moving so fast that the governments ability to reign it in was lacking. It caught them flat footed, and now were playing catch-up.

Its unfortunate, because now, at a time when we need the government to act, were so polarized, and the government is paralyzed. So, as the government stays paralyzed, the only people on the top are the Big Tech platforms. So, who is shaping ideas?

Go here to read the rest:

'This Is the Government Colluding With Big Tech'AG Jeff Landry on the First Amendment Lawsuits He's Leading - The Epoch Times

Ketchikan Charter School is pictured on Aug. 3, 2022. (KRBD file photo by Raegan Miller).

Two parents are suing Ketchikans school district over a schools use of traditional tribal values.

In the hallways and classrooms of Ketchikan Charter School are posters with a list of traditional Alaska Native values. The 14 Southeast Traditional Tribal Values range from respect for self, elders and others and speak with care, to things like discipline and obedience to the traditions of our ancestors and reverence for our creator.

That last point has proven controversial.

I feel that one of the values, reverence for our Creator, is undeniably a religious statement about creationism,parent Justin Breese said at a school board meeting in April.

He filed the suit on July 25 along with his wife, Rebecca King, whos also a kindergarten teacher at the Charter School. The lawsuit notes that they are filing the suit on behalf of their children.

In their lawsuit against Ketchikan Charter School and Ketchikans school district, the couple argues that the schools use of the values violates the First Amendment and the states constitution. The lawsuit takes particular issue with the schools value of the week program, which rewards students that exemplify the values.

King also spoke to the school board in April.

This system rewards students for showing tribal values and holds it up as what all students should strive for, King said. In our school, the Ketchikan Charter School, a student is highlighted and given a reward embodying the value of the week.

She said she disagrees in modeling one culture as what is best or right. She thinks the values should be taught in lessons about culture, and that cultures should be represented in the classroom.

The lawsuit also states that the current use of the values is in violation of Kings civil rights by pressuring her to teach, endorse, and promote religious values.

Breese told the board that he wanted the values to be presented in context.

I personally think that we can do better than just posting cultural values in our classrooms, he said. While opposed to this posting, I also dont believe that its an effective way to build cultural respect. I think that the school district needs a better plan.

He submitted a formal request asking the school district to take the posters down and restrict the use of the document to lessons about tribal values and beliefs. But the district declined. A decision by district business manager Katie Parrott found that the values represented a Native outlook on life. She says that there isnt an overall religion specific to Southeast Alaska that the values advocate. She said the values were used for cultural, rather than religious, education.

Breese appealed to the school board, which upheld the districts ruling.

Now, Breese and King are asking Ketchikan Superior Court Judge Katherine Lybrand to order the district to take down the posted values from common areas and stop using them to promote good behavior.

Ketchikans school district has yet to respond to the lawsuit in court. Superintendent Michael Robbins referred questions to the districts attorney, Clinton Campion, who did not return phone calls on Wednesday.

Raegan Miller is a Report for America corps member for KRBD. Your donation to match our RFA grant helps keep her writing stories like this one. Please consider making a tax-deductible contribution atKRBD.org/donate.

More:

Parents sue Ketchikan's school district over charter school's use of traditional Native values - KRBD

Justice Samuel Alito, seen here in 2007, has emerged as the workhorse of the Supreme Court's conservatives and has spent his time on the court forcefully shaping its opinions. Nancy Ostertag/Getty Images hide caption

Justice Samuel Alito, seen here in 2007, has emerged as the workhorse of the Supreme Court's conservatives and has spent his time on the court forcefully shaping its opinions.

In the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, the names of just a few justices are linked with a single very famous--or infamous--decision. Chief Justice John Marshall for his 1803 decision declaring that the courts have the power to strike down laws that violate the constitution; Chief Justice Roger Taney for the infamous decision in the Dred Scott case, declaring that no African American, enslaved or free, could be a citizen of the United states, a decision that led in part to the Civil War; Chief Justice Earl Warren for his 1954 decision declaring segregation in public schools unconstitutional. And now, the name of Samuel Alito is indelibly linked with the court's opinion overturning a half century's worth of decisions declaring that women have a right to abortion.

Alito, unlike Marshall, Taney and Warren, is not chief justice, and he may be little known to the public generally. But he has played a key role on the court, often leading the conservative charge not just on abortion, but for expanded religious rights, against LGBTQ rights, against expanded voting rights, against labor unions, for the death penalty, and more.

The workhorse of the right

Indeed, within a short time of replacing the more moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 2006, he became something of the workhorse of the right.

On contraception, for instance, he wrote the court's 5-to-4 decision, declaring that closely held, for-profit corporations could refuse, on religious grounds, to comply with a federal law that required employer insurance policies to cover contraception for their employees.

"This court has said time and again that we have no business judging whether any sincere religious belief is valid or reasonable and it would be dangerous if we started down that road," he said in announcing his opinion from the bench in 2014.

He wrote the court's 2010 decision striking down state bans on handguns in the home, declaring the "right to keep and bear arms is implicit in our understanding of ordered liberty and is deeply rooted in the traditions of our country."

He wrote the court's 2007 decision declaring that victims of race and sex discrimination on the job could only recover damages dating back 180 days after filing suit, as opposed to when the discrimination began. Congress promptly rebuked the court, amending the anti-discrimination statute to make clear that damages and back pay are to be paid from the date the discrimination begins.

In death penalty cases, Alito has been impatient with attempts to limit capital punishment, in one case writing that any death row inmate who challenges the state's execution method as cruel and unusual punishment, must now come up with an alternative method.

In voting rights cases, he has repeatedly sided with state laws that make it more difficult for people to vote. As he wrote in a 2021 opinion, "Mere inconvenience cannot be enough to demonstrate a violation" of the Voting Rights Act.

One special Alito crusade focused on public employee labor unions. In particular, he took aim at a 40-year-old Supreme Court decision that upheld the rights of unions to collect fees from non-union members, as long as the fees were used only for collective bargaining and other non-political activities that benefitted all workers, union and non-union alike. The idea was to prevent non-union workers from being "free-riders" on the backs of the union. But in 2018, Alito, after whittling away at the precedent for more than a decade, even repeatedly inviting challenges, finally managed to overturn it. The First Amendment right of free speech, he said, includes the right not to speak or support a union in any way. "Nonunion members are not free riders at all," he said. "They are captive riders."

The overturning of Roe

Few issues appear to rankle Alito as much as those that directly or indirectly involve religion, and perhaps not incidentally, the modern culture war. As he put it in a July speech, There is a "growing hostility to religion or at least the traditional religious beliefs that are contrary to the new moral code that is ascendant in some sectors."

The Dobbs decision overturning Roe was his exegesis on abortion and constitutional interpretation. There is no audio of his opinion announcement because the court conveniently abandoned the longtime tradition of these announcements at the height of the epidemic and thereafter, prompting an increasing wave of criticism.

But as Alito explained in his written abortion opinion, the Supreme Court's Roe decision and the decisions that followed, had to be overruled because Roe was "egregiously wrong," the arguments for it "exceptionally weak," and because there was no history or tradition of abortion at the time of the founding or thereafter. There was no evidence, said Alito, "zero," that supported such a right.

Many on the political right hailed the decision as "brilliant," and an example of Alito's approach to the law. "He is not a partisan," said one former Alito clerk. "He just believes that the law is based on rules and rules are rules, regardless of politics."

'He's able to succeed'

Liberal Yale law professor Akhil Amar defends Alito too, maintaining that the justice succeeds by staying within the lines and not overreaching. "He's quiet. He's able to succeed," says Amar.

But others, including some conservatives, disagree. Among them is Sarah Isgur, a former official in the Trump Justice Department, who at one time was a leading member of the conservative Federalist Society. She says the Alito opinion fails the critical test of persuasion because it speaks only to those who agree with him.

"When you have a court that is 6-3 on so many different types of opinions, you can end up with a feeling there there are permanent winners and losers," she says. "And the court when it writes, it needs to write more persuasively to the people who might feel like they're permanent losers."

The question, at this point, she adds, is not whether Roe was correctly decided, but, "Do you overturn a precedent that has been on the books for 50 years--the most famous case probably to most Americans in the country, and it's not even close."

Cornell Constitutional law professor Michael Dorf is more pointed, calling the opinion, "dishonest" because it "so selectively cites history" to argue just one side of a case.

"The judge is supposed to look at it from a more balanced perspective, and that's not what Justice Alito does," Dorf says. "One wonders how so many prior justices, a majority of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, could have found a right to abortion in the constitution and then reaffirmed that right. There's a kind of arrogance to the opinion in the way it proceeds in a one-sided manner."

Isgur adds that Alito's assurances ring hollow when he contends at the end of his opinion that the Dobbs case should not cast doubt on other precedents based on the same reasoning as Roe-- the same-sex marriage opinion, or opinions guaranteeing the right to access contraception, for instance.

That may be, but Alito is part of a court, that, as Chief Justice John Roberts observed in the Dobbs case, is displaying "a relentless freedom from doubt on legal issues."

More:

Samuel Alito, a workhorse on the Supreme Court, shapes its conservative path - NPR

THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE

2021 UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT

FILED WITH THE AMF ON JULY 29TH, 2022

Universal Registration Document and annual financial report 2021 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on March 25, 2022 under No. D. 22-0156.

First amendment to Universal Registration Document and annual financial report 2021 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on May 3, 2022 under No. D. 22-0156-A01.

Second amendment to Universal Registration document and annual financial report 2021 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on June 28, 2022 under No. D. 22-0156-A02.

This is a translation into English of the Universal Registration Document of the Company issued in French and it is

available on the website of the Issuer

Socit anonyme (Public Limited Company) with capital of 2,468,663,292 euros

Head office: 16 boulevard des Italiens, 75009 PARIS

R.C.S.: PARIS 662 042 449

1

Summary

1.

HALF YEAR MANAGEMENT REPORT

3

2.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION AS AT 30 JUNE 2022

83

3.

RISK FACTORS

217

4.

GENERAL INFORMATION

236

5.

STATUTORY AUDITORS

241

6.

PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT

242

7.

TABLES OF CONCORDANCE

243

This third amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document has been filed with the AMF on 29 July 2022 as competent authority under Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 without prior approval pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129;

The universal registration document may be used for the purposes of an offer to the public of securities or admission of securities to trading on a regulated market if approved by the AMF together with any amendments, if applicable, and a securities note and summary approved in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

This Universal Registration Document may form part of a prospectus of the Issuer consisting of separate documents within the meaning of the Prospectus Regulation.

2

1. HALF YEAR MANAGEMENT REPORT

1.1. Group presentation

Benefitting from its integrated and diversified model, BNPParibas is leader in banking and financial services in Europe. The Group leverages on strong customer franchises and business lines strategically aligned to better serve customers and long-term partners, which are leaders in Europe and favourably positioned internationally. The Group operates in 65countries and has almost 190,000employees, including nearly 145,000 in Europe.

BNPParibas' organisation evolved in 2021, and is now based on three operating divisions: Corporate & Institutional Banking (CIB), Commercial, Personal Banking & Services (CPBS) and Investment & Protection Services (IPS).

Corporate and Institutional Banking (CIB) division, combines:

Commercial, Personal Banking & Services division, covers:

Investment & Protection Services division, combines:

BNPParibasSA is the Parent Company of the BNPParibas Group.

3

1.2. First half 2022 results

STRONG GROWTH IN RESULTS AND A POSITIVE JAWS EFFECT

BNP Paribas' performances this semester confirm its solid trajectory, with growth in revenues, a positive jaws effect1 and prudent risk management.

The Group's diversified and integrated model and its ability to accompany clients and the economy in a comprehensive way continued to drive strong growth in revenues and results in the first half 2022. These performances reflect its unique positioning in Europe stemming from its leading platforms.

The Group's growth potential is proven and sustained by robust business momentum and by strategic developments finalised in 2021 and 2022. Loans outstanding increases by 7.0% compared to the first half 2021 and deposits by 7.2%. Growth is disciplined and accompanied by the objective of a positive jaws effect every year and in every division. In addition, the Group benefits from a long-term, prudent and proactive risk management, as illustrated, for example, in its ratio of cost of risk to gross operating income, which is one of the lowest in Europe.

For the first half of the year, revenues, at 25,999 million euros, rose sharply, by 10.1% compared to the first half 2021.

In the operating divisions, revenues increased strongly, by 11.6%2 compared to the first half 2021, driven by robust business activity. Revenues rose strongly, by 19.3%3 at Corporate & Institutional Banking and increased in all three business lines. Revenues4 rose sharply, by 9.8%5 at Commercial, Personal Banking

Group operating expenses, at 17,372 million euros, increased by 10.2% compared to the first half 2021. In the first half 2022, they included the exceptional impact of restructuring costs7 and cost-adaptation measures8 (54 million euros) and IT reinforcement costs (132 million euros) for total exceptional items of 185 million euros (148 million in the first half 2021).

In the operating divisions, operating expenses increased by 9.0%9 compared to the first half 2021. The jaws effect was very positive (+2.6 points). Operating expenses at Corporate & Institutional Banking increased by 16.2%10 with the support of business development, the impact of the change in scope and the increase of taxes subject to IFRIC 21. The jaws effect was very positive (+3.1 points). Operating expenses increased by 5.8% at Commercial, Personal Banking & Services11, on the back of increased business activity and scope effects in Commercial & Personal Banking and Specialised Businesses. The jaws effect was very positive (+4.0 points). Operating expenses at Investment & Protection Services increased by 5.1%12 mainly driven by support for business development and targeted initiatives.

Group gross operating income came to 8,627 million euros, up sharply by 10.1% and by 16.5% in the operating divisions.

4

At 1,245 million euros, the cost of risk declined by 27.2% compared to the first half 2021, reflecting, in particular, releases of provisions on performing loans (stages 1 and 2), especially at BancWest in the first quarter 2022. Cost of risk stood at just 27 basis points of customer loans outstanding.

The Group's operating income, at 7,382 million euros, thus rose very sharply, by 20.5% compared to the first half 2021 and by 27.8% in the operating divisions.

The Group's non-operating items amounted to 397 million euros (890 million euros in the first half 2021). At 15 million euros, exceptional items fell sharply compared to the first half 2021 (698 million euros). In the first half of the year, they reflected the +244-million-euro positive impact from the badwill on bpost bank and a +204-million-euro capital gain, offset by the -159-million-euro impairment on Ukrsibbank's securities and the -274-million-euro negative impact related to the reclassification to profit-and-loss of exchange differences. As a reminder, in the first half 2021, exceptional items included the impact of the +302-million- euro capital gain realised on the sale of buildings, the +96-million-euro capital gain realised on the sale of

Pre-tax income, at 7,779 million euros, was thus up sharply, by 10.9%. The impact of the effects induced by the hyperinflation situation2 in Turkey to pre-tax income of the first half 2022 was limited overall and amounted to +10 million euros.

The average corporate income tax rate was 26.0%, due mainly to the first quarter recognition of the full- year's taxes and contributions subject to IFRIC 21 "Taxes", a large proportion of which are not deductible.

Group's net income attributable to equity holders thus came to 5,285 million euros, up sharply, by 13.0% compared to the first half 2021. When excluding exceptional items, it came to 5,409 million euros, a very strong 26.4% increase compared to the first half 2021.

The annualised non-revaluated return on tangible equity stood at 12.4%. It reflects the solid performances of the BNP Paribas Group on the back of the strength of its diversified and integrated model.

As at 30 June 2022, the Common Equity Tier 1 ratio stood at 12.2%3. The Group's immediately available liquidity reserve stood at 450 billion euros, equivalent to over one year of room to manoeuvre in terms of wholesale funding. The leverage ratio4 stood at 3.8%.

Tangible net book value per share5 stood at 78.0 euros, equivalent to a compound annual growth rate of 6.8% since 31 December 2008.

The Group continues to develop a policy of engaging with society through a group-wide approach organised around three major pillars reaffirmed with the "Growth, Technology & Sustainability 2025" strategic plan and is engaged with clients to support them in their transition towards a sustainable economy. It is strengthening its steering tools, processes and governance. And it has taken the measures necessary for aligning its loan portfolios to meet its carbon-neutrality commitment. Euromoney, a financial monthly, recognised this approach, awarding the BNP Paribas two prizes for the second consecutive year: Best Bank for Sustainable Finance and Best Bank for ESG Data & Technology.

The Group continues to reinforce its internal control set-up.

5

This is an excerpt of the original content. To continue reading it, access the original document here.

Disclaimer

BNP Paribas SA published this content on 03 August 2022 and is solely responsible for the information contained therein. Distributed by Public, unedited and unaltered, on 03 August 2022 13:18:02 UTC.

Publicnow 2022

Technical analysis trends BNP PARIBAS

Income Statement Evolution

Continued here:

BNP Paribas : Semi-Annual Report - 3rd amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document - Marketscreener.com