Daily Archives: March 18, 2024

Sen. Chuck Grassley could have helped pass the most important press freedom legislation in modern times in 2022. The PRESS Act would stop federal agencies and judges from forcing journalists to burn their sources, except to stop terrorism or other life or death emergencies. It would also stop them from spying on journalists through technology providers.

But Grassley, then the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, didnt push for the ACTs inclusion in must-pass legislation in the closing days of the 117th Congress not because he didnt approve of it, but out of respect for a Senate colleague. The bill failed, to the dismay of First Amendment advocates.

Now, with the PRESS Act back in the Senate, Grassley has a chance to make things right.

Iowas senior senator has long been a champion of First Amendment values. Hes been vocal about protecting whistleblowers from retaliation when they expose wrongdoing. Keeping federal agents' and prosecutors hands off reporters notebooks and phone records so that the Fourth Estate can do its job is consistent with everything Grassley stands for.

Nonetheless, he reportedly declined to advance the bill for inclusion in a year-end legislative package because of objections from Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton. Cotton stubbornly insisted that the PRESS Act is a gift to the liberal media, ignoring that the legislation equally protects all journalists and news outlets liberal or conservative, big or small, corporate or independent. Thats why its passed the House without objection two years running, and why 49 red and blue states protect journalist-source confidentiality.

Grassleys track record shows he knows press freedom is not a partisan issue. But his practice as the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee was reportedly to not include legislation in year-end bills that other committee Republicans opposed, regardless of why. His reasons for adopting that policy are commendable, but his professional courtesy has, unfortunately, allowed threats to press freedom to persist.

A year and change later, journalists like former Fox and CBS investigative reporter Catherine Herridge, and Twitter Files reporter Matt Taibbi, are still being ordered or otherwise pressured to out their confidential sources. Herridge, days after being laid off by CBS, was held in contempt of court and fined $800 a day (the fine is stayed as she appeals) for refusing to break her promises to her sources. These incidents undoubtedly lead others with information about malfeasance to think twice about coming forward.

The PRESS Act could change that, and its now far better positioned to pass than it was in 2022. Sen. Lindsey Graham is now the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee and hes co-sponsoring the bill. So is Sen. Dick Durbin, the committee chair, in addition to Sens. Ron Wyden and Mike Lee, who were the sole Senate sponsors last time around.

Last time, the bill got caught in the year-end rush, leaving no time for regular order and for critics of the bill to have their say hence Grassleys unwillingness to look past Cottons objections. This year, though, there will be plenty of time for debate so that Cotton and any other critics of the bill can be heard and, hopefully, voted down.

As they should be. Contrary to Cottons objections, presidents from both parties abuse the law to retaliate against journalists who embarrassed them. Yes, Republican administrations have spied on journalists phone and email records and threatened to jail reporters who wouldnt reveal sources but so did Barack Obama.

After Joe Bidens administration initially continued Trumps newsroom surveillance, his Department of Justice issued a policy against such practices. But the DOJ does not appear to be abiding by its policy, which a future administration can abolish with the stroke of a pen.

And, especially in this era of hyper-politicization, people tend to forget that the vast majority of journalism has nothing to do with the White House. Local prosecutors and litigants issue federal subpoenas targeting reporters sources for stories on everything from crime to sports. Americans of all political stripes want journalists to be able to report news that matters to them and their communities, no matter who is president.

Like other privileges long-recognized by U.S. courts, including for lawyers and clients, therapists and patients and even married couples, the journalist-source privilege isnt about giving reporters special treatment. Its about recognizing the value of the free press for our democracy. News sources often risk their jobs or even their freedom to expose abuses. The more likely sources are to be outed, the less likely they are to come forward.

Grassley already has a legacy of standing up for free speech. But helping advance the PRESS Act would further that legacy immeasurably.

Seth Stern is the director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation and a First Amendment lawyer.

Opinion content represents the viewpoint of the author or The Gazette editorial board. You can join the conversation by submitting a letter to the editor or guest column or by suggesting a topic for an editorial to editorial@thegazette.com

Go here to read the rest:
Opinion: Sen. Chuck Grassley should stand up for the First Amendment and support the PRESS Act - The Gazette

The Founding Fathers believed that freedom of expression is essential to a free and fair nation. Thats precisely why the protection of free speech finds its place as the First Amendment to our Constitution. Safeguarding the First Amendment should be the goal of all Americans.

After all, its our pressure release valve. Unfortunately, as discovered in the lawsuit I filed when I was Missouris attorney general, formerlyMissouri v. Bidenand nowMurthy v. Missouri, the Biden administration built a censorship leviathan that encompassed numerous agencies and officials. Through a chilling, concerted effort, these agencies and officials colluded with and coerced social media companies to censor speech online. Speech, that is, which didnt fit the approved narrative.

This case is particularly important because free speech should be protected in both the town square and digital town square. Thiscase could set an important precedent.

When I filed the lawsuit with Louisiana in 2022, we took the unique step of fighting to get discovery at the beginning stages of the lawsuit. This effort uncovered more than I could ever have imagined. The lengths and depths that the Biden administration went to censor what it deemed as misinformation or disinformation, including topics that were later to be proven as true, should shock every American.

This lawsuit exposed an unprecedented censorship enterprise in which Biden White House officials relentlessly pressured social media companies to remove posts or accounts and more strictly censor speech related to certain topics. Court documents unveiled a coordinated effort by executive branch employees, most notably Dr. Anthony Fauci, to discredit the lab-leak theory that the origins of COVID-19 stemmed from gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.After Faucis extensive efforts to discredit and suppress that theory, Facebook expanded its content moderation to censor posts suggesting COVID-19 might have been man-made. Documents obtained by the House Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government paint an even clearer picture.

In July 2021, Facebooks head of Global Affairs asked his colleagues why the company had been censoring this theory. Unsurprisingly, they answered, Because we were under pressure from the [Biden] administration. The more we look into the Biden administrations actions to silence Americans, the worse it gets. Of note, the FBI now assesses that the lab-leak theory is the most likely explanation for the origin of COVID-19.

This censorship regime didnt stop at suppressing the lab-leak theory. These officials colluded with social media companies to censor posts regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story, mask and vaccine efficacy, and more. The court found the platforms bowed down to the pressure and even sent steady reports on their moderation activities to the officials. Previous rulings noted that from the beginning, the social media companies cooperated with the White House officials demands, and one platform even made an employee available on a regular basis. Another platform gave the government officials access to a Partner Support Portal to ensure that their requests were prioritized automatically.

Social media sites aggressively censored the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation. Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki said officials were flagging posts for social media companies, and the surgeon general accused social media companies of killing people.A federal judge even noted that the social media platforms responses to White House pressure often bordered on capitulation. This shouldnt be happening in the United States.

Last year, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction, appropriately issued on Independence Day, banning any coordination between the federal government and social media companies to censor citizens viewpoints online. That injunction has since been put on hold. The fight to put it back in place continues Monday when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments inMurthy v. Missouri.

Make no mistake about it: This is a defining free speech case for America. The Biden administration brazenly colluded with some of the largest companies in the history of the world to effect an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment. The most frightening thing about this censorship enterprise is that these officials are actually fighting in court to be able to continue silencing people.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The federal judge who issued the preliminary injunction on Independence Day perhaps said it best, The evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.

If we want to protect the sacred values on which this nation was founded, we must confront this fundamentally un-American censorship regime. The Supreme Court should side with Missouri and Louisiana and prevent this censorship in the future.

Eric Schmittis a United States senator from Missouri.

See the original post here:
The Supreme Court must protect the First Amendment in Murthy v. Missouri - Washington Examiner

Scales of Justice. By http://www.ccPixs.com (CC).

2024 The News Service of Florida

A Hillsborough County circuit judge is arguing she should be shielded by the First Amendment as she tries to fend off a disciplinary case stemming from a heated 2022 election campaign.

Attorneys for Circuit Judge Nancy Jacobs last week filed a motion disputing allegations by an investigative panel of the state Judicial Qualifications Commission.

The panel in September alleged that Jacobs made inappropriate and disparaging remarks about then-Hillsborough County Circuit Judge Jared Smith and improperly injected partisan politics into the campaign for his seat.

Jacobs defeated Smith, who later was appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis as a judge on the 6th District Court of Appeal.

Jacobs contended in last weeks motion that her conduct was protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects the speech of judicial candidates, including speech regarding a candidates views on issues the public cares about and may even use shorthand like conservative Republican and progressive, and states cannot impose discipline for speech that has such protection, the motion said.

Judicial candidates in Florida, however, have long faced more restrictions than other types of candidates. Lawyers who serve as special counsel for the Judicial Qualifications Commission filed a response Thursday arguing Jacobs motion should be rejected.

They quoted legal precedents and said the motion fails to show any violation of the First Amendment.

It is well settled that the state has a compelling interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.

The Judicial Qualifications Commission makes recommendations to the Florida Supreme Court, which has ultimate disciplinary authority over judges.

The documents in Jacobs case were posted on the Supreme Court website.

Go here to read the rest:
A Hillsborough judge invokes the First Amendment in a case related to a 2022 election campaign - WMNF

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Read the original post:
John Stockton's lawyer claims first amendment violation as basis for COVID-19 lawsuit - KXLY Spokane

(Editors note: Listen to a Just Security Podcast episode of the expert panel here and watch the panel discussion on Just Securitys YouTube channel here.)

Recently, public debates over the treatment of misinformation and disinformation related to issues such as the COVID-19 pandemic and federal election administration have spilled over to the legal realm. One central question revolves around to what degree the government can persuade social media companies to alter their content moderation decisions and when those efforts become so coercive as to violate the First Amendment. The debate over what is often termed jawboning will come before the Supreme Court, which will hear arguments in Murthy v. Missouri on March 18.

In the case, a group of social media users, along with Louisiana and Missouri, sued the Biden administration in July 2023. They alleged that officials across the federal government coerced social media platforms to censor accounts and content that cast doubt on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. The government has argued that its actions were permissible and did not amount to coercion.

Also at issue in the case is whether plaintiffs have standing, or the ability to sue in federal court. The plaintiffs argue that there was a causal and temporal link between the governments actions and those of social media companies that affected content posted by individual plaintiffs and state officials. Furthermore, they argue that citizens and states have a First Amendment right to receive information and ideas.

The government argues that (1) individual plaintiffs have not demonstrated that platform actions were traceable to the government and that past incidents rather than the immediate threat of repeated injury would not establish standing to seek prospective relief; and (2) states lack standing because they lack First Amendment rights (regarding the moderation of content posted by state officials), nor do they possess a right to listen to their citizens on social media.

On July 4, 2023, a federal district court judge issued a broad injunction prohibiting federal government officials from many forms of communication with social media companies. The Fifth Circuit subsequently upheld and narrowed the injunction to prohibit government actions that coerce or significantly encourage social media platforms to suppress certain content. On Oct. 20, 2023, the Supreme Court stayed this injunction and agreed to hear the case.

Earlier this month, Just Security and the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law co-hosted a panel of experts with experience in government lawyering, private platforms, and free speech advocacy to discuss Murthy and its ramifications for the modern digital public square. Moderated by Professor Ryan Goodman, the panel consisted of Jameel Jaffer, the Executive Director of Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and Executive Editor of Just Security; Kathryn Ruemmler, the Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel of Goldman Sachs and former White House Counsel to President Barack Obama; and Colin Stretch, the Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary of Etsy and former General Counsel of Facebook (now Meta). The panelists discussed topics including the ramifications of Murthy on content moderation writ large; the roles and interests of the government, social media companies, and social media users in public discourse; definitions of government coercion; and related issues.

Here are seven takeaways from the remarks delivered by the panelists:

According to Jaffer, while this case had a particular partisan valence with Republican-leaning social media users suing a Democratic administration over content related to COVID-19 and election integrity, the next case may be presented differently.

He posed a hypothetical situation in which the Trump administration attempted, in the summer of 2020, to persuade social media companies to take down speech supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement. What would have been the reaction had the Trump administration made concerted efforts, including private communications and public statements by then-President Donald Trump claiming that social media companies were killing people as President Biden commented on platforms hosting COVID-19 misinformation in July 2021 by not taking down what he considered to be incendiary and violent speech? Jaffer pointed to other issues including the Dobbs decision and the Israel-Hamas war where there have been speech-related controversies: I worry whether we can cabin the rules [around jawboning] to [just] the public health context it is especially important that government speech be subject to real checks and counterweights.

While Jaffer reiterated the importance of a principled approach that prevents abuses of power and extends beyond the facts and partisan stakes of the Murthy case, Ruemmler highlighted the unique nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and said that the government was fulfilling its job to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and the only way to get the pandemic under control was to get to the hearts of the citizenry, including through social media. Stretch said that most cases of moderating content that has the potential of offline harm do not have a political lens and do not have strong advocates against the contents suppression, as in the case of content promoting child sexual abuse or terrorism.

While Ruemmler took issue with the specific phrasing of some instances of government communications to social media companies, she argued that many of the comments from the White House were not nearly as threatening as portrayed, such as then-Press Secretary Jen Psakis reiteration of President Bidens support for antitrust and transparency reforms as well as potential reforms to Section 230 reforms to revise its liability shield for social media companies. Rummler said, If you have any appreciation for where real enforcement power lies, then youd know that White House digital strategists have zero influence over agencies with real regulatory authority, and that any reform in this space must be drafted and passed by Congress.

Drawing on his experience at Meta (formerly known as Facebook), Stretch argued that because social media companies are making decisions in many areas such as public health and child safety where they lack expertise, companies want the ability to communicate with government and civil society experts to inform their content moderation policies. Because the scale of content that these companies are hosting is huge and mindboggling, they would often have outside actors like the government and civil society groups flagging content that allegedly violated the platforms policies. Rather than being overridden or coerced, these companies exercised independent judgment. Likewise, Ruemmler said that the record shows the willingness of social media companies to be engaged in conversation about ways to combat the pandemic.

Jaffer countered that social media companies host so much content that they necessarily do not care very much whether particular content stays up and therefore are incentivized to comply with government requests. Furthermore, he argued that social media companies often follow their competitors and operate in a cartel-like manner, which threatens editorial diversity in the digital public sphere.

Jaffer acknowledged legitimate interests on both sides. On the one hand, there is the interest of the American people in having a government that can effectively govern, including the power to speak. It can be legitimate to try to persuade private speech intermediaries to be more attentive to what [the government] says is the public interest. It is also legitimate, as Stretch mentioned, for the government to share information and expertise that no one else possesses, for instance, public health data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On the other hand, Stretch said that social media companies and users have an interest in maintaining expressive spaces that are free from government coercion and reflect autonomous editorial decisions. Both are important interests, and the law can balance those two interests by drawing a distinction between persuasion and coercion.

Jaffer distinguished large and powerful social media companies from smaller, less sophisticated entities, for example, a local LGBTQ bookstore that has an expressive interest that social media companies do not necessarily have. Even then, he noted the risk of what Daphne Kellers refers to as anticipatory obedience, whereby regulated entities shape their conduct to avoid adverse reactions from the government. While a test for coercion might ask whether there have been changes in content moderation policy in response to purported jawboning, Jaffer is not sure that it is possible to determine that government pressure was dispositive to an editorial decision that may have had multiple motives.

Ruemmler argued that, on the facts of the case, there was no indication that companies felt coerced, as they are some of the most powerful and sophisticated companies in the world and employ multiple former government officials: These are companies that understand how government and the world works; they are not individual citizens. Stretch agreed, saying that these big companies dont get scared easily, often face pressure from governments all over the world, and often feel empowered to push back against government pressure and criticism. Companies understand that heated political rhetoric is part of life in the big leagues.

However, when asked about the possibility of government persuasion becoming routinized and received by less-sophisticated middle management, Stretch countered that social media companies have routine communications with many groups, of which the government had no pride of place, even in national security matters. Additionally, in politically-charged cases, advocates adversely affected tend to be very vocal, which helps prevent any inevitable creep of acquiescence to government requests.

Jaffer drew a distinction between public and private government communications, with the latter posing a greater threat: If Biden weighs in publicly, others can push back. If the White House privately emails Facebook with a request to take down content accompanied by a threat, there will be no pushback because no one will know this communication exists. He questioned why the governments ability to send private emails to private corporations should be protected and stated his preference for mandating transparency around these communications.

Stretch agreed, saying that transparency would address many concerns regarding jawboning. Many of the requests from foreign governments to take down content are really problematic, saying this person is a terrorist when theyre actually a political opponent. According to Stretch, there are few benefits to keeping government communications private; instead, it would be healthier to increase transparency.

Ruemmler clarified that the government was sending emails to intermediary platforms, not individual speakers, who do not have the right to publish on those platforms under the First Amendment; rather, they only have the right to publish consistent with platform policies.

Jaffer agreed that users lacked a constitutional right to publish on a platform like Facebook, but clarified that they do have the right to publish to the extent that Facebook wants and the right not to have that relationship distorted by the government. For those who are skeptical as to whether social media companies are sufficient proxies for their users, focusing myopically on intermediaries is not enough. There needs to be a focus on the interests and rights of users, Jaffer said. He pointed to the NetChoice cases in which laws passed by Texas and Florida purporting to protect the interest of social media users are being challenged before the Supreme Court:

Even justices skeptical of these laws seem sympathetic to the idea that we may need to put in place protections to ensure that a handful of social media companies that have become gatekeepers of the digital public sphere are actually representing the views and interests of their users.

Stretch reiterated that most cases of content moderation lack a partisan valence and lack advocates against suppression, as in cases of terrorism and child safety:

For years, companies prohibited registered sex offenders from having Facebook and YouTube accounts. People who had paid their debt to society were effectively locked out of the digital world despite there never having been a law mandating this exclusion, solely as the result of a particular state Attorney General poking companies. There was no process, and no one argued that this disability that the state Attorney General was trying to force on companies was overbroad. This resulted in every company adopting the policy and keeping many people offline. At the end of the day, whos going to stand up for registered sex offenders? Similarly, with controversial content related to terrorism, whos going to stand up on the side of speech?

However, because of its politically-charged nature, Murthy does not lack strong support and compelling arguments on either side. When the Supreme Court begins hearing arguments on March 18, it will likely consider many of these issues.

Listen to the podcast episode by clicking below.

Biden administration, Big Tech, constitutional law, content moderation, Disinformation, First Amendment, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, Knight First Amendment Institute, Misinformation, Murthy v Missouri, Social Media Platforms, Supreme Court, Twitter

Link:
7 Expert Takeaways As the Supreme Court Considers Government Influence on Content Moderation - Just Security

Some of the fraternities suspended by the University of Maryland, College Park are asking a federal judge to step in and reinstate operations over what they say are violations of their First Amendment rights.

Attorneys representing four fraternities and three students on Wednesday filed a petition for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the university and several officials.

The filing to Timothy J. Sullivan, a magistrate judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, centers on a March 1 letter to Greek-letter organizations that prohibits students from communicating with potential new members and all social events involving alcohol. The order applied to 37 fraternities and sororities in the Interfraternity Council or the Panhellenic Association.

You may wish to review the Code of Student Conduct and the Universitys Hazing Policy, James Bond, the director of student conduct, wrote in the letter.

Bond also said in the letter that the university would investigate allegations of misconduct and warned students that the university would pursue disciplinary actions against any students who attempt to coordinate responses, deceive investigators or provide false information.

The purpose behind this restriction is to implement a pause on new member activities while the University completes its investigation into widespread allegations of health and safety infractions in organizations new member intake processes, James McShay, the interim director of fraternity and sorority life, wrote in a follow-up letter to students March 6.

The plaintiffs attorneys argue in the motion filed Wednesday that the judge should intervene and reinstate full operations.

We have seen no court filing on this, so we wont have a comment, university spokesperson Sara Gavin said Wednesday evening

The university first issued the contact ban as well as an immediate social moratorium for new membership activities and hosting of events, on or off campus, with alcohol present March 1. The letter references a Feb. 29 emergency meeting at which chapters were warned that further allegations of misconduct could result in cease-and-desist orders.

Despite that warning, additional incidents regarding fraternity and sorority organizations were reported today, Bond wrote March 1. Current members of the organization are to have absolutely no contact with any new member or prospective new member.

The March 1 letter banned all communications between fraternities and sororities and prospective new members without specifying exceptions. The March 6 letter clarified that the communications order did not apply to school, work, other student groups or any other topics of conversations outside Greek-letter organization-related activities.

That members of these chapters may not speak to one another about what the University is doing is clearly an infringement upon First Amendment freedoms of speech, attorneys Alfred Dumetz Carry from Washington D.C.-based firm McGlinchey Stafford and Micah Kamrass from Cincinnati-based firm Manley Burke wrote in the petition.

The Alpha Psi chapter of Theta Chi fraternity, Betta Kappa chapter of Kappa Alpha order, Epsilon Delta chapter of Alpha Sigma Phi fraternity, Epsilon Gamma chapter of Alpha Tau Omega fraternity and three unnamed fraternity members are listed as plaintiffs. McShay, Bond, Vice President for Student Affairs Patricia Perillo, President Darryll Pines and the university are named as defendants.

Letters to the university officials dated Wednesday give a three-week deadline to respond to the complaint.

More:
Maryland fraternities petition federal judge - Baltimore Sun

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

See the original post:
Supreme Court to debate whether White House crosses First Amendment line on social media disinformation - News-Press Now

Congress unfounded plan to ban TikTok under the guise of protecting our data is back, this time in the form of a new billthe Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, H.R. 7521 which has gained a dangerous amount of momentum in Congress. This bipartisan legislation was introduced in the House just a week ago and is expected to be sent to the Senate after a vote later this week.

A year ago, supporters of digital rights across the country successfully stopped the federal RESTRICT Act, commonly known as the TikTok Ban bill (it was that and a whole lot more). And now we must do the same with this bill.

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: DON'TBAN TIKTOK

As a first step, H.R. 7521 would force TikTok to find a new owner that is not based in a foreign adversarial country within the next 180 days or be banned until it does so. It would also give the President the power to designate other applications under the control of a country considered adversarial to the U.S. to be a national security threat. If deemed a national security threat, the application would be banned from app stores and web hosting services unless it cuts all ties with the foreign adversarial country within 180 days. The bill would criminalize the distribution of the application through app stores or other web services, as well as the maintenance of such an app by the company. Ultimately, the result of the bill would either be a nationwide ban on the TikTok, or a forced sale of the application to a different company.

The only solution to this pervasive ecosystem is prohibiting the collection of our data in the first place.

Make no mistakethough this law starts with TikTok specifically, it could have an impact elsewhere. Tencents WeChat app is one of the worlds largest standalone messenger platforms, with over a billion users, and is a key vehicle for the Chinese diaspora generally. It would likely also be a target.

The bills sponsors have argued that the amount of private data available to and collected by the companies behind these applications and in theory, shared with a foreign government makes them a national security threat. But like the RESTRICT Act, this bill wont stop this data sharing, and will instead reduce our rights online. User data will still be collected by numerous platformspossibly even TikTok after a forced saleand it will still be sold to data brokers who can then sell it elsewhere, just as they do now.

The only solution to this pervasive ecosystem is prohibiting the collection of our data in the first place. Ultimately, foreign adversaries will still be able to obtain our data from social media companies unless those companies are forbidden from collecting, retaining, and selling it, full stop. And to be clear, under our current data privacy laws, there are many domestic adversaries engaged in manipulative and invasive data collection as well. Thats why EFF supports such consumer data privacy legislation.

Congress has also argued that this bill is necessary to tackle the anti-American propaganda that young people are seeing due to TikToks algorithm. Both this justification and the national security justification raise serious First Amendment concerns, and last week EFF, the ACLU, CDT, and Fight for the Future wrote to the House Energy and Commerce Committee urging them to oppose this bill due to its First Amendment violationsspecifically for those across the country who rely on TikTok for information, advocacy, entertainment, and communication. The US has rightfully condemned other countries when they have banned, or sought a ban, on specific social media platforms.

Montanas ban was as unprecedented as it was unconstitutional

And its not just civil society saying this. Late last year, the courts blocked Montanas TikTok ban, SB 419, from going into effect on January 1, 2024, ruling that the law violated users First Amendment rights to speak and to access information online, and the companys First Amendment rights to select and curate users content. EFF and the ACLU had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a challenge to the law brought by TikTok and a group of the apps users who live in Montana.

Our brief argued that Montanas ban was as unprecedented as it was unconstitutional, and we are pleased that the district court upheld our free speech rights and blocked the law from going into effect. As with that state ban, the US government cannot show that a federal ban is narrowly tailored, and thus cannot use the threat of unlawful censorship as a cudgel to coerce a business to sell its property.

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: DON'TBAN TIKTOK

Instead of passing this overreaching and misguided bill, Congress should prevent any companyregardless of where it is basedfrom collecting massive amounts of our detailed personal data, which is then made available to data brokers, U.S. government agencies, and even foreign adversaries, China included. We shouldnt waste time arguing over a law that will get thrown out for silencing the speech of millions of Americans. Instead, Congress should solve the real problem of out-of-control privacy invasions by enacting comprehensive consumer data privacy legislation.

Read the original post:
Congress Should Give Up on Unconstitutional TikTok Bans - EFF

The House overwhelmingly voted Wednesday in favor of a bill that would force TikToks Chinese owner ByteDance to either sell the social media app or face a ban in the U.S. Backers of the bill claim TikTok poses a national security threat and could be used for surveillance by the Chinese government. Rights groups like the ACLU say such a ban would violate the right to free speech. There are around 150 million TikTok users in the U.S. alone. After voting, two of the lawmakers who voted against the measure, Democrats Ro Khanna and Pramila Jayapal, laid out some of the bills issues.

Rep. Ro Khanna: Its an overly broad bill that I dont think would stand First Amendment scrutiny. The other issue is that there are a lot of people who make their livelihoods on this.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal: There are timeline questions. A hundred and eighty days to sell a company this size is very difficult. What happens to antitrust law? Does it still apply? Does it not apply? And I think, you know, the questions of if this is a de facto ban, I think that is a real problem. And so but I also have problems by the way, four countries are named, but if Saudi Arabia buys it, is that fine?

The measure will now be taken up by the Senate.

Meanwhile, Palestinian rights activists say Israels war on Gaza has galvanized anti-TikTok sentiment in conservative and centrist lawmakers. In a leaked post-October 7 audio recording, Jonathan Greenblatt, head of the Anti-Defamation League, can be heard saying, We have a TikTok problem, referencing declining public support for Israel among younger people. The progressive group RootsAction also noted that AIPAC is the top donor to Congressmember Mike Gallagher, who authored the TikTok ban bill. This comes as Donald Trump flipped his position on the bill within the last week, now opposing the ban, after recently meeting with GOP megadonor Jeff Yass. Yasss company holds a 15% stake in ByteDance.

See the rest here:
U.S. House Votes in Favor of TikTok Ban Bill Amid First Amendment and Other Questions - Democracy Now!

Related Reading:

On May 5, 2022, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a lawsuit (Missouri v. Biden) in the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, accusing the Biden administration, federal agencies, and top health officials of colluding with social media companies. The suit alleges government officials engaged in a coordinated campaign throughout the COVID pandemic to remove disfavored content and suppress the expression of disfavored views in violation of protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The case primarily concerns jawboning, or informal government efforts to pressure private social media companies into limiting or removing speech on their platforms. After a winding series of appeals and preliminary injunctions in the Fifth Circuit, the US Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, now Murthy v. Missouri, in its 2023-24 term. The record is marred by questions over the characterization and veracity of the underlying evidence.

The three questions before the Court are the following:

Briefs were submitted to the Court by the US Solicitor General (on behalf of the Petitioner, Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy), the respective States, and other parties either in favor of Murthy or the states or neither party. To help Tech Policy Press readers better understand what arguments are being made by the amici, we put together short summaries. These summaries are intended to offer the broad contours of each brief, and thus do not always contain every argument contained within them. If the reader wants a complete version of any one brief, the link to the document is provided in the text.

Continued here:
Review of Amicus Briefs Filed in Murthy v. Missouri Before the Supreme Court | TechPolicy.Press - Tech Policy Press