Monthly Archives: March 2024

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 article here:
Requiring ugly images of smoking's harm on cigarettes won't breach First Amendment, court says - KXLY Spokane

From B.B. v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (C.D. Cal.), decided last month but just posted on Westlaw:

When B.B. was in first grade, she made a drawing (the "Drawing") that included the phrase "Black Lives Mater [sic]" printed in black marker. Beneath that sentence, B.B. added "any life," in a lighter color marker. B.B. gave the Drawing to a classmate, M.C., who took it home. When M.C.'s mother saw the Drawing, she emailed the school, stating that she would not "tolerate any more messages given to [M.C.] at school because of her skin color" and that she "trust[ed]" the school would address the issue.

Later that day, the school's principal, Becerra, approached B.B. at recess. Becerra told B.B. that the Drawing was "inappropriate" and "racist," and that she was not allowed to draw anymore. {At the hearing, the parties disputed whether B.B. testified that Becerra told her the Drawing was racist. Although B.B.'s deposition is unclear, the Court must construe her testimony in the light most favorable to B.B.} He also instructed B.B. to apologize to M.C., which B.B. did twice.

When B.B. returned to class from recess, two of her teachers told her that she was not allowed to play at recess for the next two weeks. The teachers did not tell B.B. the reason she could not play at recess, and there is no direct evidence that Becerra directed B.B.'s teachers to punish B.B. in this way.

Plaintiff [B.B.'s mother] argues that Becerra's response to the Drawingcompelling her to apologize to M.C., prohibiting her from drawing other pictures for her friends, and preventing B.B. from playing at recess for two weeksviolates her First Amendment right to free speech. However, this schoolyard dispute, like most, is not of constitutional proportions.

Although students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," their rights are "not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings." For school children, the First Amendment must be "applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." Because educators best understand those special characteristics, courts give "educators substantial deference as to what speech is appropriate." "[T]he determination of what manner of speech is inappropriate" at school "properly rests with the school board, rather than with the federal courts."

"Under Tinker [v. Des Moines Indep. School Dist. (1969)], schools may restrict speech that 'might reasonably lead school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities' or that collides 'with the rights of other students to be secure and let alone.'"

Much of the caselaw applying Tinker focuses on its "substantial disruption" prong. As a result, "[t]he precise scope of Tinker's 'interference with the rights of others' language is unclear." However, the cases reveal three principles that help identify when speech unduly infringes on the rights of other students such that it is not protected under the First Amendment.

First, where speech is directed at a "particularly vulnerable" student based on a "core identifying characteristic," such as race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, educators have greater leeway to regulate it. Although speech that is "merely offensive to others" cannot be regulated, courts have recognized that denigrations based on protected characteristics do more than offendthey can inflict lasting psychological harm and interfere with the target student's opportunity to learn. These types of denigrations, moreover, have little countervailing benefit to the learning environment. Derogatory speech is therefore "not the conduct and speech that our educational system is required to tolerate, as schools attempt to educate students about 'habits and manners of civility' or the 'fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system.'" Thus, "[w]hatever the outer boundary of Tinker's interference inquiry," the case law "establish[es] that students have the right to be free" from speech that "denigrate[s] their race" while at school.

Second, the mere fact that speech touches upon a politically controversial topic is not sufficient to bring it under the First Amendment's protective umbrella. In Harper, for instance, the district court denied a preliminary injunction brought by a student who was told that he could not wear a homophobic shirt to school. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court despite the "political disagreement regarding homosexuality" that existed at the time. At the same time, however, school administrators must have a justification above the "mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint" before they may regulate student speech.

Third, and most pertinent for the present case, age is an important factor when deciding whether speech is protected. In Tinker, the Court held that a high school could not ban students from wearing black arm bands that signaled opposition to the Vietnam War. The Court emphasized that denying students this type of expressionwhich neither interfered with the school environment nor intruded on other students' rightsmay coerce political orthodoxy and "strangle the free mind" of high school students. An elementary school, by contrast, is not a "marketplace of ideas." Thus, the downsides of regulating speech there is not as significant as it is in high schools, where students are approaching voting age and controversial speech could spark conducive conversation. As the Seventh Circuit has recognized, elementary schools "are more about learning to sit still and be polite, rather than robust debate." To fulfill that mission, elementary schools require significant latitude to discipline student speech. Indeed, "muchperhaps mostof the speech that is protected in high grades" may be regulated in elementary schools.

"The targeted student's age is also relevant to the analysis." Younger students may be more sensitive than older students, so their educational experience may be more affected when they receive messages based on a protected characteristic. Relatedly, first graders are impressionable. If other students join in on the insults, the disruption could metastasize, affecting the learning opportunities of even more students.

Giving great weight to the fact that the students involved were in first grade, the Court concludes that the Drawing is not protected by the First Amendment. B.B. gave the Drawing to M.C., a student of color. The Drawing included a phrase similar to "All Lives Matter," a sentence with an inclusive denotation but one that is widely perceived as racially insensitive and belittling when directed at people of color. Indeed, M.C.'s mother testified that those kinds of messages "hurt." Soon after discovering the Drawing in M.C.'s backpack, M.C.'s mother emailed the school, and stated that she believed her daughter received the Drawing because of her race. Based on this email and the content of the Drawing, Becerra concluded that the Drawing interfered with the right of M.C., a first grader, "to be let alone."

{The phrase "All Lives Matter" gained popularity in response to the growth of the Black Lives Matter movement ("BLM"), a social movement protesting violence against Black individuals and communities, with a focus on police brutality. "All Lives Matter" can be seen as an offensive response to BLM because that phrase obscures "the fact that [B]lack people have not yet been included in the idea of 'all lives.'"}

Undoubtedly, B.B.'s intentions were innocent. B.B. testified that she gifted the Drawing to M.C. to make her feel comfortable after her class learned about Martin Luther King Jr. But Tinker does not focus on the speaker's intentions. Rather, it examines the effects of speech on the learning environment and other students, giving deference to school officials' assessments about what speech is acceptable in an educational setting. Such deference to schoolteachers is especially appropriate today, where, increasingly, what is harmful or innocent speech is in the eye of the beholder. Teachers are far better equipped than federal courts at identifying when speech crosses the line from harmless schoolyard banter to impermissible harassment. Here, Becerra concluded that the Drawing, although well-intentioned, fell on the latter side of that line.

A parent might second-guess Becerra's conclusion, but his decision to discipline B.B. belongs to him, not the federal courts. Elementary schoolteachers make thousands of disciplinary decisions on American playgrounds every day. Federal court review of all these decisions would unduly interfere with school administration and overwhelm the judiciary. Regardless of whether Becerra was right or wrong, the decision is his, and this schoolyard disputelike mostdoes not warrant federal court intervention.

This seems to me unconstitutional, even in first grade. One can debate whether the First Amendment should apply to disciplinary decisions by K-12 schools (Justice Black, back in his day, argued it shouldn't, and so has Justice Thomas more recently); one can likewise debate whether it applies in the lowest grades. But the courts have not so held, and the premise of this particular court opinion seems to be that some first-grader speech, if approved of by a federal court, would indeed be protected. (The standards courts have set, which is that speech can be punished if it "materially disrupts classwork," sets a much higher bar that seems to be shown here.)

Rather, the court's view here seems to be that this viewpointsimply because it "can be seen" as dissenting from what some see as the only proper response to racial problemsis stripped of First Amendment protection. The "Black Lives Matter" slogan is accepted as the one orthodoxy, and any perceived dissent from the view that black lives should be specially stressed in this context can be forbidden. Seems quite inconsistent with the Court's conclusion that "In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism."

Go here to read the rest:
"Black Lives Mat[t]er" + "Any Life" Drawing "Not Protected by the First Amendment" in First Grade - Reason

The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in a case in which the National Rifle Association accused a former New York state official of improperly pressuring banks and insurers to cut ties with the gun-rights group after the Parkland, Fla., high school massacre in 2018.

The case could have significant implications for free speech and how government officials weigh in on contentious topics. The NRA has argued that the official took aim at the group for its speech, violating the First Amendment, while the official countered that she was acting properly in enforcing the law and expressing her policy views.

In an unusual twist, the NRA is represented by the liberal American Civil Liberties Union, which says the groups speech was undeniably targeted.

The NRA says that as head of the New York State Department of Financial Services, Maria T. Vullo leaned on insurers to break with the NRA and used her significant authority over banks and insurance firms to compel them to blacklist an organization because she opposes the organizations political speech.

Vullo allegedly violated the First Amendment by, among other things, sending official guidance letters to the banks and insurers after the Parkland shooting encouraging them to review relationships they had with it or similar gun-rights organizations, the NRA said. The group also says Vullo investigated NRA-endorsed insurance policies and suggested to insurers that they could avoid liability for other issues if they cut ties with the NRA.

In court filings, Vullos attorneys disputed the claim that she improperly coerced firms into breaking with the NRA. Her attorneys said the insurance products at issue broke New York law and posed a serious and unique risk to public safety, so it was reasonable for Vullo to prioritize them. And they pushed back on the suggestion that the NRAs speech was targeted or hindered.

The NRA alleges that Vullo interfered with its relationships with insurers and banks, limiting only what the NRA could do, not what it could say, her attorneys wrote. The NRA has never claimed, much less plausibly so, that it was unable to exercise its speech rights.

Both sides have warned of a dangerous precedent if the other emerges victorious. Vullo said accepting the NRAs arguments here would chill speech necessary for a functional government, because public officials would be kept from making any critical comments that could be recast as retaliation.

The NRA, meanwhile, said Vullos side would effectively give government regulators free rein to selectively target unpopular speech and warned that state officials could then take aim at any number of political opponents, including abortion rights groups or environmental organizations.

If New York can do this to the NRA, Texas or Florida could use the same tactics against groups advocating immigrants rights, the right to abortion, or other vital civil liberties, David D. Cole, the ACLUs legal director, said in a statement Monday.

Arguing on the NRAs behalf Monday, Cole said Vullos actions crossed a clear line and abused her offices power.

Government officials are free to urge people not to support political groups they oppose, Cole said during the arguments. What they cannot do is use their regulatory might to add or else to that request.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said Monday that there was a spectrum to weigh when considering instances when government officials urge a person or entity to act. He described an official at one end of the spectrum with significant power ordering someone to act or face significant punishment, and an official at the other end with no real authority making a suggestion.

In between, there are a lot of different gradations, he said. So how do you define when it goes too far along that line?

Cole answered by saying one important factor is how much power the official involved has over the person or entity they are addressing. But ultimately, he said, the question is whether a reasonable person would feel that the request suggests a threat or consequence.

Neal K. Katyal, an attorney for Vullo, urged the justices not to accept the NRAs claims, saying that would only empower other lawsuits that would hinder valid government enforcement actions.

The NRA is seeking to weaponize the First Amendment and exempt themselves from the rules that govern you and me, simply because theyre a controversial speaker, said Katyal, who was acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama.

In a statement after arguments, Katyal said a decision favoring the NRA would fundamentally inhibit government speech on virtually any topic and empower a limitless set of claims against the government based on empty arguments that any regulatory or enforcement action penalizes the speech of the regulated.

The NRA case is vitally important, because a broad ruling could force government officials to back away from public debate, said Alex Abdo, litigation director for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

On the one hand, we dont want the government to be able to threaten others to carry out its censorship, Abdo said. On the other hand, we need a government empowered to be able to participate in public debate about the important issues of the day.

Not all observers are convinced this is a free-speech issue, however. Dru Stevenson, a professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, who signed on to an amicus brief in the case supporting Vullo, said her letters did not threaten anyone and were only urging firms to review their ties to the NRA due to the possible reputation risk involved.

Stevenson said he and other law professors who focus on the nerdy subject of regulatory law are unnerved by the case because issuing this type of guidance is an everyday occurrence for regulators.

The case is NRA v. Vullo.

More:
Supreme Court hears free speech case that united the NRA and the ACLU - The Washington Post

A majority of the Supreme Court seemed wary on Monday of a bid by two Republican-led states to limit the Biden administrations interactions with social media companies, with several justices questioning the states legal theories and factual assertions.

Most of the justices appeared convinced that government officials should be able to try to persuade private companies, whether news organizations or tech platforms, not to publish information so long as the requests are not backed by coercive threats.

The dispute was the latest in an extraordinary series of cases this term requiring the justices to assess the meaning of free speech in the internet era.

Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan, both former White House lawyers, said interactions between administration officials and news outlets provided a valuable analogy. Efforts by officials to influence coverage are, they said, part of a valuable dialogue that is not prohibited by the First Amendment.

Members of the court also raised questions about whether the plaintiffs Missouri and Louisiana, along with five individuals had suffered the kind of injury that gave them standing to sue. They also suggested that a broad injunction prohibiting contacts between many officials and the platforms was not a proper remedy in any event.

I dont see a single item in your briefs that would satisfy our normal tests, Justice Kagan told J. Benjamin Aguiaga, Louisianas solicitor general.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Read more from the original source:
Supreme Court Wary of States' Bid to Limit Federal Contact With Social Media Companies - The New York Times

There was a big buildup in GOP circles about a case before the U.S. Supreme Court this week which claimed the Biden Administration had wrongly pressured social media giants to take down posts about the Coronavirus and election misinformation.

Republicans like U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., labeled it the most consequential free speech case in U.S. history, after lower courts had called federal actions a massive attack against free speech.

But this First Amendment challenge landed with a thud at the high court, as conservative and liberal justices alike frowned on limiting government contacts with major platforms like Facebook and X (Twitter).

The government is not monolithic, Chief Justice John Roberts observed, amid skepticism that the feds had coerced Big Tech companies to clamp down only on conservative opinions.

The arguments left Republicans perplexed, as many seemed to think they were poised to win a landmark decision to stop the government from flagging misinformation and harmful content on social media.

The governments arguments are incredibly troubling, said U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.

What might also be at play is how the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, has become an eager host to numerous legal challenges by conservatives against the Biden Administration, spurring rulings that have gone too far even for a Supreme Court dominated by conservatives.

One unique nugget from this case was how the government deals with the news media. It came as Justice Samuel Alito complained about the constant pestering of Facebook and other platforms, arguing thats not how the feds treat the press.

Would you do that to The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal or the Associated Press or any other big newspaper or wire service? Alito asked.

The answer from two other Justices was a resounding, Yes, as they recounted their experience working for the feds.

I mean, this happens literally thousands of times a day in the federal government, said Justice Elena Kagan, who served in the Clinton Administration.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh who worked in the George W. Bush White House also had similar memories, talking about officials who regularly call up the media and berate them.

I can certainly attest to that, and social media makes it even easier to lean on reporters and news organizations.

In many ways, this Supreme Court session reminded me of the hearings that Republicans in Congress have held on the weaponization of government or the GOP push to impeach President Joe Biden.

The headlines are often eye-catching. Republicans are really good at generating media outrage. But whats lacking is concrete evidence of wrongdoing.

Jamie Dupree has covered national politics and Congress from Washington, D.C. since the Reagan administration. His column appears weekly in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. For more, check out his Capitol Hill newsletter at http://jamiedupree.substack.com

Continued here:
Opinion: A First Amendment Fizzle at the U.S. Supreme Court - The Atlanta Journal Constitution

The Supreme Court just heard arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, a case that raises important First Amendment issues and exposes government censorship efforts.

Last October, when considering a lower court order prohibiting further censorship, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch described the case as a coordinated campaign by high-level federal officials to suppress the expression of disfavored views on important public issues. Indeed, the case highlights troubling tactics of the Biden administration that are better suited to the Ministry of Truth in George Orwells fictional totalitarian state, Oceania, in his frighteningly prescient novel, 1984.

There is little dispute about the facts of the case. In essence, Biden administration officials pressured or coerced social media companies to censor posts that challenged the administrations position on pandemic lockdowns, the safety of vaccines, the COVID19 lab-leak theory, election fraud, Hunter Bidens laptop, and a host of other issues.Court records show that the White House specifically targeted COVID skeptics Alex Berenson, Tucker Carlson, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Messages demonstrate the White House demanded that certain posts be taken down ASAP and suggested that bi-weekly meetings with social media companies would help in suppressing disinformation. If a company pushed back, administration officials threatened anti-trust action and other forms of liability. Bidens team even went so far as to claim Facebook and other platforms were killing people by not aggressively censoring certain information.

After Bidens comments, Facebook deplatformed multiple users and began providing detailed reports of its efforts to obey White House directives. Ultimately, companies accepted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as the final arbiter on what was acceptable COVID-19 information and what was disinformation.

Court records show that Facebook content-mediation officials would contact [the CDC] to determine whether statements made on Facebook were true or false, and Facebook would remove and/or censor claims the CDC itself said were false.

The FBI also got in on the action. The FBI averred to the social media companies that it was combatting foreign influence. Instead, it was targeting domestic posts promoting stronger border security measures or the Second Amendment. In the case of Hunter Bidens laptop, the FBI warned of the dangers of foreign hackers and data dumpers despite knowing that the laptop and its contents were real.

Rather than apologizing to the public for its censorship activities, the Biden administration is defending them.

In oral arguments before the Supreme Court this week, the Biden administration justified its actions by arguing that the social media platforms are private entities that ultimately chose to remove posts or deplatform people. The First Amendment, which protects free speech, applies only to government actors. Hence, the administration denied that its persuasion and suggestions were the proximate cause of the censorship. So long as the government seeks to inform and persuade rather than to compel, the administration argued in its brief submitted to the court, its speech poses no First Amendment concern even if government officials state their views in strong terms, and even if private actors change their speech or conduct in response.

Under the law, the government cannot evade responsibility when it has significantly encouraged an action. In other words, the government may not meddle in the editorial decisions of the platforms or direct them on how to exercise editorial discretion. Thus, the question will come down to whether the government was just seeking to inform the social media companies or whether the government compelled or coerced action (or at least meaningfully controlled the private actors).

If nothing else, the facts in the case are ugly and show a gross abuse of power by federal officials.

No matter what the outcome, the plaintiffs two states and various people affected by the governments censorship campaign deserve high praise for bringing these matters to light. The case record demonstrates the heavy-handed tactics and arrogance of administration officials in suppressing speech.

In his opinion in Whitney v. California (1927), the great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis observed that the remedy for allegedly false information and viewpoints is more speech, not enforced silence. The Biden administration enjoys the largest bully pulpit in the nation but declined to combat opposing opinions with more speech. It chose threats and hectoring in an effort to enforce silence.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rebuke the government for this conduct. Otherwise, Oceania might be a better name for todays America.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

William J. Watkins, Jr. is a research fellow at the Independent Institute and the author of Crossroads for Liberty: Recovering the Anti-Federalist Values of Americas First Constitution

Read more here:
The First Amendment is under attack in Americas Oceania - Washington Examiner

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 this article:
Requiring ugly images of smoking's harm on cigarettes won't breach First Amendment, court says - The Caledonian-Record

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government strong-armed Big Tech companies into censoring as disinformation Americans true experiences while effectively mandating government propaganda, which itself turned out to be misinformation.

The Supreme Court is currently considering whether that strategy violated the First Amendment.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested during oral arguments Monday that the First Amendment should not be allowed to hamstring the government amid a crisis.

Jackson asked J. Benjamin Aguiaga, the solicitor general of Louisiana, a rather revealing question about the issue.

So, my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods, Jackson said.

The Supreme Court justice presented an extremely unlikely hypothetical that most American young people would find very insulting. She presented a scenario in which young people took cellphone video of their peers jumping out of windows, and that trend went viral on social media (preposterous), Big Tech companies failed to take action on their own (very unlikely), and the government wanted to stop it.

She asked Aguiaga, What would you have the government do? Ive heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, Kids, this is not safe, dont do it, is not going to get it done.

So, I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information, Jackson said. Im really worried about that because youve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the governments perspective, and youre saying that the government cant interact with the source of those problems.

I understand that instinct, Aguiaga replied. Our position is not that the government cant interact with the platforms there but the way they do that has to be in compliance with the First Amendment.

Jackson suggested it would be unjust for the First Amendment to limit the governments actions in addressing a hypothetical crisis, but the First Amendment expressly exists in order to hamstring the federal government.

As Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said in response to Jacksons concern about the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government, thats what its supposed to do, for goodness sake.

The amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The amendment does not include a crisis-exemption clause allowing the government to trample on free speech if the president declares a national emergency. If it did, President Joe Biden might declare a national emergency on climate and strong-arm Big Tech into censoring opposition to the climate alarmist narrative. He might declare a national emergency on the nonexistent epidemic of violence against transgender people, and pressure social media to ban any disagreement with gender ideology.

Big Tech platforms already censor conservative speech on those issues, but it could become far worse.

Missouri v. Murthy presents an excellent illustration.

The plaintiffs in the caseMissouri and Louisiana, represented by state Attorneys General Andrew Bailey and Liz Murrill, respectively; doctors who spoke outagainst the COVID-19 mandates, such as Martin Kulldorff, Jayanta Bhattacharya, and Aaron Kheriaty; Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft; and anti-lockdown advocate and Health Freedom Louisiana Co-Director Jill Hinesallege that the Biden administration suppressed conservative-leaning free speech on the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 presidential election; on COVID-19 issues, including its origin, masks, lockdowns, and vaccines; on election integrity in the 2020 presidential election; on the security of voting by mail; on the economy; and on Joe Biden himself.

On July 4, federal Judge Terry Doughty in the U.S. District Court for theWestern District of Louisianaissued an injunction barring the Biden administration from pressuring Big Tech to censor Americans.

Doughtys injunction named various federal agenciesincluding theDepartment of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (the agency Dr. Anthony Fauci formerly directed), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the State Departmentand officials, including HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit narrowed the extent of Doughtys injunction, and the Supreme Court stayed the 5th Circuits order before taking up the case.

The Twitter Files revealed how the process worked: Federal agencies would have frequent meetings with Big Tech companies, warning about misinformation and repeatedly pressuring them to remove or suppress content. Federal agents and politicians occasionally threatened that if the companies did not act, the government would reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, removing legal protections the companies enjoyed.

As Justice Samuel Alito noted, federal officials treated Facebook, Twitter (now X), and other social media companies like their subordinates.

As part of this lawsuit, Bailey unearthed documents in which Facebook told the White House that it suppressed often-true content that might discourage Americans from taking COVID-19 vaccines.

In that context, Jacksons question about the First Amendment hamstringing the government seems particularly alarming. The federal government did not act to suppress speech amid an existential crisis like a world war or a civil war. It acted after good data became available showing that COVID-19 poses a deadly threat to the elderly and those with co-morbidities, and while the government was advocating vaccines for all populations, not just the most vulnerable.

Jacksons question suggests that she wants the government to have more control over speech on social media, even after the abuses this case uncovered.

If the First Amendment is good for anything, it should hamstring the government from silencing Americans in order to push its own propaganda. Jackson, as a sitting Supreme Court justice, should know that.

Then again, if she cant define the word woman, perhaps Americans shouldnt be surprised if she doesnt grasp the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please emailletters@DailySignal.comand well consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular We Hear You feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

View original post here:
Note to Justice Jackson: First Amendment Should Hamstring Biden - Daily Signal

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns that the First Amendment may stand in the way of government censorship in unique times.

In Mondays oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, Jackson appeared to be skeptical that the government could not censor social media posts in the most important time periods.

My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods, Jackson said to Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiaga.

You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information, Jackson said. So, can you help me? Because Im really worried about that because youve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances, from the governments perspective, and youre saying that the government cant interact with the source of those problems.

Aguiaga said his view was that the government should intervene in certain situations, but it has to do so by following the First Amendment.

Our position is not that the government cant interact with the platforms there. They can and they should in certain circumstances like that, that present such dangerous issues for society and especially young people, Aguiaga said in response. But the way they do that has to be in compliance with the First Amendment. And I think that means they can give them all the true information that the platform needs and ask to amplify that.

Jackson said a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic or other emergencies would provide grounds for the government to censor social media posts that are misinformative.

Im interested in your view that the context doesnt change the First Amendment principles, she said. I understood our First Amendment jurisprudence to require heightened scrutiny of government restrictions of speech, but not necessarily a total prohibition when youre talking about a compelling interest of the government to ensure, for example, that the public has accurate information in the context of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Jackson was harshly criticized for her comments, with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) referencing her argument and saying it was literally one of the craziest things Ive ever seen.

That you could have a Supreme Court Justice say that in the oral argument made no sense to me. That is frightening, he added. Because if she really believes that, that is scary where we are heading.

Go here to read the rest:
Ketanji Brown Jackson concerned First Amendment is hamstringing government from censorship - Washington Examiner