Monthly Archives: March 2024

Can Fiber Help with Ozempic, Wegovy Side Effects? – Health.com

Posted: March 20, 2024 at 2:56 pm

Ozempic and Wegovy can help people manage type 2 diabetes or lose weight, but they can also cause a number of uncomfortable gastrointestinal symptoms. Could increasing your fiber intake help?

Like other prescription medications, Ozempic, Wegovy, and similar drugs come with a list of possible side effects, including nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, and abdominal pain.

When people experience these gastrointestinal (GI) issuesregardless of whether theyre taking Ozempic or Wegovyfiber may be the first fix to come to mind.

Whether in food or supplements, fiber is an essential part of peoples diets. It also has a wide range of health benefitsits known primarily for supporting digestion, but it may also help people lower cholesterol and manage their weight.

Despite this, however, fiber isnt a one-size-fits-all solution for people experiencing side effects from Ozempic or Wegovy, said Steven Batash, MD, gastroenterologist and founder of the Batash Endoscopic Weight Loss Center.

Taking more fiber will not necessarily ease GI issues associated with Ozempic, he told Health. In fact, it can make it worse for some, especially while their bodies adjust to medication.

It wont work for everyone, but in certain situations, fiber can actually be useful for people taking these drugs, added Kimberly Gudzune, MD, MPH, medical director of the American Board of Obesity Medicine and associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

It depends on the GI symptoms that the patient is having, Gudzune told Health.

Svetlana-Cherruty / Getty Images

Ozempic and Wegovy, or semaglutide, can take a toll on a persons gastrointestinal system due to how the drug functions in the body.

Semaglutide mimics glucagon-like peptide 1, or GLP-1. This hormone is responsible for releasing insulin and lowers blood sugar after you eat, and GLP-1 receptors in the brain help control appetite. Other GLP-1 agonist drugs include Rybelsus, Victoza, and Trulicity.

Beyond suppressing appetite and lowering blood sugar, these drugs also make food travel more slowly through the stomach and intestines. As a result, patients can develop constipation or other GI concerns.

According to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data from 2023, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were the most common gastrointestinal symptoms reported by semaglutide users, followed by constipation and abdominal pain. Less common GI symptoms included excess gas, bloating, indigestion, and heartburn. And a study from the fall of 2023 also linked GLP-1 drugs to severe GI side effects, including pancreatitis, bowel obstruction, and gastroparesis (stomach paralysis).

Most of the time, these common side effects aren't serious, but can still be frustrating for patients.

Some of the discomfort in patients comes from constipation, which can be very uncomfortable, William Yancy Jr., MD, MHS, medical director of the Lifestyle and Weight Management Center at Duke Health, told Health.

Uncomfortable GI symptoms tend to subside over time, but they can be worse when a patient first starts the medication or if they increase the dose, Eduardo Grunvald, MD, director of obesity medicine at the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at UC San Diego Health, told Health.

However, individual responses can vary, and some patients may continue to experience GI issues despite long term use, Batash added.

Fiber is necessary for health, and everyone is supposed to get around 25 to 30 grams per day to support digestion, said Batash. (One study found only 4% of men and 8% of women with type 2 diabetes are getting enough fiber).

It is true that fiber can relieve some GI side effects associated with taking semaglutideincreasing fiber intake can help with constipation, Gudzune said. It can also help keep bowel movements regular, Yancy added.

But that may be as far as fiber can go.

Fiber isnt going to help with nausea from taking Ozempic or Wegovy, Gudzune said. And in some people, high fiber intake can even spark bloating, gas, and discomfort, Grunvald explained.

A 2022 report gave specific recommendations to ease nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation associated with GLP-1 drugs. Researchers recommended adding more fiber for those who had constipation but said high-fiber foods should be avoided for diarrhea until symptoms improve.

Instead of relying solely on fiber, how you deal with GI symptoms should depend on which ones you have.

Constipation may require stool softeners and laxatives, said Grunvald. Nausea may require anti-nausea medications. Heartburn may require acid-blocking medications.

Doctors may also adjust a patients semaglutide dose to mitigate some of these if managing side effects individually isnt working.

Every person is different, and it may be helpful for some and uncomfortable for others, said Grunvald.

If you do choose to deal with constipation or other side effects by increasing your fiber intake, first try getting it from fiber-rich foods, Batash recommended. Start with smaller increments and gradually increase it over time to allow the body to adjust, he said.

However, meeting your fiber goals may not be totally doableGLP-1 agonist medications cause you to eat less, making it potentially harder to get the recommended amount of fiber in your diet, added Grunvald.

If people want to turn to a fiber supplement in these cases, Yancy said supplements such as psyllium husk are fine, so long as people follow instructions on the label. Fiber can be taken more than once a day if needed, but again, its better to start once a day or every other day, he said.

In addition to starting slow, its also critical to stay well-hydrated when consuming more fiber to help prevent constipation, Batash added.

When taking a fiber supplement, people should take it with about eight ounces of fluid, Yancy recommended.

This can be increased by an ounce or two if stools remain hard, or decreased by that amount if they are too loose, he said. People should avoid taking fiber capsules with just a sip of liquid. They need to be taken with a full glass.

If the additional fiber is making your GI system upset, try one day of a liquid diet and then reduce fiber intake, Batash recommended.

Beyond just adding fiber, there are other things people can do to help ease possible side effects while taking Ozempic and Wegovy.

For patients just starting the medication, they can try adopting a plant-based diet, drinking plenty of water, and exercising regularly, Grunvald suggested.

Another key recommendation is to slow down while eating and listen to fullness cues, said Yancy. Small portions are a must, Batash added.

What a person eats is also importantopt for low-fat options while avoiding greasy and sugary foods, and limit carbonated beverages, he said.

If side effects are impacting your daily life or are otherwise severe, talk to your doctor about managing symptoms or deciding if the medicine is right for you, Gudzune noted.

See the original post here:

Can Fiber Help with Ozempic, Wegovy Side Effects? - Health.com

Posted in Food Supplements | Comments Off

Vitamin B12 and Magnesium: Benefits, Risks, Dosage – Health.com

Posted: at 2:56 pm

Vitamin B12 and magnesium are two nutrients vital to your health. Vitamin B12 , or cobalamin, is a vitamin with many important roles, including producing healthy red blood cells and promoting brain health. Magnesium is a multifunctional mineral important for your nervous system, bones, and blood pressure.

Some people get enough vitamin B12 and magnesium through their diet, but deficiencies are relatively common. In these cases, it may make sense to take a supplement for both so that you can manage your levels.

Most people can safely take vitamin B12 and magnesium together. The supplements dont appear to negatively impact each other. And while they also don't appear to directly work together, they may both positively impact some of the same systems of the body, including the heart and brain.

Here's everything you need to know before you take vitamin B12 and magnesium together.

Vitamin B12, one member of the larger group of B vitamins, is involved in synthesizing DNA and various proteins. It also plays an important role in the nervous system, which includes your brain, spinal cord, and nerves. For example, vitamin B12 is needed to form the protective barrier around nerves.

Vitamin B12 is also key for helping your body synthesize healthy red blood cells, which transport oxygen around the body. The vitamin is also involved in the process of extracting energy from food.

Maintaining appropriate levels can avoid vitamin B12 deficiency which, when severe, can cause problems with the nervous system that lead to symptoms like decreased touch sensation, tingling of your feet (peripheral neuropathy), problems with balance, cognitive impairment, or psychosis. While uncommon, severe deficiency also causes symptoms related to anemia (not having enough healthy red blood cells), like fatigue.

Researchers have also studied the connection between low vitamin B12 levels and risks of conditions like osteoporosis, heart attack, stroke, and cancer. More research would be needed to say for certain whether these relationships exist and whether maintaining appropriate levels of vitamin B12 would avoid these heightened health risks.

Magnesium is involved in hundreds of chemical reactions in your body, and the mineral is critical for DNA and protein synthesis. Magnesium is also important for nerve and muscle signaling, including in your heart.

Getting enough magnesium can prevent a magnesium deficiency. When severe, a magnesium deficiency may lead to problems like depression, fatigue, and muscle weakness. If very severe, the deficiency can lead to seizures or potentially life-threatening abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmia).

The role of magnesium in various health conditions isnt as clear as it is for other minerals. For example, studies have been inconclusive about whether magnesium might help reduce blood pressure in people who have high blood pressure (hypertension).And while magnesium deficiency is common among people with diabetes, its unclear whether magnesium supplementation might reduce blood glucose.

Scientists are also exploring whether magnesium can benefit conditions like osteoporosis, insomnia, migraine, asthma, and epilepsy, but so far the results are inconclusive.

Vitamin B12 and magnesium are both critical, and its important to get enough of both from your diet. If that isnt possible, a healthcare provider may recommend you take supplements of both vitamin B12 and magnesium to increase or maintain your levels and prevent any deficiencies.

In general, people who are deficient in one vitamin or mineral may be more likely to be deficient in others. For example, older adults may be at greater risk of both deficiencies. People with certain medical conditions, like small intestine issues that make proper absorption of vitamins and minerals difficult, may also have an increased risk of nutritional deficiencies.

There hasn't been research on the effects of the specific combination of supplements. However, based on the fact that the nutrients can impact the same systems, taking the two supplements together may have a greater impact than taking one alone if you are low in both.

For example, taking vitamin B12 and magnesium together might decrease fatigue more than taking either alone. Getting enough vitamin B12 and magnesium might have positive effects on your heart and cardiovascular system. Getting enough of both is also important for optimum functioning of your brain and nervous system.

Typically, both vitamin B12 and magnesium are taken as pills. Other options, like powders and liquids, are available. If prescribed for a diagnosed B12 deficiency, your healthcare provider might recommend a series of vitamin B12 injections.

Magnesium is available in different forms, including magnesium citrate, magnesium oxide, and magnesium chloride. Vitamin B12 is also sold in different forms with cobalamin as part of the name, such as the case with cyanocobalamin.

You can take vitamin B12 and magnesium together or at different times of day. You may want to take magnesium after a meal to reduce the risk of stomach upset.

If you want to take the two nutrients in one product, that is possible. However, know that supplement combination products often include other vitamins in the B grouplike B6 and folatebecause of the way these different B vitamins affect each other. Magnesium and B12 are also often both included as part of multivitamins, though typically at fairly low doses.

How quickly you see results can depend on how low your levels were. For instance, if you take B12 for a severe deficiency, you should notice improvements in symptoms fairly quickly. However, some kinds of neurological damage from a severe deficiency might not be fully reversible.

The dosage of vitamin B12 and magnesium supplements you take may depend on your age, any medical conditions you have, and what your current levels are. Blood tests can pick up severe deficiencies of B12 and magnesium, but they tests arent as good at detecting milder deficiencies.

The dosage might also depend on how much of each nutrient you take in through your diet.

Including food sources and any supplements, an adequate intake of vitamin B12 is considered 2.4 micrograms (mcg) a day for people 14 years or older. During pregnancy, the adequate intake is a bit higher2.6 mcg.

If you look at the amounts included in supplements, youll notice much higher doses, possibly ranging from 500-3,000 mcg.You'll want to talk with a healthcare provider about what dosage you should take and for how long.

For magnesium, the recommended dietary allowance is 400 milligrams (mg) for men aged 19-30 and 310 mg for women in the same age group. For people 31 or older, the recommended daily amount of magnesium is 420 mg for men and 320 mg for women. Many over-the-counter supplements include about 250-300 mg of magnesium.

For most people, its safe to take both vitamin B12 and magnesium. However, especially for magnesium, you need to be thoughtful about dosage. People with certain medical conditions, such as severe kidney disease or Addisons disease, might even need to avoid magnesium supplements.

As far as is known, vitamin B12 and magnesium dont directly interact with each other. Taking one doesnt affect the amount or efficacy of the other.

Vitamin B12 supplements don't have any known interactions with drugs. However, medications and supplements may interact with vitamin B12 you get through your diet. Certain medications, such as the diabetes drug metformin (Glumetza), can make it harder for you to absorb vitamin B12 from the food you eat. Certain supplements, can interact with dietary vitamin B12 too. This includes vitamin C, which can destroy dietary B12.

Magnesium can interact with drugs or supplements. In some cases, magnesium can make the drug less effective or increase the risk of side effects. In other cases, taking a certain drug may make it harder for your body to absorb magnesium.

Some important drug interactions for magnesium include the following:

You still may be able to take these drugs or supplements, but you may want to discuss potential interactions with your healthcare provider.

Because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn't regulate over-the-counter supplements the same way as drugs, it can be a little harder to know you are getting a high-quality product.

Ideally, check that the product you are using has some sort of third-party verification. You might notice labels from the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) or the United States Pharmacopeia (USP).

Your healthcare provider or pharmacist may also have products or brands they recommend.

The scientific consensus is that its likely not possible to overdose on vitamin B12. Its safe, and if you have extra vitamin B12, your body can remove it through your urine.

It is possible to have too much magnesium. Taking too much magnesium can cause serious symptoms of magnesium toxicity, especially in extremely high doses (more than 5,000 mg a day). Magnesium toxicity might cause muscle weakness, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, vomiting, or even a problem with the hearts electrical rhythm.

If you are opting to take a magnesium supplement, check the dosage. Government sources recommend taking no more than 350 mg per day in supplements, though your intake including foods might be a bit higher. People with certain medical conditions, like kidney disease, should also be more cautious.

Scientists havent studied whether taking vitamin B12 and magnesium together might lead to additional side effects.

Many people dont notice any side effects from taking vitamin B12. However, you might be more likely to have side effects if you take a large dose for an extended period. At least one report noted potential side effects like insomnia, headache, and a feeling of racing heartbeat (heart palpitations) at high doses.

At high doses, magnesium can cause toxicity. However, even at more reasonable doses, magnesium can cause symptoms like diarrhea, nausea, and upset stomach.

Vitamin B12 and magnesium are both essential for many processes in the body. When someone doesn't get enough of both through their diet, a healthcare provider may recommend taking a supplement for each.

It is likely safe to take vitamin B12 and magnesium together. There doesn't seem to be any interaction between the two. By taking supplements for both and restoring your levels of the nutrients, you might have benefits in the function of your heart and brain, as well as in level of fatigue.

While most people can take the two supplements together, you should still check with a healthcare provider about dosage and any interaction either supplement might have with medications or other supplements you may be taking.

See more here:

Vitamin B12 and Magnesium: Benefits, Risks, Dosage - Health.com

Posted in Food Supplements | Comments Off

Taking a Daily Fiber Supplement Might Help Boost Brain Function in Older Adults – Health.com

Posted: at 2:56 pm

Taking a daily fiber supplement could boost cognitive function in older adults, according to new research.

The study, published in the journal Nature Communications, found that people over age 60 who took prebiotic fiber supplements for 12 weeks showed a significant improvement in memory and thinking tests compared with those who didnt.

The study was smallonly 72 people (36 sets of twins) were includedand it doesnt prove that fiber can improve cognition, said Amy Reichelt, PhD, a nutrition and neuroscience researcher from the University of Adelaide in South Australia, who wasnt involved in the new research. But it does show a link.

The study shows an association between the fiber supplement [and better cognition] rather than a direct causal effect, Reichelt told Health.

While the results are fascinating, said Thomas R. Vidic, MD, a fellow of the American Academy of Neurology who practices in Elkhart, Indiana, he noted that the medical community cant make any sweeping conclusions based on the research.

The gut-brain connection is just starting to be evaluated, he told Health. We are just in the infancy of this knowledge.

PhotoAttractive / Getty Images

Researchers set out to understand whether potential changes in the gut microbiome resulting from fiber supplements would enhance cognition and muscle function.

To do this, one twin from the 36 sets was chosen at random to take one of two prebiotic fiber supplementsinulin, a dietary fiber, and fructooligosaccharides (FOS), a plant-based carbohydratedaily for 12 weeks. These prebiotics are a type of fiber that the body cannot digest but are beneficial to the probiotics (good bacteria) in our gut.

As a control, the other twin from each set took a placebo each day. None of the mostly female participants knew whether they had received the prebiotic, but all participants also took a daily protein supplement and performed resistance training throughout the trial.

At the end of the 12 weeks, the researchers tested the participants stool samples. They found people taking the prebiotics had an increase in beneficial gut bacteria, such as Bifidobacterium, which other research has tied to cognitive improvements.

However, they found no significant differences between the two groups regarding how fast participants could stand up from a sitting positionan indicator of muscle strength.

When it came to testing cognition, meanwhile, researchers discovered that the fiber supplement group scored higher on the visual memory and new learning components of the Paired Associates Learning test, which can assess early Alzheimers disease. The supplement users had half the number of errors on this test compared to those taking a placebo.

Joel Salinas, MD, a clinical assistant professor of neurology at NYU Langone Health and chief medical officer at Isaac Health, told Health that its difficult to know how meaningful the results are because the researchers combined parts of the cognitive tests into a single score. They changed the way it was aggregated, said Salinas.

Whether the results mean anything significant for a larger population isnt known because information is limited, Salinas added. They werent studying how [fiber] influenced the risk of developing dementia or cognitive decline, he said.

Salinas said researchers are just beginning to understand the interplay between gut health and the brain, with most studies focusing on the psychiatric effects of microbiome changes.

But scientists do have some idea of how fiber and cognition may influence each other, Reichert said.

Gut microbes process our ingested foods by a sort of fermentation, and the byproducts of this fermentation can enter into the blood circulation and enter into the brain, she said.

Next, said Reichert, the gut bacteria synthesize neurochemicals.

Fiber-induced alterations in gut microbiota composition mayinfluence the production and availability of these neurochemicals, subsequently impacting mood regulation, cognitive function, and behavior, she continued.

Hariom Yadav, PhD, director of the University of South Florida Center for Microbiome Research in Tampa, Florida, told Health that fiber may also lower inflammation, a key risk factor in cognitive decline.

Salinas said that older people considering a fiber supplement for a cognitive boost should remember that the study linked prebiotics with higher performance on one cognitive test; it didnt prove that fiber boosts mental performance. This isnt evidence that we should start recommending that everybody take a prebiotic, he added.

While theres no proof that fiber can improve cognition, evidence does show that its valuable for the brain and overall health of people of all ages.

We can safely say that implementing more fiber-containing foods into ones diet is beneficial, Thomas M. Holland, MD, an instructor in digestive diseases and nutrition at Rush University in Chicago, told Health.

Reichert emphasized that most people can get the fiber they need from a balanced dietgood sources include fruits, veggies, and whole grains. However, those who rely heavily on junk food may need to speak to a healthcare provider about taking a supplement.

Supplements are generally only helpful when theres a deficit in your diet, Salinas said. If you want to take a supplement to enhance your health, make sure its safe, affordable, and provides a benefit.

See more here:

Taking a Daily Fiber Supplement Might Help Boost Brain Function in Older Adults - Health.com

Posted in Food Supplements | Comments Off

Opinion: Sen. Chuck Grassley should stand up for the First Amendment and support the PRESS Act – The Gazette

Posted: March 18, 2024 at 11:33 am

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

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

The Supreme Court must protect the First Amendment in Murthy v. Missouri – Washington Examiner

Posted: at 11:33 am

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

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

A Hillsborough judge invokes the First Amendment in a case related to a 2022 election campaign – WMNF

Posted: at 11:33 am

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

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

John Stockton’s lawyer claims first amendment violation as basis for COVID-19 lawsuit – KXLY Spokane

Posted: at 11:33 am

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

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

7 Expert Takeaways As the Supreme Court Considers Government Influence on Content Moderation – Just Security

Posted: at 11:33 am

(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

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

Maryland fraternities petition federal judge – Baltimore Sun

Posted: at 11:33 am

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

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

Supreme Court to debate whether White House crosses First Amendment line on social media disinformation – News-Press Now

Posted: at 11:33 am

Zip Code

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

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

Monthly Archives: March 2024

Can Fiber Help with Ozempic, Wegovy Side Effects? – Health.com

Vitamin B12 and Magnesium: Benefits, Risks, Dosage – Health.com

Taking a Daily Fiber Supplement Might Help Boost Brain Function in Older Adults – Health.com

Opinion: Sen. Chuck Grassley should stand up for the First Amendment and support the PRESS Act – The Gazette

The Supreme Court must protect the First Amendment in Murthy v. Missouri – Washington Examiner

A Hillsborough judge invokes the First Amendment in a case related to a 2022 election campaign – WMNF

John Stockton’s lawyer claims first amendment violation as basis for COVID-19 lawsuit – KXLY Spokane

7 Expert Takeaways As the Supreme Court Considers Government Influence on Content Moderation – Just Security

Maryland fraternities petition federal judge – Baltimore Sun

Supreme Court to debate whether White House crosses First Amendment line on social media disinformation – News-Press Now

The Prometheus League

Breaking News and Updates

Prometheism

Forbidden Fruit

The Evolutionary Perspective

Transtopia Menu

Library Updates

Library Books

Future Euvolution

Lucid Dreams from Childhood

Genetic Revolution

Speciation + Self-Directed Evolution