Category Archives: First Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

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

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

Eric Schmittis a United States senator from Missouri.

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

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

2024 The News Service of Florida

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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