Mediaboss Marketing

(CN) The Biden administration urged a Fifth Circuit panel on Thursday to nix an injunction that limits its communications with social media companies, arguing that persuading platforms to take down misleading posts did not cross the line into unconstitutional coercion.

In a 155-page order he issued on Independence Day, U.S. Chief District Judge Terry Doughty found Missouri, Louisiana and several individual plaintiffs had presented proof of arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history that infringed on the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.

He granted the challengers a sweeping preliminary injunction, restricting White House staffers and numerous federal agencies communications with social media companies.

After appealing to the Fifth Circuit, the feds lobbied Doughty to stay his injunction.

Doughty denied the governments stay motion. The Trump appointee insisted his injunction only bars illegal conduct, and noted it has a long list of carveouts, allowing the administration to talk to social media firms about posts involving criminal activity, national security threats and those intended to mislead voters about voting regulations.

He also said the White House can still promote its policies and views on matters of public concern.

On July 14, however, a Fifth Circuit panel issued a temporary stay of the injunction and fast-tracked an appeal hearing.

Another panel of the New Orleans-based circuit court heard arguments Thursday.

Doughty compared the governments efforts to control social media discourse about Covid-19 and the 2020 presidential election to the Ministry of Truths propaganda and alteration of historical records in George Orwells dystopian novel 1984.

The dystopian theme continued in Thursdays 80-minute hearing.

An attorney for the state of Louisiana asked the three judges on the panel to imagine a scenario where senior White House staffers told book publishers to burn books critical of the federal government, and threatened to go after the publishers with an antitrust investigation when they refused to go along.

And then suppose all the book sellers decided the game wasnt worth the gamble and they started complying. Thats exactly what you see in the record here, said John Sauer, Louisiana special assistant attorney general.

Justice Department lawyer Daniel Tenny gave his own bleak scenario.

He said Doughtys injunction is so broad if there were a natural disaster and untrue statements about it circulating on social media were endangering Americans, the government would be powerless to discourage social media companies to stop spreading the lies.

And, Tenny continued, if a law enforcement official believed certain posts were part of a human trafficking conspiracy he or she would not be allowed to bring the posts to social media platforms attention.

U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, questioned if either of those examples would be excluded from the communication prohibitions in Doughtys injunction.

We dont know whether they are, Tenny replied. The plaintiffs have argued they are not. The exceptions are very unclear.

In complaints of online censorship, the most prominent narrative is from Republicans who say social media companies censor right-wing or conservative speech Exhibit A being Twitters suspension of former President Donald Trump after the Jan. 6 insurrection.

But the challengers claim the governments pressure campaign secretly started in 2017 during Trumps tenure in the White House when senior congressional staffers, coordinating with the FBI, started regularly traveling to Silicon Valley to meet privately with platforms content-moderation chiefs.

They claim the governments censorship efforts dramatically increased after Biden took office in January 2021. And White House officials, including Bidens former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, threatened the companies with legal consequences and adverse legislation, namely doing away with protections afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The provision shields social media companies from liability for content posted by third parties and lets them moderate content as they see fit.

Tenny noted it would fall to Congress, not President Biden, to repeal that law. The idea that if you dont do what the president wants hell amend Section 230 or antitrust laws is far-fetched, he said.

U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett agreed with Tenny that the federal officials and the president should be able to make public statements to persuade people about matters of public concern. I think that passes First Amendment muster with flying colors, the Trump appointee said.

But here you have the government in secret, in private, out of the public eye relying on fairly unsubtle kind of strong arming, in veiled or not so veiled threats thats a real nice social platform you got there, it would be shame if something happened to it, he added.

Tenny insisted that the government had not coerced any social media company to censor any posts because it had not threatened them with any punishment for not doing so.

Louisiana and Missouri convinced Doughty they have standing by laying out in their lawsuit, filed in May 2022, they themselves have been censored online.

The Louisiana Department of Justice said in August 2021the Google-owned video sharing platform YouTube had censored it for sharing footage in which Louisianans criticized mask mandates and Covid lockdown measures.

Missouri says YouTube also removed video of four public meetings in the states St. Louis County because some citizens stated masks are ineffective against transmission of Covid-19.

But Tenny, the Justice Department attorney, argued in Thursdays hearing the states and individual plaintiffs lack standing since they have not alleged they intend to make similar posts in the future.

To have standing they have to show they have a future, ongoing injury, he asserted.

Tenny said the Biden administration is no longer focused on combating misleading posts about Covid because its pandemic public health emergency ended in May.

Sauer, Louisianas counsel, took issue with that contention. This notion that Covid censorship is over is totally unsupportable, he said.

He explained that two weeks ago he gave a talk about this litigation and criticized the federal governments censorship.

It was taken down the next day by YouTube. I was censored as a lawyer for the Louisiana attorney general. Do not tell me that Louisiana doesnt face ongoing censorship injuries as a result of federal influence, he stated.

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Brown Clement, appointed by George W. Bush, was also on the panel. The judges gave no timeline for a ruling.

Sign up for the Top 8, a roundup of the day's top stories delivered directly to your inbox Monday through Friday.

Link:
Red states accuse Biden administration of censorship before Fifth ... - Courthouse News Service

We all know that history can teach us lessons, and that diving into the darkest parts of our history is necessary to avoid repeating it.

The curator of a Central New York art collective is hoping that an exhibit detailing the censorship of artwork in Nazi Germany can cut through some of the discourse here in the U.S., where conversation on both sides of the aisle is focusing on potential ways of limiting various forms of expression.

If I remember correctly the building was built in 1926, Peter Svoboda, curator of the Station Art Gallery told us as he walked us upstairs to where the gallery is housed in one of Syracuses iconic historic buildings. It was part of the train complex and this was the freight building.

As we discuss the buildings history, we arrive at an exhibit dedicated to one of the darkest periods of world history.

When I was in Germany three years ago, I came upon six pictures in the Munich museum, he said. These were in one of the shows in 1937 that Hitler sponsored called the Great German Art Show. All of the art was realistic.

He says in 1937, these examples of how Adolf Hitlers government felt art should be presented were juxtaposed with examples of modern art across the street. The modern installment being called the Degenerate Art Show. The idea was to show the German people what was an acceptable for of expression, and what wasnt.

Across the street was modern art, and that bothered Hitler and the Nazis and some psychiatrists quite a bit because it wasnt realistic art, he said.

His research found that not only was the art mocked, shamed and ultimately banned but the artists themselves were persecuted.

Many of the artists here were sent to concentration camps, he said. Most of their art was destroyed, and many of them were even killed.

He stresses that Hitler came to power during a low point in Germany, where post-war sanctions and the Great Depression meant morale was low.

He built the Autobahn, he started to rebuild the Armed Forces, and this gave people jobs, he said.

Svobodas extensive research links that economic rebound to Hitlers ability to control apopulation desperate for stability, and how limiting forms of expression and independent ideas was a large part of that process.

Especially where art all of a sudden was used as a massive political propaganda tool, he said.

He says most people have an understanding of the ultimate atrocities of the Nazi regime, but he hopes that here in the U.S. people on the left, right and everywhere in between will defend their freedom of expression, and he hopes the exhibit can help them understand how not preserving that freedom can lead to unimaginable consequences.

The whole basis of democracy is based on the ability for people to express themselves, and art is a major way to express yourself and also to have an effect on culture, he said.

The exhibit can be seen at the Station Artist Collective Gallery on Burnet Ave. in Syracuse, it is open indefinitely and you can find out more information about hours by visiting their website or Facebook page.

Excerpt from:
CNY art exhibit explores impact of censorship on art - Spectrum News

By jake@stormlake.com | on August 08, 2023

Book banning is bad business, as school and city officials are finding out in Alta. The school will need to ban potentially hundreds of books if they refer to sex under a new state law. That means that the Alta Community Library, which shares its stacks with the Alta-Aurelia School District, would have to do a massive purge of its 21,000 books (60% of which are the citys).

This has prompted the city to think about establishing its own separate library just so a seventh grader doesnt have access to a book like Catcher in the Rye. That is not hyperbole. The book is on a list of 347 proposed for censorship in the Urbandale School District. A different list of banned books, with similar classics tagged, is circulating in the Norwalk School District. Its hard to imagine what Alta-Aurelia might come up with.

We could have more than 300 sets of rules depending on the school district and how prudish an influential set of patrons are with the school board.

We recall several years ago leading Republican legislators declaring that you could not have local control over livestock confinement because you would have 99 sets of rules, and that would be a mess for the pork industry.

Yet the same party thinks it is okay to make school boards into a censorship authority.

The Iowa Department of Education, under the guidance of Gov. Kim Reynolds who cooked up this law, refuses to issue regulations for school districts to follow. Everyone is on their own. Thats not leadership, its chaos.

And it is wasteful. The city and school district had a nice thing going, sharing facilities and staff. It saved money. It created a program the city probably could not afford on its own. Were pretty sure no innocent eyes were exposed to anything of prurient interest that they could not otherwise find on their cellphone or on TV during primetime. Alta and Aurelia always have been able to establish community standards and did not need the assistance of the governor and legislature.

Sen. Lynn Evans, a Republican who supported the book-banning bill, is an Aurelia native and former superintendent of schools. He is confident that the city and school district will work something out. He thinks there is a way to cordon off adult books from sixth- graders and the like. The city is not necessarily as optimistic. We certainly appreciate the citys anxiety over trashing much of its collection.

Its a shame that the legislature didnt think this through. Its too bad we let partisans or holy rollers write our curriculum standards instead of trained educators. You would think the University of Northern Iowa or Buena Vista were grooming socialists and perverts to run our schools. The Department of Education is derelict to just ignore it.

Republicans created a mess for their core constituency: rural Iowa. This is what Alta and Aurelia get a big headache from stupidity and zeal.

Original post:
Editorial: A mess of censorship - The Storm Lake Times

Elon Musks $44 billion acquisition of Twitter last year was fueled by his stance against censorship. However, critics argue that Musk himself is now engaging in censorship through his companys lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). Musks business accuses CCDH of advocating for internet censorship and seeking to stifle free expression.

CCDH, on the other hand, claims that it highlights instances of misinformation, hate speech, and harmful content on social media platforms. Internet safety campaigners, including the father of Molly Russell, have criticized Musks lawsuit as an attack on civil society.

The lawsuit, brought against CCDH by X Corp, alleges breaches of terms of service, improper use of login credentials, interference with contracts, and intentional harm caused to X. It also claims that CCDHs actions have resulted in significant financial losses for X through paused or halted advertising campaigns.

Experts are skeptical of Xs claims, stating that advertisers have long been put off by Twitter due to Musks controversial behavior. They believe that CCDHs research is just one of many factors influencing advertisers decisions.

CCDHs CEO, Imran Ahmed, has stated that they will continue to fight the lawsuit, despite the significant costs involved. X is seeking unspecified damages and aims to prevent CCDH from conducting research on its platform.

The lawsuit also ventures into conspiracy theories, suggesting without evidence that CCDH is being supported by Xs competitors and government entities.

While CCDHs research has been criticized for not being peer-reviewed, supporters argue that they should not be sued for their work.

In the midst of this legal battle, Musk aims to transform X into an everything app similar to Chinas WeChat, but the platform currently relies heavily on advertising revenue. Musk acknowledges that advertising revenue has dropped by 50% at X, which amounts to a significant financial burden for the company.

See more here:
Elon Musk's Twitter Lawsuit: A Battle Over Censorship - Clayton County Register

The music video for Jason Aldeans song Try That in a Small Town stirred controversy in July with the First Amendment at the center of a debate about censorship and free speech.

As the controversy grew, the country music channel CMT announced it would no longer show the music video.

Supporters claimed Aldean was being canceled, and his First Amendment rights were violated. Detractors insinuated that the songs lyrics dont merit First Amendment protection, and some have even petitioned the government to step in to censor Aldean.

A First Amendment analysis of the Jason Aldean controversy

Lets look at the song and some of these claims through a First Amendment lens using a traffic signal framework:

Green light: These words or actions are protected by the First Amendment.

Yellow light: Caution! The First Amendment might not apply.

Red light: No First Amendment protection.

Are Aldeans song and music video free speech?

The songs lyrics compare responses to crime in big cities and small towns. The music video uses footage of carjackings, armed robbery and protests. The footage is interspersed with clips of Aldean singing in front of a Tennessee courthouse where an 18-year-old Black man named Henry Choate was lynched in 1927 and a race riot occurred in 1946.

The songs lyrics, which some say imply violence, plus the image of Aldean singing at a setting of racial violence have some arguing that the song is not protected by the First Amendment.

Green light: Music is protected as free speech. Only 54% of Americans in Freedom Forums 2023 The First Amendment: Where America Stands survey knew this, but 88% agreed music should be protected from government censorship.

Many have claimed that the song is hateful. But, as 6 in 10 survey respondents knew and agreed, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, unless some other exception applies. None apply here. The lyrics and video lack the necessary immediacy to be incitement to imminent lawless violence, which is not protected by the First Amendment. They are not face-to-face and so cannot be fighting words. And they do not single out any individual as required for a true threat to exist.

Are the actions in the song free speech protected by the First Amendment?

In the song, Aldean refers to actions that would generate a response in a small town, including cuss out a cop, spit in his face, stomp on the flag and light it up.

Yellow light: The First Amendment means we can stand up to authority and arent required to choose our words carefully when we do so. But some of the clips in the music video show protesters shouting right in the faces of police officers, which could be fighting words, a category of speech not protected by the First Amendment. These words are intended not to convey a message but rather to provoke a violent response. And this could also lead to obstruction of justice charges if you impeded an officers job.

Red light: Any physical contact with a police officer is no longer expression. This is likely criminal assault.

STOMP ON THE FLAG AND LIGHT IT UP

Green light: Flag desecration, including stepping on the flag and burning it, is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has said flag burning is symbolic speech and in many cases is protected as free speech.

Can TV and radio censor the song or venues cancel Aldean shows?

CMT stopped airing the Try That in a Small Town video. Some radio stations arent playing the song. People are calling for boycotts of Aldeans concerts and asking venues to cancel his shows.

Green light: CMT, radio stations and concert venues are all private businesses. The First Amendment doesnt apply here something that three-quarters of Americans dont know. Private businesses can set their own rules about what messages they support and promote. The First Amendment only protects us against government actions that infringe on our rights to religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.

Can people challenge Aldeans controversial statements?

The Jason Aldean controversy largely began after the music video was released, and people added context to Aldeans claims that there isnt a single video clip that isnt real news footage.

Major media outlets and citizen journalists added historical context regarding the courthouse and the video footage, some from protests outside the U.S., which provide context to Aldeans claims.

Green light: The work of professional and citizen journalists is freedom of the press protected by the First Amendment. Statements about a celebrity like Aldean get very strong protection under the First Amendment. Americans have the right to hold public officials and public figures accountable.

Is criticizing Aldean or canceling him free speech?

Aldeans defense of the song has thousands of reactions. Gun control activists and other musicians have called him out. Conservative commentators and a former president of the United States have defended him.

Aldean responded to criticism and accusations of being anti-Black Lives Matter, pro-lynching and insensitive to the impact of gun violence. He described the song as one that refers to the feeling of a community that I had growing up, where we took care of our neighbors, regardless of differences of background or belief.

Green light: Aldean says that he is a victim of cancel culture. Thats a hard term to define. Sometimes what is deemed cancel culture is just people using their own free speech. Often, exercising your freedom of speech has consequences. People contacting government officials are exercising their freedom of petition. And, of course, sometimes their criticism backfires, like when the song in question rises to no. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 charts despite or more likely because of the controversy.

Can government officials use their power to punish Aldean?

Politicians have also weighed in. For instance, Justin Jones, who was expelled from and then reinstated to the Tennessee House of Representatives for leading a protest on the House floor, described the song as a lynching anthem and said we have an obligation to condemn Jason Aldeans heinous song calling for racist violence.

Yellow/red light: Government officials like Jones have First Amendment rights, too, especially when speaking outside their official duties. They have every right to express their opinions.

But they cross a line when they use their position and power to punish. It would violate the First Amendment to condemn Aldean in an official resolution that carried some penalty. And if any lawmakers tried to pressure stations or venues to stop playing or hosting Aldean, this would infringe his First Amendment rights by punishing him based on the content of his song.

The Jason Aldean controversy unpacked

The Jason Aldean controversy isnt the first debate about music, censorship and free speech. Such controversies cut across political divides and span musical genres. History is full of examples of controversial rock, punk, heavy metal and, particularly in recent years, rap and hip hop songs.

This is why it is so important that we all protect the free expression rights not only of those who write and perform songs but also of those who criticize and defend those artists.

Kevin Goldberg is First Amendment specialist for the Freedom Forum. He can be reached at kgoldberg@freedomforum.org.

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

More here:
Jason Aldean controversy: Free speech and censorship collide - Southwest Virginia Today