Mediaboss Marketing

In itsMurthy v. Missouri ruling last week, the Supreme Courtstopped short of deciding whether pressure on social media platforms by federal officials to censor speakers violates the First Amendment. So now Congress must take action to protect free speech online from government interference.

And weve got a ready-made response: FIREs model legislation, the Social Media Administrative Reporting Transparency Act, orSMART Act, would require the government to disclose its communications with social media companies about moderating content.

The Supreme Court sidestepped deciding whether government pressure on social media platforms violates the First Amendment.

Read More

As FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Reveresaid on the day of theMurthy decision, A little bit of sunlight would go a long way toward ending the censorship by coercion at issue in the case. With the right transparency requirements in place, the American people would be able to identify occasions in which federal officials contact social media and gain more insight into whether it led to censorship of their speech. Thats why FIREreleased a report featuring our model legislation that would provide much-needed sunshine when it comes to government jawboning.

The SMART Act would require the government to discloseanycommunication in which a federal agency employee contacts a social media company regarding content published on its platform (with limited exceptions aligned with certain Freedom of Information Act exceptions). It casts a wide net in order to capture the full universe of communications that may involve coercive or intermeddling government demands or requests through direct methods like text and email, but also through the use of third parties to convey the message to a platform.

InMurthy, five social media users and two states sued the government, alleging that federal officials had in recent years pressured, strong-armed, and intimidated social media platforms into censoring disfavored speech and speakers. While the federal district courtpreliminarily enjoined the federal officials practices, and the Fifth Circuitaffirmed (but narrowed the injunction), the Supreme Court did not address whether the officials actions violated the First Amendment. Instead, it held the plaintiffs did not have standing, meaning they had not established their right to ask a court to prohibit future censorship.

With the right transparency requirements in place, the American people would be able to identify occasions in which federal officials contact social media and gain more insight into whether it led to censorship of their speech.

The Court held that in order to establish standing, plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek. In other words, in order to protect themselves in the future from this form of indirect censorship known as jawboning the plaintiffs would have to show the meetings, the emails, or the words involving government officials not only happened, but likely resulted in the social media company taking actions against the speech or the particular user that they would not otherwise have taken.

This ruling raises significant concerns insofar as the Court set a high bar for individuals who believe they were silenced by government jawboning of social media platforms to get a foot in the courthouse door.For example, Jill Hines, a health activist and a plaintiff inMurthy, questioned health guidance regarding COVID-19 in posts on Facebook and was subject to Facebooks content moderation policies at the same time that the company was facing government pressure to combat COVID-19 misinformation. While Hines made the best showing of a connection between her social-media restrictions and communications between the social media company and the government, the Court said the connection was tenuous and that she must show that Facebook's restrictions were likely traceable to the governments pressure. (Emphasis in original.)

Thats a steep hill to climb when the pressure government officials exert is often performed secretly or behind closed doors, and may never see the light of day. Indeed, we only know about the most recent cases of jawboning, which occurred across two presidential administrations, because of internalleaks at social media companies and Elon Muskpublicizing government censorship requests.

With a fewnarrowly defined exceptions, the First Amendment prohibits government officials from censoring the speech of private actors. This core First Amendment principle remains unchanged. While the Supreme Court dodged the question of whether government pressure on social media platforms violated the First Amendment, itreaffirmed last month that the government cannot censor speech by indirect coercion any more than it can by public legislation inNRA v. Vullo.

For free speech and open discourse to flourish online, the American people need to know when government officials exert influence over what or who social media platforms allow on their platforms. FIRE urges Congress to act in favor of government accountability and free and open discourse by taking up our model legislation.

See original here:
Government transparency is critical when it comes to fighting censorship - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

Moscow Times editor Derk Sauer says the newspaper will defy the Russian governments mandate to close down and will continue to publish news.

Russias prosecutor general has banned anyone from working for or being associated with the undesirable organization on Russian soil, threatening criminal prosecution for violating this policy.

Regardless, Mr. Sauer affirmed Wednesday on X that the Moscow Times is and will remain a training ground for many journalists and will not shut down.

The Russian Prosecutor Generals office said in a statement Wednesday that the work of the publication is aimed at discrediting the decisions of the leadership of the Russian Federation in both foreign and domestic policy.

Of course we will continue with our work: independent journalism. That is a crime in Putins Russia, Mr. Sauer said.

The newspaper, headquartered in Amsterdam, says that Russia and Ukraines conflict has resulted in subsequent passage of repressive wartime censorship laws, which have forced the newsroom into exile.

The news outlet has repeatedly said that it will not back down or submit to Russias demands.

We refuse to give in to the pressure. We refuse to be silenced, the Moscow Times said. We are counting on the support of all of you, our readers, to help us continue our work and defy the Kremlin.

The Russian Prosecutor Generals office has not responded to the Suns initial requests seeking comment.

The Moscow Times started in 1992 in Russia, during the aftermath of the Soviet Unions collapse, with a mission to deliver news in both Russian and English.

Penalties for associating with an undesirable organization once can add up to $168, but a second offense may result in criminal charges and a sentence of up to four years behind bars.

He added in an editors note that this act is the latest of many efforts to suppress our reporting on the truth in Russia and its war in Ukraine, including blocking our website and naming us a foreign agent.

The Prosecutor Generals office had previously requested that access to the organization be restricted on account of systematic misinformation concerning Russias efforts in the war against Ukraine.

The Moscow Times allegedly also associates on a regular basis with other organizations that the Russian government deems undesirable, the Prosecutor Generals office added.

Russian authorities have previously shut down over 140 other independent news outlets and international NGOs by slapping the undesirable label on them since 2015, such as the Insider and the Novaya Gazeta Europe.

Before 2024, the undesirable label was primarily used to outlaw religious organizations, but independent news outlets took the lead this year as the countrys most undesirable institutions, Medioza reported.

News outlets have not been previously prosecuted in Russia at this rate, with police reportedly filing more reports concerning people who are associated with these undesirable publications this year than the past three years combined.

Read the original post:
Moscow Times Will Resist Russian Censorship Efforts - The New York Sun

Elon Musk, who owns X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, announced on Thursday that his company plans to take legal action against those involved in what he describes as an advertising boycott racket.

Mr. Musks declaration came after watching a video of Ben Shapiro, co-founder of the Daily Wire, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee during a session titled Collusion in the Global Alliance for Responsible Media on Wednesday.

Having seen the evidence unearthed today by Congress, has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators in the advertising boycott racket, Mr. Musk wrote on his social media platform. Hopefully, some states will consider criminal prosecution.

Mr. Shapiro laid out a slew of facts that illustrate how advertisers boycott conservative news sites.

Were in the midst of a trust crisis in the world of media, which is because so many in the legacy media have lied in order to preserve left-leaning narratives, he said.

The question isnt really why the legacy media have lost Americans trust. We know that answer. The question is why despite that loss of trust the legacy media continue to gain share in the advertising market. And the answer is simple. There is, in fact, an informal pressure system created by Democratic legislators, this White House, legacy media, advertisers, and pseudo-objective brand safety organizations. That system guarantees that advertising dollars flow only to left-wing media brands, Mr. Shapiro said.

The author and podcast host cited the left-wing informational safety group Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which he said sets brand safety standards, objective standards by which advertisers and platforms can supposedly determine just what sort of content ought to be deemed safe for advertising.

Companies targeted by GARM, like the Daily Wire, Breitbart, Fox News, and so many others, reach hundreds of millions of people with opinions and beliefs long established as within the mainstream of American conservative thought. GARM and its members have no respect for the beliefs of those people. They would like them marginalized or squashed. Its time to stand up for the First Amendment in this Congress, he said.

Mr. Shapiro said Congress should investigate the informal and perhaps formal arrangements between censorship cartels like GARM and executive branch agencies. And he said lawmakers should stop engaging in violation of free speech principles.

We all know what these government actors, what some people in this room are doing. Youre using the tacit threat of government action to compel private companies to throttle viewpoints you dont particularly like. The First Amendment was not designed to enable workarounds by elected officials. It was directed at Congress, at you, he said.

And youre abdicating your fundamental duty when you exert pressure on private companies to censor speech, Mr. Shapiro said. Some in this room have been doing just that for years. We in the non-legacy media have been feeling the effects. In the name of the Constitution and the name of democracy, this should stop.

See original here:
Musk Vows To Sue Ad Giant After Bombshell Congressional Hearing on Censorship of Conservative Media - The New York Sun

Today the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) expressed alarm at the cancellation of an exhibition at Craft Alliance, an art organization in St. Louis, MO. Following a complaint from a volunteer, the venue asserted that the project, which draws attention to the plight of Palestinians, was in violation of its policies on diversity, equity, inclusion, violence, and bullying.

While cultural institutions are justified in wanting to create spaces free of violence, discrimination, and harassment, DEI initiatives should not be weaponized to censor art. Concerns about artwork on view, and whether it violates noted policies, should be objectively assessed with consideration of the artists intent and the context in which the work is presented. Otherwise, artists ability to participate in exhibitions will be at the mercy of individuals who may object to their work, no matter how few they are, or how broadly they misinterpret the work.

In addition to adopting a policy upholding artistic freedom, NCAC urges Craft Alliance to establish procedures for receiving and responding to complaints against artworks.

Read NCACs full letter to Craft Alliance here: Click here for a full-screen view:

Read the rest here:
NCAC Decries Exhibition Cancellation at Craft Alliance - Blogging Censorship

Carrie Wolinetz, former Chief of Staff at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), claimed Thursday that the so-called lab leak theory was not censored during the Covid-19 pandemic.

During the Senate Homeland Security hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., questioned Wolinetz about her involvement in censoring online discussions about the theory, which proposed the virus escaped from a Chinese lab. Hawley asked whether she regrets not opposing censorship efforts from her boss, former NIH Director Francis Collins, or from Anthony Fauci.

Do you regret your role in helping censor millions of Americans who were kicked off social media, who were disciplined at work for saying maybe a lab was involved? Hawley asked.

I do not believe I ever had the role that you are describing, Wolinetz said.

Hawley asked directly, Do you regret not opposing the censorship?

I dont believe censorship took place, sir, Wolinetz responded.

Due to Wolinetzs denial of censorship efforts, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., whointroducedlegislation to create a board overseeing federal funding for high-risk life sciences research and ensuring agency accountability,statedthat Wolinetz would not be considered for a position in the proposed independent entity within the Executive Branch.

The FBI and Energy Department have stated theres strong evidence supporting the plausibility of the lab leak theory.

Despite Wolinetzs denial, several instances indicate censorship did, in fact, occur.

Facebook censored reports related to the lab leak theory, labeling it a false claim. The Biden White House requested Facebook to suppress what they termed disinformation, including requests for them to censor private WhatsApp messages, as revealed in a series of emails released in 2023 during the discovery phase of the free speech case Missouri v. Biden.

Since Elon Musks release of the Twitter Files, it was exposed that Twitter (now X) significantly expandedits practice of accepting content moderation requests from the intelligence community, the State Department, and various federal and state agencies during the pandemic.

Along with social media giants, the government colluded to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, blacklist prominent conservative voices, and shadowban conservative content. Additionally, the files revealed both the Trump and Biden administrations pressured Twitter to moderate pandemic-related content according to their preferences.

Records obtained by House Republicans indicate that former Fauci adviser David Morens downplayed the lab leak theory to the media at Faucis behest.

The documents also suggest that you may have used your personal e-mail to avoid transparency and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), potentially intentionally deleted federal records, Rep. Brad Wenstrup, the chair of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, wrote in a letter to Morens.

Arianna Villarreal is a summer intern at The Federalist.

View original post here:
Former NIH Chief Of Staff Denies Lab Leak Theory Censorship Despite Overwhelming Proof - The Federalist