Mediaboss Marketing

Abraham Lincoln said no man has a right to govern another man without that others consent. The only way for people to give their consent, and for those who hold power in a democracy to have legitimacy, is through open debate, access to diverse viewpoints and free and fair elections.

Open debate and fair elections are only possible when conducted under a set of rules that protect civil rights and that everyone agrees are clear, reasonable and administered impartially.

Without standards there can be no fair elections, no consent of the governed and no democracy. In that case a large segment of the public will conclude that those in power got there through fraud, tricks, censorship and other illegitimate means.

A bill recently passed by a narrow margin in the House of Representatives, H.R. 1, and a companion bill pending in the Senate, S.R. 1, would further erode public confidence in the outcome of U.S. elections by weakening standards for voting and seeking to muzzle public debate by limiting how Americans access information, voluntarily join groups and talk among themselves about the issues of the day.

Specifically, H.R. 1/S.R. 1 would force groups of private citizens who speak for principles they believe in to report the names of their private-sector supporters to the government.

Just as the government was barred from outing the supporters of the NAACP early in the civil rights era, those who advocate for equality, civil rights and free speech today should not be required to subject their donors to public harassment, cancellation and intimidation.

H.R.1/S.R.1 would empower the IRS to be used as a political weapon to silence conservative voices, as infamously occurred under the Obama Administration

H.R. 1/S.R. 1 would impose barriers to using online services to communicate conservative and free market messages.

H.R. 1/S.R. 1 would have a chilling effect on free speech, and is especially targeted at proponents of free markets and equal opportunity, those who voice conservative ideas and advocate for the principles of the American Founding.

H.R. 1/S.R. 1 is designed to promote a climate of fear, and foster doubt and self-censorship, because to speak a government-disfavored message or donate private money to a government-disapproved group would be considered too risky.

Supporters of H.R.1/S.R. 1 are afraid of open and vigorous debate. If they had confidence in the their ideas, they would meet their opponents in wide-ranging and open discussions, instead of seeking to use a new law to silence voices they disagree with.

In essence, H.R.1/S.R. 1 is designed to make Americans afraid to talk to each other, donate private money, or join in a common cause related to current political issues because to do so might mean being reported to the government, leading to censoring, cancellation or worse.

Under those conditions the U.S. cannot function as a real democracy in which people have trust in the outcome of elections, can join and donate to a range of non-profit groups, and feel they are participating in a fair system of self-government.

Lincoln and his contemporaries would never have supported H.R. 1 or S.R. 1, and no Member of Congress today who respects Lincolns uplifting vision of freedom and self-government should support them either.

Note: Washington Policy Center has joined with over 130 independent civic organizations to express opposition to H.R.1/S.R.1. This coalition letter to Congress can be found here: https://unitedforprivacy.com/oppose_hr1_s1

More:
H.R. 1/S.R. 1 seeks to weaken voting standards and silence conservative voices - Washington Policy

Two of my favorite political columnists, liberal Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and conservative Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, have recently denounced efforts by so-called "progressives" to censor the news.In a column titled "'Just Asking' for Censorship," Strassel wrote about a recent House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing on "disinformation and extremism in the media" during which progressive lawmakers accused conservative media of fomenting disinformation and extremism. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat, asked the CEOs of a dozen cable, satellite and broadband providers what they planned to do about "the right-wing media ecosystem.""Just asking " wrote Strassel, "whether private companies that if they know what's good for them will do the dirty work for her (Eshoo), thereby saving her the hassle of complying with the Constitution," which guarantees free speech.For her part, Pulitzer Prize-winner Dowd wrote that "many on the Left don't understand what a reporter is. It was so enthralling and gratifying to assail Donald Trump as a liar and misogynist that it was bound to be jarring when the beast slouched out of town and liberals had to relearn the lesson that reporters don't or shouldn't suit-up for the Blue Team," which they're doing in droves.So the battle lines were drawn and respected columnists Dowd and Strassel found themselves on the same side of the battle, fighting against political agendas in media newsrooms. Dowd warned her fellow liberal journalists against taking sides in their straight news reporting. "It's a lot more pleasant to be hailed by the Left than demonized, as you are when you're holding a Democratic president to account," she wrote, "because the Left can be just as nasty as the Right." So true.Strassel asserted progressive politicians and journalists are "just asking for censorship" when they suggest that mainstream and social media companies should censor "disinformation, a code word for conservative ideas." Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr says "politicians have realized that they can silence the speech of those with different political viewpoints by public bullying," so progressives want social media companies to act as politically correct speech enforcers.Actually, both sides bully each other, as we saw when ex-President Trump described the media as "the enemy of the people." "There they are," he used to shout, pointing at network TV cameras, "the enemies of the people." Please! Trump wants to silence liberal media and Democrats now want to shut down Fox News.We see some very tendentious reporting here in Northern Nevada. I'm thinking of the way the Reno Gazette Journal covers "social justice" and "systemic racism" issues, making it very clear in its news columns how we should think about those issues. On the local scene there's a biased reporter for a Carson website who often slants her stories way to the left. Last year she wrote a story about the "numerous assaults" that allegedly occurred during a peaceful law and order demonstration in Minden. The "assaults" were nothing more than verbal confrontations between demonstrators on both sides of the Black Lives Matter issue who were exercising their First Amendment rights.I learned about the dividing line between straight news reporting and opinion in Journalism 101 at the University of Washington in Seattle many years ago, but that line has long since been obliterated by partisan journalists and politicians. Nevertheless, I think Dowd got it right when she wrote that "the role of the press in a functioning democracy is as watchdog, not partisan attack dog." Amen!Guy W. Farmer, a retired diplomat, has worked in and around journalism for more than 50 years.

Read more here:
Guy Farmer: Censoring the news | Serving Carson City for over 150 years - Nevada Appeal

Moscows lawsuits against five social media giants for not removing calls to join government-banned rallies from their platforms are part of a new wave of censorship in President Vladimir Putins Russia, experts said on Wednesday.

Twitter is among other social networks targeted by the Russian authorities. (Photo: Flickr)Last week, the Magistrates Court of Moscow filed separate cases against Facebook, Google, Twitter, TikTok and Telegram that could result in administrative fines of up to four million rubles (about US$ 54,000) for failing to delete illegal content that incited teenagers to join protests supporting Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny, for exaggerating the number of people who took part in the demonstrations and for spreading misinformation about police brutality, Russian news agency Interfaxreported.

Similarly, Russias tech and media regulator fined the domestic internet company Mail.ru with a total of four million rubles ($54,000) in early March for the late deletion of allegedly harmful content posted on the social platform Odnoklassniki.

Last month, Human Rights Watchwarned of Russias escalating pressure on social media platforms to censor content they deem illegal, condemning the countrys rapidly growing oppressive legislation.

Human Rights Watchs Russia researcher Damelya Aitkhozhina told OCCRP on Wednesday that the growing restrictions on digital freedoms are part of a new wave of censorship which includes also a series of laws that restrict other civil liberties, such as freedom of assembly.

We have seen a progressive escalation since 2012, when President Putin came into power. There was a wave in 2012, another one in 2014, and now were seeing a new one since late 2020, with so many laws coming into force and having a detrimental effect on civil society, Aitkhozhina said.

Two new laws related to digital freedom have entered into force since last January - one obliging tech companies to delete illegal content and the other introducing fines of up to 10% of a companys annual revenue for failing to do so.

Additionally, President Putin set August as a deadline for the creation of a new regulation that will force big tech companies to open local branches.

The new regulation will come right before the September legislative elections in Russia, which raised concerns among experts who believe the move is part of government efforts to prevent critics.

Russian authorities also slowed down access to Twitter following the sites failure to remove illegal content from its platform, limiting the possibility to upload photos and videos.

According to theregulator, the measure stems from the companys failure to censor content that allegedly incites minors to commit suicide, while also promoting the use of drugs and disseminating child pornography.

However, in previousstatements issued by the oversight body, the government specifically spoke about tech and social media companies not censoring calls to join peaceful protests against the imprisonment of Navalny.

Aitkhozhina expressed concern over accusations against Twitter, hinting that the government might be using the argument it was protecting users from child pornography and other harmful content as an excuse to suppress freedom of expression.

Ive never seen that content online, said the HRW expert. What we did see in the wake of the pro-Navalny protests was that part of the demands from the authorities to the social networks was to take down the videos where users called others to take part in those protests.

Follow this link:
Experts Concerned about Growing Censorship in Russia - OCCRP

In a show of bipartisanship, both conservatives and progressives testified against SB228 (Electronic Free Speech Amendments), which passed both chambers during the recent Utah legislative session and currently sits on Gov. Spencer Coxs desk for his signature or veto. We urge Cox to veto SB228 because it leverages the power of the government to violate the First Amendment rights of private companies.

Despite the hopeful title of this bill, giving governments more control over private speech is the opposite of promoting free speech.

For starters, this bill requires technology companies like Facebook, Google and even Parler to follow specific notification procedures, timelines and rules set by Utah lawmakers and submit to an untested appeals processes also set by Utah lawmakers for account holders who are suspended or find their content removed.

By requiring technology corporations to jump through new hoops created by government regulations, this bill could discourage social media platforms from halting online voter suppression, stopping the spread of misinformation directed by foreign governments, and even prevent the blocking of credible threats of violence if they relate to a political viewpoint.

If this bill takes effect, it could also result in less online speech for Utahns and expose them to more harassment and vitriol because technology companies would fear lawsuits and sanctions if they tried to proactively moderate content on their platforms.

Even worse, this bill would effectively authorize the government to force private online platforms to carry and distribute speech they would have previously restricted. Historically, the Internet has been less regulated than traditional media outlets like television and radio. This approach has given consumers more options and platforms to express themselves than ever before. Twitch, Discord, Reddit, Snapchat, Clubhouse, Locals, Pinterest, TikTok the list of alternatives to consider is expanding all the time. If the goal of this bill is to promote electronic free speech, it should follow the successful origins of the internet and rely on less government intervention, not more.

In addition, by trying to mandate absolute consistency in applying a social media platforms terms of use, legislators are making a bold assumption that such mandates are even feasible. Platforms like Facebook have tens of thousands of content moderators reviewing hundreds of thousands or even millions of posts, rendering moderation a daunting task.

Additionally, human content moderators carry implicit biases, and it is highly unlikely that you could get any random group of moderators to have a consensus decision on flagged content. While some supporters will call for a tech-based solution, that is based in fantasy, not reality. Even the most advanced artificial intelligence programs integrated into content moderation currently make mistakes, flagging harmless content as problematic, or vice versa. Content moderation, even with technology assistance, remains a subjective task that makes compelling consistency by law deeply problematic.

While we discourage private social media companies from blocking content based on viewpoint, its an entirely different matter and much clearer violation of our constitutional rights for the government to dictate what online platforms must publish or how they must exercise their subjective discretion in content moderation.

Lastly, constitutional experts have noted that SB228 clearly violates Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that protects websites from liability for content posted by third parties. This means the bill violates federal law and opens Utah up to lawsuits that will be a waste of time and taxpayer dollars to defend.

Perhaps sensing the shaky legal ground for this bill, the sponsor of SB228 delayed its effective date until July 1, 2022, to give time for its future repeal. But we dont have to wait for the likely lawsuits to stop this bill. Cox can and should veto it now.

Marina Lowe is the legislative and policy counsel at the ACLU of Utah. Connor Boyack is president of Libertas Institute and the author of 28 books.

See original here:
Guest opinion: Giving government control is the opposite of free speech - Deseret News

Almost a year to the day that Louisville police officers killed Breonna Taylor during a no-knock raid, the Kentucky Senate passed a bill which makes it a crime to insult and taunt cops. If S.B. 211 becomes law, you could get up to three months in jail and a $250 fine if you flip off the fuzz in a way "that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person."

It's just one example of a slew of proposed new laws that are chilling free speech. While freethinkers are rightly worried that private online platforms such as Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook are increasinglyand often arbitrarilycracking down on speech for political reasons, the much graver threat comes from governments at all levels seeking to ban or compel speech.

If Amazon won't stock your book, you can still hawk it at Barnes & Noble or on your own site, but when the government says no, there's nowhere else to go.

Earlier this year, lawmakers in Kentucky also introduced legislation that "would make a user entitled to damages if a social media platform deletes or 'censors' religious or political posts." Conservatives who rightly yelled bloody murder when Christian bakers were forced to make cakes for same-sex weddings are now trying to stop social media platforms from running their businesses the way they see fit.

In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has proposed legislation that would ban Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms from suspending the accounts of political candidates. They would face fines of up to $100,000 a day and the new law would also allow regular users to sue platforms for damages if they feel they've been treated unfairly.

Similar legislation has been proposed in Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Texas, where Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has said, without citing actual evidence, that conservative viewpoints are being systematically silenced. "Pretty soon," he promises, such supposed censorship is "going to be against the law in the state of Texas." That law, S.B. 12, is poised to pass the state Senate.

Back in the pre-internet days, you could count on conservative Republicans to scream about the need to regulate sex and drugs on TV and in music but these days they seem to want social media companies to do no moderating of content. So maybe that's progress.

At the same time, liberal Democrats, who themselves used to scream about violent video games, are pushing for more regulation of speech they don't like. In Colorado, a proposed law would create a "digital communications commission" that would investigate platforms to make sure they don't allow "hate speech," "undermine election integrity," or "disseminate intentional disinformation, conspiracy theories, or fake news"all exceptionally vague terms that aren't even defined in the legislation. The commission would have the ability to order changes in the way platforms operate.

At the national level, two congressional DemocratsRep. Anna Eshoo (DCalif.) and Rep. Jerry McNerney (DCalif.)have sent letters to the heads of Comcast, Verizon, Dish, and other cable and satellite companies demanding to know why such private services carry Fox News, Newsmax, and other supposed purveyors of "misinformation." As Reason's Robby Soave put it, the letter "was an act of intimidation." It's a rare week when high-wattage politicians such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (DMass.) or Sen. Ted Cruz (RTexas) don't threaten Big Tech with some sort of reprimand because they don't like what's popular on Facebook or Twitter.

The good news is that laws seeking to control individuals and platforms are blatantly unconstitutional because they compel the speech of private actors and because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows broad discretion in running websites and platforms. When challenged in court, they'll almost certainly be struck down.

The bad news is that the laws just keep coming, because politicians of all stripes want to control speech in a way that favors their agendas and they don't care about whether a law respects the First Amendment.

We should loudly criticize platforms for kicking people off in arbitrary ways that diminish our ability to freely argue and disagree about politics and culture. We want more participation, not less. But it's even more important to recognize private citizens' and businesses' right to freely associate with whomever they want.

I find it disturbing as hell that a member of the band Mumford & Sons felt compelled to cancel himself for the "pain he caused" after saying he liked a book by the controversial journalist Andy Ngo. I'm deeply bothered that eBay has delisted old copies of Dr. Seuss books and that Amazon, which once aspired to sell every book in print, sees fit to drop titles that rub some activists the wrong way. I'm outraged that Twitter and Facebook banned Donald Trump essentially for being an asshole.

But far worse than such private cancel culture is when politicians tell us we don't have a right to insult cops, or when they're the ones setting the rules about what we must prohibitor allow. That way madness lies and it makes the online outrage of the day look absolutely trivial by comparison.

Continue reading here:
Government Censorship Is the Worst Cancel Culture of All - Reason