Mediaboss Marketing

A new West Virginia billproposes regulations against censorship of information by social media companies during an election, with some criminal and civil penalties" depending on the nature of the violation.

Known as House Bill 3307, the legislation looks to create two things: 1) the Social Media Integrity and Anti-Corruption in Elections Act and 2) the Stop Social Media Censorship Act.

The first act would require social media companies to make election-related content on their platforms transparent and provide political parties and candidates with equal opportunities to share information online without being affected by policy- or partisan-based censorship.

The second act would implement criminal and civil penalties for companies that delete or censor a user's religious or political speech.

A lot of this work started in coordination with Secretary of State Mac Warner as a result of the 2020 election, Delegate Daniel Linville, the primary sponsor of the bill, said. There was particular concern about Facebook putting out incorrect information about registering to vote and primary dates.

According to Linville, Facebooks election center promoted inaccurate details, prompting Secretary Warner to exchange several emails with the company to rectify the issue.

This incident, he said, led to a larger conversation about who receives information posted by Facebook and whether or not the company targets users based on specific demographics such as age, geographic area, political party affiliation or gender.

The incident also raised questions about how social media companies play a role in censoring information shared online by political candidates during an election.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that users arent treated differently because of targeting by social media companies or censored because of their political or religious beliefs, Linville said.

To enforce its stipulations, the bill would require companies to share information such as election dates or voting sign-up instructions with the secretary of states office before it is published to ensure the information is correct.

But is it too invasive for government to have a say in what social media companies publish? ACLU-WV Policy Director Eli Baumwell believes the answer is in the affirmative.

One of the concerns about this legislation is that the secretary of state would be deciding whats true and whats not true, Baumwell said. You dont want to put the government in charge of deciding those things.

The legislation might also disincentivize companies from addressing issues such as the spread of disinformation or calls to violence.

Bills like this are largely in response to President Trump being banned from social media sites along with other politicians that engage in a similar rhetoric, Baumwell said. I dont think the answer is censorship. There are other options such as flagging information or providing fact checks.

As for enforcing criminal penalties to regulate social media companies, Baumwell said "this more than likely won't happen."

Until another reasonable option is found, he said, theres a lot more innovation that needs to be done.

Never miss a story with the daily Govtech Today Newsletter.

Subscribe

See the article here:
West Virginia Bill Sets Sights on Social Media Censorship - Government Technology

Siding with Google, a federal appellate court refused toreinstate a lawsuit by commentator Bob Lewis, who claimed the company violated his rights by demonetizing some of the videos on his YouTube channel, Misandry Today, and restricting or taking downothers.

The decision, issued Thursday, upheld an order issued last year by U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim in the Northern District of California.

The dispute dates to2019, when Lewis sued Google for allegedly "censoring" his speech.

One of the demonetized clips argued that antifa is a terrorist group that targets children.

Another described former Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) as "the latest victim of left's campaign to discriminate against anyone based on their traditional American values."

That clip was postedafter King was removed from his committee assignments, which occurred soon after he commentedtoThe New York Times: White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization -- how did that language become offensive?

Among other claims, Lewis said Googleviolated his First Amendment rights, and violated the federal civil rights law by discriminating against him based on his national origin as a patriotic American citizen who supports Americantradition and culture.

Google argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed at an early stage for numerous reasons, including that the First Amendment doesn't prohibit private companieslike itself from restricting content. Google also said Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes the company from lawsuits over its content moderation decisions.

Kim sided withGoogle and dismissed the lawsuit in May of 2020. Lewis then asked the 9th Circuit to reverse Kim's order and revive the case.

The Defendants censorship against Lewis constitutesnational origin discrimination against Lewis because hes a patriotic American citizen whose bedrock American values include embracing constitutionally protected free speech, his attorneywrote in papers filed with the appellate court last August.

On Thursday a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Kim's order dismissing Lewis's lawsuit. The judges wrote in aneight-page order that YouTube isn't a place of public accommodation for purposes of the federal anti-discrimination law.

The judges also reiterated that the First Amendmentprohibits the government from censoring speech, but doesn't prevent private companies from exercising editorial discretion.

Only a person 'acting under color of state law' can commit aFirst Amendment violation, the appellate judges wrote. Here, Lewis sued private entities and asserted no actions that occurred under color of state law.

Lewis isn't theonly one to sue a tech company over its content policies. Numerous others, including Prager University and Freedom Watch have also claimed they were censored by tech platforms.

So far, judges have ruled that web companies have the right to decide how to treat content on their platforms. Last year, for example, the 9th Circuit Court of Appealsrefusedto reinstate a lawsuit by Prager University against Google forallegedly censoring conservative clips on YouTube.

Another appellate court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, likewise declined to revive claims by right-wing activists Laura Loomer andFreedom Watch that Google, Twitter, Facebook and Apple conspired to suppress conservative views. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court refused to hear the activists' appeal.

See more here:
Court Sides With YouTube In 'Censorship' Battle With 'Misandry Today' 04/19/2021 - MediaPost Communications

I am suing Twitter for defamation because they said, I, James OKeefe, operated fake accounts. This is false, this is defamatory, and they will pay, the infamous Project Veritas filmmaker said on his website.Section 230 may have protected them before, but it will not protect them from me. The complaint will be filed Monday.

He then went on to suggest that Twitter was perma-banning him for his most recent video of a CNN sound guy bragging to his date that his employer took down Trump with biased coverage. (So much for the claim that Dominion rigged the vote.)

Twitter permanently suspended James OKeefes personal account on the platform today, following a series of bombshell undercover videos of a CNN employee, he said, before taking to Facebook to complain some more about not being allowed to speak his truth.

Heres OKeefes lawyer Harmeet Dhillon, fresh off her stunning success (AHEM) in getting that Biden win in Pennsylvania overturned, explaining to Sean Hannity that only a manly man like James OKeefe would have the spine to take on CNN, the New York Times, and Twitter.

You may not register or create fake or misleading accounts or use multiple accounts to manipulate Twitter conversations, Twitter support said in an email to OKeefe. While you may use Twitter pseudonymously, or as a parody, comedy, or fan account, you may not use misleading account information in order to engage in spamming, abusive, or disruptive behavior, including attempts to manipulate the conversation on Twitter.

The fact that OKeefe himself published the email may make it more difficult to prove that he was grievously defamed when the company turned around and made roughly similar statements to the media.

Theres also the small matter of whether the suggestion that OKeefe operated sock puppet accounts, even if defamatory, would actually harm his reputation. Pretending to be something hes not is kind of James OKeefes calling card.

This is a guy whose breakthrough move was filming himself dressed as a pimp, complete with faux fur coat and cane, trying to get an ACORN employee to help him dummy-up a mortgage application for a prostitute.

In 2017, a woman associated with Project Veritas pretended to have been impregnated as a teenager by Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore in a bizarre attempt to discredit his other accusers and the Washington Post.

In 2010, he and two compatriots were arrested for sneaking into the office of then-Senator Mary Landrieu dressed as telephone repairmen. They pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and paid a fine.

Also in 2010, OKeefe tried to lure a CNN reporter onto a sex boat where he would secretly film himself seducing her in an attempt to discredit the network.

Even the latest sting video the one that supposedly got Twitter to shut OKeefe up as a favor to CNN was shot by an actress claiming to be a nurse who catfished the CNN employee on Tinder. So there may be some difficulty establishing damages to the reputation of a person whose reputation is, umm, mixed.

Theres also the minor detail that Twitter can kick anyone off the site they like, and that the terms of service are not exactly favorable to user lawsuits. Just ask Devin Nunes.

But other than that, knock yourself out, fella.

James OKeefe RESPONDS to TWITTER ACCOUNT SUSPENSION Following BOMBSHELL CNN TAPES: Says He Plans to SUE THE PLATFORM FOR DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS [Project Veritas]James OKeefe vows to sue Twitter for defamation after ban for alleged use of fake accounts [Fox]Project Veritas founder wants to sue Twitter for defamation over recent suspension

Elizabeth Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Go here to read the rest:
Project Veritas Gonna Sue Twitter For Defamatory Section 230 Censorship And First Amendment Assault Or Something - Above the Law

MEDFORD, Ore. --Today were following up on a story we told you about late last month TheDove TV programming was removed from YouTube.

According to TheDove, more than 15,000 videos were removed following a violation of YouTubes community guidelines.

According to YouTube, in a statement sent to NewsWatch 12, the content was removed following three strikes within 90 days for repeatedly violating our covid-19 misinformation and presidential election integrity policies."

This is a local example of a global issue that has been debated in courts, in congress and among people and politicians the question being, how do you balance, or should there be a balance of regulating misinformation and concerns surrounding censorship?

NewsWatch 12's Alicia Rubin dug into this issue, with the goal of providing context and sharing what the debate is and both sides of it.

We spoke with Professor Anam Sinnreich at American University School of Communications; he specializes in whats called political governance issues, which is the study of how the law intersects with technology and how that impacts our culture.

According to professor Sinnreich, one of the challenges of living in a democratic society is that there are competing visions of what kinds of social goals are needed to make democracy work.

"One of those visions is enshrinedin the First Amendment, and that's the notion that we should have a free press and we should have freedom of speech. And that there's a marketplace of ideas and everybody should say whatever they think is right or true or good, and the best ideas will be debated and will rise to the top," said Sinnreich.

The other side of the argument: "In order to have a functional democracy, you need people to be informed. So that they can vote and make a deliberative decision together and figure out what kind of a society they want. And so, you need to remove disinformation from the public sphere because you don't want people to make decisions based on wrong information," explained Sinnreich.

According to Sinnreich, the two goals are fundamentally at odds with each other. Whats changed in our modern world is the creation of social media.

"What social media does is it exposes us to those divergent viewpoints and it creates an architecture that is very different than the architecture of democratic debate," said Sinnreich.

The basis of the marketplace of ideas, what Sinnreich refers to as a "Thomas Jefferson model," operates on the notion that the best ideas come to the top.

"You might say that lizard people are running the world, and I might say that economic inequity is a problem," said Sinnreich, "and then we debate and we come up with the solution that lizard people seem unlikely. Economic inequity is a demonstrable truth. My idea is better than yours and that rises to the top."

But social media isnt designed to bring the best idea to the top.

It rewards users, and ultimately financially rewards companies, for inspiring the greatest degree of emotional reaction; whether it's joy or outrage or fear or excitement. So when emotions are the most monetized aspect of human expression, that creates a public sphere where, instead of the best ideas rising to the top, the most sensationalistic ideas rise to the top," said Sinnreich.

That idea aligns with studies that have been conducted about social media. In 2016 a study was done by professors at Princeton, it analyzed 376 million Facebook users interactions with over 900 news outlets and found that people tend to seek information that aligns with their views

So where does the responsibility fall to regulate misinformation, if it should be regulated at all? Is it on the consumer or is it on the platform?

"One of the key questions that the courts keep coming back to over and over again is: does the first amendment prohibited private companies from regulating the speech that takes place on their communications platforms? The answer is 'sometimes,'" said Sinnreich.

As Sinnreich explains, courts have treated communication platforms, in regards to the First Amendment, based on size.

"The more that a communications platform becomes something that everybody in society has access to and that everybody needs in order to go about their business, the more expansively the courts interpret the First Amendment as applying to that platform," said Sinnreich, "The more private a platform is, the more it's like a private club or private residence . . . the less expansively the First Amendment tends to be applied to it."

Then the question becomes, are Facebook, YouTube and other social media platforms more like the postal service or telephone system; a publicly accessed good that everyone has access to and needs?

"In which case the First Amendment limitations on censorship would apply more strongly to it," said Sinnreich, "or is Facebook more like a gym or a movie theater where a private entity owns it and invites you into it?"

Right now, social media platforms are allowed to remove content, as we have seen with the removal of TheDove's videos; it is allowed to do so because it is considered a private company, but that distinction is also being debated in court.

"You have Justice Clarence Thomas, basically arguing that it's more like a public good and they should not have the power to censor, said Sinnreich, "whereas you have other thinkers saying that it's, it's still private."

Justice Thomas statements issued on April 5th, regarding a case about former President Trump blocking critics on twitter, was thrown out; Justice Thomas calling it moot since the former president is no longer in office. However, the discussion of social media regulation being brought up in the supreme court increases pressure on lawmakers to change current regulations.

Its possible there could be a federal agency created for regulation, similar to the FCC being established to govern broadcast.

"We don't yet have a federal agency that can really wrap its head around, let alone effectively regulate social media,' said Sinnreich, "The idea of setting up a federal agency devoted to internet communications or even social media communications is still such a new idea that we don't even really know what that would mean."

As recent as March 25th of this year, there was a house subcommittee meeting about misinformation and social media's role. It addressed a wide range of issues and looked at how regulation could potentially help. The focus of the meeting was whether to strengthen Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to create new oversight of social media companies. Representatives on both sides of the aisle shed support for a revision but for different reasons.

Go here to read the rest:
A deeper look at the debate surrounding misinformation, censorship and social media - KDRV

A television station controlled by the Islamic Republic of Iran censored over 100 broadcast shots of a female referee during the Sunday British soccer match between Manchester United and Tottenham, sparking criticism on social media because of the regimes sexism.

Sardar Pashaei, a world champion gold medalist in Greco-Roman wrestling for Iran, tweeted: "Last night, Iran TV interrupted the important game between Manchester United and Tottenham dozens of times, censoring its images, just because one of the referee's match was a woman (@SianMasseyRef)[Sian Massey]. Will @FIFAcom [International Federation of Association Football] voice its objection to this gender discrimination by Iran?

Writing on the website of My Stealthy Freedom, which promotes a campaign against the compulsory hijab in the Islamic Republic, Vahid Ycesoy said that Iranian TV was forced to crudely cut away more than a 100 times from the live game between Premier League giants Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspurs on Sunday much to bemusement of the viewers.

He added that The reason: one of the assistant referees was a woman!! Shocking though it seems, Islamic Republic leaders do not allow a woman with her hair uncovered and her bare knees to be shown on the state-owned TV.

The Iran expert Ycesoy noted that Typically, movie scenes showing women in what is deemed revealing clothing are censored. But this would have been impossible when broadcasting Sundays match. The television censors were rattled by the presence of a female referee in shorts. Their solution was to cut away from the live action to views of Londons backstreets, which made a mockery of the game. At the end of the game, one of the commentators joked that he hoped the viewers enjoyed the geographic show.

The founder of the My Stealthy Freedom campaign, Masih Alinejad, tweeted: Censorship in Iran: business as usual!

This is not a joke. Iranian state TV cuts off parts of a football match more than 100 times because the assistant referee was a woman wearing shorts.

cnxps.cmd.push(function () { cnxps({ playerId: '36af7c51-0caf-4741-9824-2c941fc6c17b' }).render('4c4d856e0e6f4e3d808bbc1715e132f6'); });

He added that It is no secret that women are treated as second class citizens in the Islamic Republic, where compulsory hijab rules are rigidly enforced. Now, even non-Iranians on television must be made to adhere to the countrys draconian laws.

The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ali Khamenei, imposed a religious order fatwa that cartoons showing women and animated shows must be depicted wearing a hijab, Ycesoy said.

Meanwhile, The Jerusalem Post can exclusively report the reactions by many Iranian political prisoners to the reported extrajudicial killing of Iranian wrestler Navid Afkari.

A source familiar with political prisoners in Evin prison told the Post that many prisoners watched the IRIB [Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting] news broadcast about it. Most prisoners rejected the narrative put forward on state TV that he killed someone."

According to the source, "They ran a clip about him for at least 10 minutes trying to justify his killing but most people laughed at this and said it was bullsh*t.

The source added that There were quite a few political prisoners in Evin who had been rounded up for protesting like Navid in late 2019 or for objecting to the downing of the Ukraine plane. So, of course, they were outraged at his execution. Its very sad.

Evin prison in Tehran is notorious for its harsh conditions, including imposing torture on political prisoners.

Read more here:
Iran censors soccer match over 100 times due to woman referee - The Jerusalem Post