Mediaboss Marketing

There was a spirited conversation on Mondays Talk Back show about whether the Biden Administration deliberately colluded with Facebook to get messages from private citizens deleted because they were deemed to be providing what were termed false information about COVID vaccines.

KGVO reached out to Constitutional Scholar Rob Natelson with the Independence Institute in Denver about the constitutionality of the administrations actions.

It is a violation of the First Amendment, said Natelson. There have been a number of cases where purportedly private companies acting in concert with the government have violated individual rights, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that in that circumstance, the bad conduct is attributable to the government and is a constitutional violation.

Natelson said saying that Facebook is a private company is only half the story.

A good example where a number of cases were in some states, including, by the way, Delaware, the President's home state, where governmental entities had used purportedly private companies to discriminate against African Americans, he said. The administration then had said, well, there's not a 14th Amendment issue because it's a private company. Well, the Supreme Court said, sorry, if you're that entangled with a private company, if you're engaged in a joint venture to violate somebody's constitutional rights, then that conduct is attributable to the government. You cannot hide behind the private company when you're doing that.

The reason used by the Biden Administrations press secretary for removing the messages was that the incorrect advice could place peoples lives at risk.

Expediency or the public welfare is always the first resort of tyrants, or you can come up with justification for violating almost any constitutional right, he said. Or, this is really important or the public welfare has to trump your rights and so forth. This is the way tyrants act, and it is utterly inappropriate for an American presidential administration.

Natelson then posed this question.

As a threshold question, the issue occurs to my mind, is if they're doing this on COVID-19, then what other issues are they doing it on? he asked. In other words, is the administration telling Facebook not to post notices on the election or other things that it might consider misinformation?

Natelson spoke to KGVO News while he was in Times Square in New York City preparing to make a speech before a meeting of the Epoch Times,for which he authors a weekly column on Constitutional issues.

More here:
Natelson Administration and Facebook Violated 1st Amendment - Newstalkkgvo

from the [headed-to-the-ER-to-get-my-third-degree-stupid-burns-treated] dept

Grandstands and bandwagons: that's what's headed to Social Media Town. Professional victims -- far too many of them earning public money -- have produced a steady stream of stupid legislation targeting social media platforms for supposedly "censoring" the kind of the content they really like: "conservative views." Convinced by failed-businessman-turned-failed-president Donald Trump (and his herd of Capitol Hill toadies) that social media has it in for anyone but the leftiest leftists, a bunch of legislators have hacked up "anti-censorship" bills that aim to protect free speech by trampling on free speech.

The latest (but surely not the last) legislator to grab his bandstand and board the bandwagon is Wisconsin state Senator Julian Bradley. Bradley seems convinced his low Twitter polling must be due to social media companies keeping him down.

Big tech is silencing the things I say, Bradley explained Monday morning. They are silencing and shadow banning, theyre blocking any information that I am putting out.

And he has a message for Big Social Media:

"Free expression is one of the most vital components of our democratic republic. We must ensure our citizens can engage in political speech unfiltered and uncensored by Big Tech. It's time for Facebook and Twitter to consistently and fairly enforce their own rules."

How does Bradley hope to protect free speech from the censorship private companies can't actually commit? By violating their free speech rights, of course. From the bill [PDF] Bradley says he's filing but actually has yet to file [as of July 14th, anyway]:

The bill prohibits a social media platform from using post prioritization (prioritizing certain content ahead of, below, or in a more or less prominent position than others in a newsfeed, feed, view, or search results) on content or material posted by or about a candidate for state or local office or an elected official who holds a state, local, or national office.

The bill also prohibits a social media platform from knowingly censoring, deplatforming (deleting or banning from the social media platform for more than 60 days), or shadow banning (limiting or eliminating the exposure of a user, or content posted by a user, to other users of the social media platform) a candidate for state or local office or an elected official who holds a state, local, or national office.

This compelled speech that favors only certain people is shoved into the bill alongside language that says social media companies must treat everyone equally.

Under the bill, a social media platform must publish the standards it uses for determining how to censor, deplatform, and shadow ban users on the platform. A social media platform must apply censorship, deplatforming, and shadow banning standards in a consistent manner among its users on the platform.

All social media patrons must be treated equally... except for politicians and would-be politicians, who will be statutorily more equal than others. Failure to carry compelled speech or apply rules "consistently" will potentially cost social media companies hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions per claim). And "consistency" will be defined literally on a case-by-case basis since the new law would create a private cause of action against qualifying social media platforms.

Bradley doesn't seem to know or care whether his proposal is constitutional. All he knows is he's pretty sure it's ok for the government to compel speech when courts have ruled government officials can't cut off citizens from interacting with them.

Bradley is quick to point-out that judges have ruled lawmakers and other elected officials cannot block or ban people from commenting on their posts, even if those comments are negative or ugly. The courts have ruled, essentially, that social media is the new public town hall and some online speech is protected.

Bradley is right... at least as far as getting the gist of recent court decisions. But he's wrong when he clarifies his own position:

Bradley said he is using this same logic to say that social media platforms shouldn't be able to ban elected officials, no matter the language they use.

Ah. Well then. Good luck using that "same logic" in court. This isn't junior high debate class, you rube. This is the Constitution. "This same logic" doesn't apply when there are two very clear and very distinct sets of rules that govern private companies and public servants. Public servants can't prevent the public from participating in their own governance. Private companies are free to pick and choose whose content they'll host. And social media services have cut elected officials a lot of slack over the years, keeping accounts alive that would have been shut down much earlier if platforms enforced rules consistently.

Bradley wants to create a carve-out for public officials in both the Constitution and social media platforms' terms of service. That's utter bullshit and shouldn't be tolerated by either his government cohorts or the people he's supposed to be representing.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, julian bradley, section 230, social media, wisconsin

See the original post here:
Wisconsin Senator's Social Media Bill Aims To Save The First Amendment By Violating The First Amendment - Techdirt

A U.S. Senate vote on President Joe Bidens (D) anti-gun nominee to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), David Chipman, is expected in the next few weeks. As the Democratic leadership tries to secure the votes to confirm Chipman, more and more keeps coming out on him.

Now, it turns out that Chipman also has disdain for the First Amendments protections of free speech.

In an interview discussing hate speech with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) two years ago, Chipman spoke flippantly about the American right to free speech as protected by the First Amendment.

The frustration is in the United States, the freedom of speech and to say things largely cannot be regulated, he said during a BBC interview. But yes, we have to do more to monitor hate speech on the internet.

In the reference, Chipman was referring to law-enforcement personnel not being able to confiscate American citizens firearms based on statements they madewords that might be considered to be hate speech by some. Chipman actually thinks police officers should confiscate guns from citizens just because he doesnt approve of something they said.

Its likely that Chipman might say that he was taken out of context concerning this remark, just as he has done multiple times in the past when his outlandish statements have become public; this includes what he said during his U.S. Senate confirmation hearing. But now Chipman even insinuated that a law allowing the confiscation of guns purely based on what someone might say should be passed.

The FBI and other federal agencies have a tough job responding to these threats when they dontcurrently(emphasis added) have the authority to remove weaponry just because people are saying hateful things, he said.

Of course, the term hate speech can be defined in a wide variety of ways. This is one reason why Chipmans statement is so dangerous. One persons discussion of freedom and firearms could, for example, be deemed hate speech under an anti-gun, anti-freedom administration like the current one; after all, the Biden administration seems to be looking for any means to disarm Americas law-abiding gun owners.

Incidentally, in the same interview, Chipman showed hes not above playing petty, partisan politics when he gets his chance in the limelight. He also took the opportunity to throw a barb at then-President Donald Trump (R).

We have to do more to monitor hate speech on the internet, he said. But we also have to do more to curb that same speech being presented by our president and other elected public officials.

All of this, of course, is just one of many reasons why Chipman shouldnt be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and why every American should contact their U.S. senators and let them know how strongly they feel about defeating Chipmans nomination. Its time for freedom-loving senators from both parties to stand up and say enough is enough by rejecting Chipman and asking President Joe Biden (D) to send them a more suitable nominee.

Original post:
Biden's Nominee to Run the ATF Called the First Amendment a Frustration - America's 1st Freedom

Customers of Citizens Property Insurance Corp. are getting a bigger rate hike than was initially proposed, due to a change in a state law that was partially blocked by a federal judge.

Citizens officials expressed disappointment in the July 11 ruling, in which Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker found that the new law, approved by legislators this spring, violated speech rights of roofing contractors.

But the Citizens board of directors took advantage of another part of the measure (SB 76) to approve new rate changes during a meeting on July 14.

These necessary adjustments reflect the efforts of the Florida Legislature to return Citizens to its role as a residual insurance company, Citizens Chairman Carlos Beruff said in a press release. Unfortunately, we have become the first choice, or only choice, in too many regions of the state.

Since October 2019, Citizens has seen its policy count jump from 420,000 to more than 640,000 and is now seeing increases of more 5,000 new policies per week. At this pace, company officials expect the policy count to exceed 750,000 by the end of 2021, the company reports on its website.

Described as a modification of increases previously approved in February, the changes mean the average rate increase for new and renewing policies after August 1 will be 5.2%, while renewals after Feb. 1 are going up 7.6%.

The increases vary by location and still require approval from the Office of Insurance Regulation.

The new statute, which went into effect July 1, in part altered a 2011 law that capped annual increases for Citizens customers at 10%, which means that many havent been paying actuarially sound rates.

The law, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis last month, also allows Citizens to factor in additional reinsurance cost estimates when calculating rates.

Brandon-based Gale Force Roofing & Restoration LLC last month filed a lawsuit challenging the new statute, arguing that a provision prohibiting roofing contractors from advertising is unconstitutional.

Siding with the roofing company, Walker issued a preliminary injunction blocking portions of the law from being enforced. The judge found that the new law violates First Amendment rights by directly penalizing protected speech.

Walkers ruling focused on a part of the law that prevents contractors from soliciting homeowners to file insurance claims through a prohibited advertisement, which could include such things as emails, door hangers, flyers and pamphlets.

It is also clear that the threatened injuries to plaintiff from banning plaintiffs truthful commercial speech outweighs the states interest in preventing fraud, protecting consumers from exploitation, and stabilizing the insurance market, Walker wrote in the ruling.

Lawmakers passed the insurance measure on April 30 amid spiraling property insurance rates and insurers dropping policies in Florida.

Citizens President and CEO Barry Gilway said he was not surprised, but disappointed with Walkers ruling.

I understand the logic behind the order, Gilway said. But the bottom line was, in my opinion, the solicitation rate is being driven substantially by the solicitation, and aggressive solicitation of claims.

The new law also takes steps to limit attorney fees and reduces the time to file claims.

The statute is viewed as a second recent legislative victory for Citizens and the insurance industry.

In 2019, legislators placed restrictions on policyholders being able to sign over claims known as an assignment of benefits to contractors, who then pursue payment from insurers. Still, rates are going up and policies are speeding from private hands into the state-backed Citizens.

This years law raises Citizens 10% cap on annual premium increases by 1% a year over the next five years to make the state-backed insurers rates more competitive with private insurance coverage.

The law also requires Citizens to factor into its rates the reinsurance costs necessary to protect its surplus from a 1-in-100-year storm and steers policyholders to private insurance carriers if a private policy premium is within 20% of a comparable Citizens policy premium.

Citizens officials noted that state lawmakers could address Walkers ruling during the 2022 legislative session that begins in January.

However, they acknowledged that any positive signs other parts of the law are working as intended may not be noticeable until later in 2022.

I know well have data, hopefully in the next year or so, to really understand the impact of that on the incoming barrage of litigation that we see, said Christine Ashburn, Citizens chief of communications, legislative and external affairs.

In the lawsuit, Gale Force Roofing and Restoration said it advertises to homeowners to contact the company for inspections of storm damage to roofs.

Plaintiff (Gale Force Roofing and Restoration) will then truthfully convey to homeowners the nature and extent of the damage, the lawsuit said. Plaintiff will then encourage homeowners to contact their insurance company to make a claim under their residential insurance policy and execute a contract with plaintiff to assign the benefits available under the homeowners insurance policy to plaintiff.

Gale Force argued that the law chills its First Amendment rights because it forces the company to stop its written advertising that encourages consumers to contact it for the purpose of filing an insurance claim for roof damage.

The company also argued that the new law is more about reducing insurance claims than preventing fraud, saying the statute serves as a thinly veiled attempt to keep homeowners from getting outside help in making valid insurance claims for home repairs.

The bills supporters and insurance-industry officials, however, argued that questionable, if not fraudulent, roof-damage claims have played a major role in driving up costs.

In court documents, attorneys representing the state disputed that the laws restrictions violate First Amendment rights, arguing that the prohibited advertisement provision should be considered a reasonable restriction on commercial speech combating consumer exploitation and fraud.

But Walker disagreed.

While the state has the right to regulate contractors and protect Floridians from fraud, Walker wrote in the order, it must do so within the bounds set by the Constitution.

Here, the Legislature failed to do so accordingly, the judge added.

Originally posted here:
Citizens Insurance rate hike will be higher than first proposed - Florida Weekly

After Republicans prioritized a bill this year cracking down on riots, at least one lawmaker wants to penalize people who harass police officers.

Hialeah Republican Rep.Alex Rizo filed a measure (HB 11) Monday that would prohibit people from provoking or harassing law enforcement officers or impeding their duties. That bill is the first bill filed ahead for the 2022 Legislative Session, which begins in January.

The bill would criminalize approaching a police officer after being warned not to if the offender does so with the intent to disrupt the officers duties. People would also break the law if they approached to harass or provoke a physical response from the officer.

The offense would apply to people approaching or remaining within 30 feet of an officer after receiving a warning.

Breaking the law would be a second-degree misdemeanor, punishable by a $500 fine or up to 60 days in prison.

A person would break the law if they approached the officer or stood their ground with the intent to disrupt the officers duties, provoke a physical response from them or harass them.

The bill would take effect on Oct. 1, 2022.

Gov.Ron DeSantis this year signed legislation stiffening penalties against violent protesters, including those committing mob intimidation. The Governor and Republicans proposed that measure in September, after a summer of Black Lives Matter protests. However, they didnt file it till the day of the U.S. Capitol riots.

The measure was one of the 2021 Sessions most contentious issues, with all Republicans but one Sen. JeffBrandes supporting it and all Democrats opposed. In May, a coalition of groups, including the Florida branch of the NAACP, filed a lawsuit challenging the anti-riot bill for targeting speech protected under the First Amendment.

A bill prohibiting people from harassing police officers would likely draw similar First Amendment questions.

Before the Legislative Session begins on Jan. 11, the House and Senate will hold six weeks of committee meetings beginning in September. That period gives lawmakers a head start on priority legislation.

Together with Zephyrhills Republican Sen. Danny Burgess, Rizo filed an identical version of HB 11 for the 2021 Session. That measure was never scheduled for a hearing. However, it received support from Fleming Island Rep. Sam Garrison, a fellow freshman Republican who is now in line to be House Speaker in 2026.

Post Views: 794

See the article here:
First bill filed for 2022 Session would criminalize harassing police - Florida Politics