Mediaboss Marketing

An FBI raid on Project Veritas leader James OKeefes home in early November 2021has sparked an unusual demonstration of support from the very establishment media that OKeefe has spent his career targeting and trashing.

The raid was conductedon the suspicionthat OKeefe and former Project Veritas staffers were implicated in the theft of President Joe Bidens daughter Ashleys diary before the 2020 election. The Department of Justice said the cellphones sought in the raid would reveal evidence of aiding and abetting the transport of stolen property worth $5,000 or more across state lines, and of failure to report the theft to law enforcementin violation of federal law.

Project Veritas saysthat the phones contain attorney-client privileged information and newsgathering materials protected by the First Amendment.

OKeefe is the self-describedprogressive radicaland founder and CEO ofProject Veritas. His organization hasa long history of conducting undercover sting operations, frequently targeting progressive nonprofits, politicians and the news media with the stated aim of disclosing bias, hypocrisy and illegal activity.

Manyjournalists repudiate Project Veritas and its methods, contending that the organization is ideologically driven and routinely violates established norms of media ethics.

As aprofessor of media ethics and law, Ive been grappling with how to think about Project Veritas and its escapadesfor years. Like many media lawyers, I wish it would just go away.

Nevertheless, media organizations and their supporters, such as theAmerican Civil Liberties Union, theCommittee to Protect Journalists, and theReporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, of which I served as executive director from 1985 to 1999, rallied to protest the searches and seizures as a possible violation of the First Amendment right of a news organization to gather information. They demanded answers about why Project Veritas was targeted in the investigation. And they made clear that they were concerned about more than just Project Veritas, whose methods they have often decried.

Project Veritas bills itself a nonprofit journalism enterprise, and itswebsite touts its many effortsto achieve a more ethical and transparent society.

But its work doesnt look much like traditional journalism. One of its morenotorious undertakingsinvolved making secret recordings at various offices of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in 2009, purporting to show ACORN staffers advising OKeefe and his associate how to evade taxes and engage in human trafficking.

Although a subsequent investigation by theCalifornia Attorney General concluded that the videos had been severely edited,their release promptedCongress to freeze federal funding to ACORN. ACORN was eventually exonerated by the Government Accountability Office, but Project Veritas continues to brag about its takedown of the organization as one of itssuccesses.

Project Veritas also revels in exposs of what it callspolitical bias in the mainstream media, including CNN, ABC, National Public Radio, and The Washington Post. Recently, it sued The New York Times in state court in Westchester County, New York, claiming that the newspaperdefamedit by calling its videos alleging voter fraud in Minneapolis misinformation. It has now used that case as the means to obtain acourt orderto compel the Times to curtail its reporting about the investigation, which Project Veritas claims came from government leaks an extraordinary request for prior restraint unprecedented since theSupreme Courts Pentagon Paperscase in 1971, and hardly consistent with support of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has said that the First Amendmentprovides some protection for newsgathering, although it does not permit the news media toviolate laws that apply to everyone. Because the government does not issue licenses to journalists, anyone who gathers and disseminates information to the public can claim to be the press. Thats why the FBI raid concerns members of the news media. They fear theycould be next.

For their part,the attorneys representing Project Veritas saythat two anonymous individuals, who claimed they had legally acquired the diary after Ashley Biden abandoned it at a house in Florida, offered to sell it to Project Veritas for possible publication. After the lawyers for both parties negotiated an arms length agreement, Project Veritas took delivery of the diary.

Project Veritas claims that it couldnt authenticate the diary to its satisfaction and after trying unsuccessfully to return it to Bidens lawyer,sent it back to local law enforcement officials.

If this version of events is true, U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in a 2001 press-related case,Bartnicki v. Vopper, should apply. There, the high court ruled that a media organization can disclose important information illegally obtained by a third party, as long as the organization itself was not involved.

A strangers illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote.

If Project Veritas was not involved in the theft of the diary, it could also be covered by thePrivacy Protection Act of 1980, which bars both federal and state law enforcement from seizing journalists work product and documentary materials except in very limited circumstances.

In fact, the Justice Department has been prohibited from even subpoenaing journalists byAttorney General guidelinesthat date back to 1974 although investigations into leaks of classified information led to notable exceptions to this rule during theObama and Trump administrations.

Earlier this year, Biden said it wassimply, simply wrongto compel journalists to reveal their sources, andAttorney General Merrick Garlandpromised in July to beef up the guidelines and make them law to ensure that future administrations would also be bound by them, though he has yet to do so.

Project Veritassays it is covered by the Privacy Protection Act, which protects those engaged in public communication, as well as the guidelines.

But in defending the FBI raid on OKeefes home, the government contends that it has followed all applicable regulations and policies regarding what it calls potential members of the news media suggesting that they think Project Veritas isnt one.

Until the underlying affidavits supporting the warrants are unsealed, we wont know whether the U.S. Attorney thinks that Project Veritas committed a crime, or that it isnt a news organization. Either possibility has serious ramifications for all media.

If Project Veritas is found guilty of a crime, any journalist who transports leaked or stolen information across state lines could be charged with violation of the law. Its unclear what that means today when so many documents are transmitted electronically.

Or, if the government narrowly defines the press based on its political outlook or ethics, then no news organization is safe from attacks by future administrations.

Either way, the mainstream media are holding their collective noses and supporting Project Veritas in its fight. Its a matter of principle, but also of self-preservation.

Jane Kirtley is the Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Read more from the original source:
Project Veritas and the mainstream media are strange allies in the fight to protect press freedom - Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard

And unlike Haugens media-grabbing Capitol appearance in early October, when she testified solo in front of a Senate Commerce subcommittee, she had to share the spotlight Wednesday. Republicans called their own former Facebook employee to testify alongside her: A conservative who echoed their own arguments about censorship.

Lawmakers also appeared far apart on the hearings main topic: how to rewrite Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a decades-old law that provides broad liability protections over user-posted content online.

Haugen even faced some harsh public questioning from GOP lawmakers Wednesday for the first time ever.

Here are POLITICOs top takeaways from the hearing:

The warm reception and praise Haugen received during her earlier appearances before the Senate and policymakers in Europe were less evident Wednesday, as some Republicans took a hostile tone with the former Facebook product manager.

Several lawmakers, especially Democrats, still heaped praise on her for divulging thousands of internal documents detailing Facebooks research into the harm its products inflict on vulnerable populations or political discourse. But the tough questioning from some GOP members, along with low in-person attendance at the hearing, show that her star power may be dwindling and that her credibility with Republican lawmakers may be starting to wear thin.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) were among the lawmakers who grilled, snubbed or interrupted Haugen in a manner unseen at the Senate hearing in October, when members of their party joined Democrats in applauding Haugens strength and bravery for coming forward.

McMorris Rodgers zeroed in on GOP complaints that social media companies censor conservative voices and in doing so, appeared to pin Haugen as a liberal even though she has not been explicit about her political views.

"Do you support Big Tech's censorship of constitutionally protected speech on their platforms?" McMorris Rodgers said, demanding a yes-or-no answer.

When Haugen failed to respond in one word, McMorris Rodgers interrupted her, saying: I take it as a no.

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen appears before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee at the Russell Senate Office Building on Oct. 5, 2021 in Washington, D.C. | Matt McClain-Pool/Getty Images

In another apparent snub, Johnson posed a question to Haugen but then asked witness Kara Frederick, a tech policy research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, to respond. Johnson raised concerns about Haugens recent testimony before the U.K. Parliament in which she had called for regulators to intervene in tech platforms content moderation operations. Johnson argued that government involvement in private businesses content moderation is a threat to the First Amendment.

This is un-American, Johnson said in his line of questioning to Haugen but he tossed the floor to Frederick before Haugen could respond.

It added up to often-chillier treatment than Haugen has received since going public as the Facebook whistleblower in October, including in her high-rated 60 Minutes appearance and recent profile in Vogue.

Frederick, the Republicans key witness on Wednesday, offered a stark contrast at times with Haugen, especially on the accusations that Facebook censors conservative viewpoints on topics such as the origins of the Covid pandemic.

Frederick, who worked at Facebook from 2016 to 2017 and helped develop its Global Security Counterterrorism Analysis Program, said she joined the company because of what she saw as its mission the democratization of information.

But I was wrong, its 2021, and the verdict is in: Big Tech is an enemy of the people, she said. It is time all independently minded citizens recognize this. Her arguments were echoed by numerous Republican lawmakers, even as they opposed the idea of creating an agency to regulate the tech giants.

She added that social media companies like Twitter and Facebook censor Republican lawmakers more than Democrats. Both companies have previously rejected these accusations, and some analysis has found that right-leaning social media influencers, conservative media outlets and other GOP supporters dominate online discussions on hot political topics.

Holding Big Tech accountable should result in less censorship, not more, Frederick said.

Meanwhile, Haugen called for tougher government oversight of social media companies, including their algorithms.

But the two witnesses agreed on one thing: that Facebooks algorithms amplify extremist content on the platform.

I am extremely concerned about Facebooks role in things like counterterrorism or counter-state actors that are weaponizing the platform, Haugen said. Facebook is chronically under-invested in those capacities and if you knew the size of the counterterrorism team for the threat investigators youd be shocked.

Facebook, which recently renamed itself Meta, contested this assertion. The company has more than 350 employees working against organizations that proclaim or are engaged in violence and will spend over $5 billion on safety and security this year, according to a spokesperson. (Thats a small percentage of the companys revenues, Haugen noted.) The company removed 9.8 million pieces of terrorism content from July to September, according to its transparency center.

Read Our Coverage on The Facebook Papers

Frederick, who was deployed three times to Afghanistan for the Defense Department, said she went to work at Facebook because she believed in the danger of foreign Islamic terrorism. I went to make sure that the platform was hostile to those bad actors, illegal actors. Instead, she said, human traffickers, Islamist terrorists and drug cartels all use the platform, despite being against Facebooks policies.

Democrats and Republicans agreed that Congress needs to focus on the algorithms that the companies use to determine what content their users see including in the debate about the sweeping liability protections the platforms enjoy under Section 230.

They sharply diverged from there, however.

Democrats often argue that social media platforms lean on the 1996 law to evade responsibility for misinformation, hate speech and other harmful material on their sites, while many Republicans contend that the statute enables tech companies to censor conservative voices with impunity.

None of the Democrat-led bills that had been slated for consideration at Wednesdays hearing had Republican support a reflection of the two parties existing on vastly different wavelengths on Section 230 changes.

Crenshaw emphasized that even bipartisan outrage at Facebook and other large tech players cannot bring the parties closer together on the matter.

"I want to be clear. ... Republicans and Democrats do not agree on this issue, he said during the hearing. I've observed a clever strategy by the media and some of my colleagues implying that we all agree, that we're all moving in the right direction towards the same thing: We're all mad at Big Tech. This is not really true; we have very different views of the problem.

Despite some commonalities in the parties respective proposals, the parties are a long way from sorting through thornier details like the contours of what material Section 230 should cover.

Some Republicans have called for repealing the statute entirely. One of four Democratic bills discussed at the hearing the SAFE TECH Act (H.R. 3421 (117)) would take a narrower approach, removing the liability protections when it comes to extremist and terrorist content.

A separate group of Energy and Commerce lawmakers the consumer protection subcommittee led by Chair Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is convening a related hearing Dec. 9 on legislation aimed at bringing transparency and accountability to social media platforms and their algorithms. Instagram head Adam Mosseri faces a grilling before the Senate Commerce consumer protection panel a day earlier, albeit on a more bipartisan issue: Childrens privacy online.

But some see the dissonance across party lines on Section 230 as a threat to any broader efforts to rein in tech companies.

There are ideas coming from both sides of the dais that are worth debating, said Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.). The devils in the details, but if were not even trying to engage in a bipartisan process, were never going to get a strong or lasting set of policies.

Continue reading here:
Tech feuding flares on the Hill as Haugens star power fades - Politico

Twitter shares jump amid news of CEO Jack Dorsey stepping down. FOX Business' Susan Li with more updates.

New Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal was thrust into the spotlight on Monday when Jack Dorsey announced he would step down from the position in a surprise decision that puts a man who once declared the company is "not to be bound by the First Amendment" in charge of the social media juggernaut.

Agrawal, who was Twitter's chief technology officer until the social media giant's board unanimously appointed him to replace Dorsey, was quickly praised by his successor.

New Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal was thrust into the spotlight on Monday when Jack Dorsey announced he would step down. (Twitter) (Twitter | Istock)

TWITTER CEO JACK DORSEY TO STEP DOWN

"Hes been my choice for some time given how deeply he understands the company and its needs," Dorsey wrote. "Parag has been behind every critical decision that helped turn this company around. Hes curious, probing, rational, creative, demanding, self-aware, and humble. He leads with heart and soul, and is someone I learn from daily. My trust in him as our CEO is bone deep."

Agrawal also took to Twitter with thoughts on his promotion.

"Im honored and humbled," he wrote to kick off a lengthy statement.

"We recently updated our strategy to hit ambitious goals, and I believe that strategy to be bold and right. But our critical challenge is how we work to execute it against and deliver results thats how well make Twitter the best it can be for our customers, shareholders, and for each of you."

TWITTER LAUNCHING CRYPTOCURRENCY-FOCUSED TEAM

Agrawal quickly learned what its like to run such a polarizing company, as one of his old tweets was unearthed moments after he was put in charge. Many thought a 2010 message sent by Agrawals verified account claimed all White people are racist and critics quickly mocked Twitter for the hire. However, it was revealed that he was simply quoting comedian Asif Mandvi from "The Daily Show," which Agrawal himself pointed out 11 years ago in a follow-up tweet.

Parag Agrawal joined twitter in 2011 and has been the companys CTO since 2017. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

Ironically, Agrawal now oversees a company that is infamous for helping cancel culture ruin careers of public figures who sent pre-fame tweets that were not simply the quote of a comedian.

"It's just wild that Twitter didn't wipe or at lest [sic] spotcheck its new CEO's past tweets considering how often old (and usually contextless) tweets get resurfaced on here to derail someone recently thrust into a position of power or fame," New York Times tech reporter Ryan Mac observed.

Reason senior editor Robby Soave wrote the Mandvi was harmless, but "something Agrawal said just one year ago is actually concerning" before sharing an Agrawal quote.

"Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation," Agrawal said in 2020 during an interview with Technology Reviews Editor-in-Chief Gideon Lichfield. "The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed."

Jack Dorsey announced he would step down as Twitter CEO on Monday. (Credit: House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing screenshot)

Agrawal joined Twitter in 2011 and has been the companys CTO since 2017. In that role, he led Twitters technical strategy and improved "development velocity while advancing the state of Machine Learning across the company," the company said. He was previously Twitters first Distinguished Engineer and has been celebrated by the company for work across both across revenue and consumer engineering.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

"Parag understands Twitter and appreciates the Company's unique potential. He has been instrumental in tackling our most important priorities, including accelerating our development velocity, and I know he'll hit the ground running to strengthen execution and deliver results. The Board has the utmost confidence in Parag," Twitter's incoming Independent Board Chair Bret Taylor, who is also president and COO of Salesforce, said in a statement.

Agrawal holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science fromStanford University. He earned his Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science and Engineering from theIndian Institute of Technology,Bombay.

Fox News Lucas Manfredi contributed to this report.

Read this article:
New Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal once said company is not to be bound by the First Amendment - Fox Business

During the South Dakota State University Students Association meeting Nov. 29, Senators were addressed by the director of the Wintrode Student Success Center, Jody Owen, as well as the Little International and Formula SAE clubs. The Senate also passed three new amendments and tabled another amendment until the Dec. 6 meeting.

Wintrode:

Jody Owen, director of the Wintrode Student Success Center and coordinator for undergraduate academic advising, spoke to the Senate Monday about the efficacy of the center.

We served more than 4,300 unique students at SDSU, which is about 43% of the undergraduate population, and had about 28,000 visits, Owen said about the 2020 to 2021 school year.

The Wintrode tutoring program offers in-person and virtual options to accommodate most students. According to Owen, students may earn between half a letter grade and a full letter grade higher when they regularly participate in supplemental instruction.

The center also offers early-alerts for grades. 93 percent of students who receive the alert will take steps to improve in the class, Owen said.

Little International:

The 99th Little I will be a two-day event held April 1 -2. The 98th Little I was held March 26 -27, 2021 and marked a return to in-person events after the 97th was canceled in 2020 due to COVID-19 concerns. The club expects a high turnout this year despite continued pandemic concerns in some localities.

Were looking at ramping up the fundraising and sponsorships and getting the word out to as many people as possible, Dalton Howe, the clubs treasurer, said.

Last year, the club received $8,000 from the Students Association.

Formula SAE:

In the Formula SAE club, students build formula-style race cars. The club has about a year to design and build the car. From there, the car will have to pass a series of tests to go on to the convention. At the convention, SDSU will compete with colleges from around the world.

This year, the team of about 40 active students are trying to transition to a new engine to fare better in the competition.

Amendments:

The Senate passed three new amendments Monday and tabled another. The first amendment was 21-7-A, which provided clarity on how QR codes are to be used on Students Association campaign material. The amendment requires QR codes to be correctly labeled on materials. The Senate recognizes QR codes as a way to help increase voter turnout, which was less than 20% in 2021.

The second amendment passed Monday, 21-8-A, will require future SA campaign posters to include Sponsored by the Students Association, rather than sponsored by the Office of Student Activities.

The third amendment passed recognizes November as Native American Heritage Month.

This month is focused on celebrating Native American people by highlighting contributions of Native people and also, highlighting different indigenous stories and culture, 21-13-R reads.

All three amendments passed unanimously.

A fourth amendment that was set to be voted on was tabled. 21-12-R is a move to reverse a South Dakota Board of Regents policy that restricts alcoholic beverages at athletic events by only allowing alcohol sales in box suites and lounge areas.

[UPD] sees tailgating as a problem. People will feel like they need to get drunk and will drink too much before the game, Senator Jonathon Sundet said about the SDBOR policy.

Sundet asked the Senate to postpone the vote to allow more time for revision.

Excerpt from:
SA in brief: Little International, Formula SAE and amendments - SDSU Collegian

People have been asking me why I havent been writing to the Readers Forum lately. I told them nothing has fire me up recently.

Well, Wilbert Clarks letter on Nov. 12 Read the Constitution for what it is did just that, fired me up.

First of all Clark, the definition of protest is: An action of expressing disapproval. The definition of insurrection is: A violent uprising. Jan. 6 was violent. Do you really want to argue that?

Secondly, you justify what happened by saying we the people own the federal buildings. We the people also own the public library, so can we the people just walk in and throw all the books on the floor and threaten to hang the workers? Are we animals?

And third, should I read the Constitution before or after the 27 amendments were added, because if you interpret the Constitution to believe that it will stand behind this mutiny on Jan. 6, then the Constitution needs a 28th Amendment added.

Maybe you should read the First Amendment that includes, the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

Its right there every morning at the top of this page.

Tina Blough

Roxbury

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read more:
Letter to the editor | Read the First Amendment | Readers Forum | tribdem.com - TribDem.com