Mediaboss Marketing

By Rick Santorum

Republicans have been understandably irate about content moderation decisions made by some social media platforms. Some complain that social media is not respecting their free speech rights, although the First Amendment prohibits government from forcing social media to carry speech they dont want to carry. Now, Justice Clarence Thomas has aired his own views on First Amendment protections and mused about treating social media as common carriers and public accommodations.

Some conservatives see Thomas words as a recipe to stop social media platforms from moderating user posts on their services. I share conservative concerns about political bias, but lets examine what Justice Thomas actually said and then consider what a nondiscrimination mandate would really mean for conservatives.

Despite what some commentators suggest, Justice Thomas never said that social media platforms are common carriers or public accommodations. He noted similarities between some digital platforms and common carriers or places of public accommodation and said those similarities may give policymakers leeway to regulate. But Thomas was careful not to say that social media platforms actually fall into these categories.

Thomas has good reason to be careful about that. Businesses that are common carriers must provide their services to the public without discretion about who they serve and what customers are allowed to say. However, courts have clarified that the common carrier label describes not the legal obligations of a company but how the company does business.

Unlike common carriers such as your mobile phone service provider, social media businesses have always engaged in discretion about content they allow on their platforms. It is central to a business model whose aim is to attract users and advertisers that drive revenue. One avenue of competition is what content is moderated: Some sites do not allow expletives or pornography; others moderate what they view as medical misinformation or bullying. Far from offering their services without discriminating, social media websites like Facebook spend billions of dollars and dedicate tens of thousands of workers to determining whether content violates their community standards.

Now, some Republicans are citing Thomass words to force social media to allow any speech thats permitted under the First Amendment. Sure, that would stop social media from moderating user content in a politically biased way. But it would also leave up lots of content that is positively awful, making social media far more objectionable to users and advertisers. Its a wide-open faucet for the worst user content, including bigotry, harassment, profanity, and pornographic images and videos.

While some say parental controls and safe-search might filter this filth, few users trust these filters to protect their children from the worst that Internet users come up with. The reason is math -- over 100 billion pieces of content are posted by users every single day. Offensive posts will be missed and many inoffensive images would be inadvertently flagged by the algorithms weeding through this overwhelming amount of content.

Much content Americans consider unsafe or offensive is a matter of context, and that further exacerbates the problem. Racial terms are not always racist and bullying is often near impossible to identify unless you are the one being bullied.

Common carrier regulation applied to social media will lead to a dangerous and tortuous online experience that will do real harm to millions of children and families. That is a price that most conservatives would be hard-pressed to pay to reduce political bias in content moderation.

The fact is that, despite its flaws, the Internet has empowered conservative speech more than just about any other development in the past century. Todays conservatives have forgotten that liberal media outlets used to run only an occasional column or letter from conservative elected officials or community leaders. Now, social media allows for millions of conservatives to directly share news and views with millions of Americans.

However, if the largest social media platforms are forced to allow any user post, they will become a cesspool of unfiltered filth and hatred that would make todays social media look like Sunday morning television. Most Americans will stop using the large social media sites, and advertisers will stop paying for ads.

Sure, there will still be smaller sites like Parler and Rumble that will escape common carrier regulation, but those platforms cater to the followers of Donald Trump. Without Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, Republicans wont reach large social media audiences to persuade moderate and independent voters not present on conservative social media alternatives. You know, the voters who decide elections in swing states, suburban districts, and nationally.

Conservatives should be vocal anytime social media is biased against our news and views. But we should also be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thomass opinion certainly raises important questions, but conservatives should be careful about embracing a nondiscrimination mandate for social media. If we do, we will almost certainly end up creating an internet that is worse for everyone, especially for conservatives.

Rick Santorum is a former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania who ran for the presidency in 2012 and 2016 in the Republican primarries.

Read more:
What Justice Thomas really said about regulating social media | Opinion - pennlive.com

ROCKFORD Demonstrators will conduct their weeklyprotests of racial injustice at Rockford City Market again this year even as an expanded market footprint will make it more difficult to deliver their message to visitors.

Gone this year are dedicated protest zones that officials say demonstrators ignored last year. And the streets where protesters marched a year ago will now be inside an expanded City Market areafilled with vendors, displaysand activities.

Market and city officials say the demonstrators' aggressive tactics are meant to agitate, disturb and disrupt a market where about 55 vendors many of them women and minorities plan to work in an effort to establish or expand businesses. In addition to the pandemic, officials blame the demonstrators and their clashes with police last summer for lowmarket attendance in 2020.

Leslie Rolfe, who has been at the forefront of dozens of marches and orchestrated a 224-day and counting continuing protest outside Rockford City Hall,says protesters didnot aimto disrupt the market. But he said they ultimately became disruptive because of the response of market organizers to their presence and heavy-handedpolice tactics which he says were cheered by some "racist" onlookers.

More: Rockford City Market adds new vendors, activities and larger area for its 12th season

Rolfe said his goal is to force residents to confront issues of police brutality, massincarceration and racial discrimination.

"Wearen'tthepeoplewho arelimitingthe people coming inand out of City Market," Rolfe said."The 'City Market Protest' isn'tcalled the 'City Market Boycott'or 'Sabotage City Market.'

"Even last year, when we were on the crosswalk, anybodygoingintoCity Market could go and support thevendors or support the entrepreneurs and people trying to make new businesses. It's completely within your abilities to walk into City Market, find the vendor you were looking for, get yourself something to eat, pay themmoney andfind out if you like the food."

Rolfe saidthe City Market footprint was expanded this year in an effort to quiet protesters, pushing them to the fringes of the event.

But officials say the expanded footprint approved by Rockford City Council was designed to accommodate social distancing amid the pandemic. The expansion was originally sought months ago at a time when they could not know whatreopening phase Illinois and Rockford would be in.

It is also meant to better include nearby businesses in the City Market, activating the areas around them and creating a street festival atmosphere.

Joe Marino Park, once designated a protest area, is now set aside for Rockford Park District programs.

As State Street becomes part of the market grounds from North Wyman Street to North First Street, the areas where protesters once marched will be filled withvendors, activities, large displays and special events, even stretching across the bridge.

Madison Street will be lined with outdoor caf style seating along withfood and drink vendors.

Part music festival, part farmer's market and part retail event, the Rock River Development Partnership'sCity Market was a surprise hit when it opened more than a decade ago.

It drew thousands of people and breathed new life into what was once a desolate downtown. It helped attract new downtown residents, spawned new businesses and created a weekly summerritual in the heart of the city.

Also: Justin Fern plans $18.4 million loft project on South Main in Rockford

City Market drewa record 111,160 visits in 2019. Attendance dropped to a quarter of that last year amid the pandemic and at-times confrontational demonstrations.

"Our goal has always been to drive traffic to the surrounding businesses," said Cathy McDermott, executive director of the Rock River Development Partnership. "That has happened quite well, I think, but having them actually be out on the streets andsidewalks, part of the outdoor festival atmosphere, was really our goal this year."

Rockford Mayor Tom McNamara said a protest zone was established last season to safely accommodate demonstrators, but "they chose not to utilize it."

McNamara says after the brutal slaying of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody, the city has worked to institute reforms to protect the rights of residents, prevent excessive uses of force, treat those in mental health crisis with compassion and hold police and residents accountable.

Read this: Rockford considers $3.4 million for police body cameras

McNamara said protesters who seemingly began by fightingfor changenow seem to "have placed a greater emphasis on being disruptive and are primarily concerned with local celebrity and self-attention."

"They continue to harass and even threaten employees at the city when the employees are entering and exiting City Hall or when they are just out doing their jobs, like cleaning up garbage, and their vulgar language theyve placed on the sidewalks and the City Hall building," McNamara said."Theyve followed staff and surrounded their vehicles. They continue to block the sidewalks, which is not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.They continue to place items on light poles which is clearly against our ordinance, even when we have provided them an alternative location for memorials.They shout into bullhorns and blare sirens at all hours of the day."

Related: 6 ways Rockford could reform policing

During a May 7 news conference to introduce the 12th season of the City Market and announce the expanded footprint, Rolfebanged on the windows outside the Indoor City Market and shouted about recent incidents of what he views as police brutality.

Authorities arrested Rolfe Thursday nearly a week later charging him with misdemeanor disorderly conduct. They say Rolfe followed, harassed and shouted obscenities at a Rockford city official after the news conference.

Deputy Chief Kurt Whisenand said the Rockford Police Department will protect anyone exercising theirFirst Amendment rights of free speech and assembly. But Whisenand said police must intervene if demonstrations endanger the public or violate the law.

Whisenand said police will work to accommodate protesters, allowing them space to deliver their message within "sight and sound" of the City Market. Since the City Market has a city-issued permit however, what transpires inside the footprint will be up to City Market organizers almost as if it were onprivate property.

"We always err on the side of the First Amendment," Whisenand said."We 100% are there to protect anybodys First Amendment rights. Thereare limits to that.Youcan'tcreate a publicsafetyrisk."

Jeff Kolkey: jkolkey@rrstar.com; @jeffkolkey

Continued here:
Protesters: Changes to the Rockford City Market are meant to stymie their message - Rockford Register Star

On May 7, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a billSenate Bill 1890to set $3,000 limits on campaign contributions to committees in support of or opposition to ballot initiatives until the secretary of state certifies the measure for the ballot and assigns it a ballot position and number designation. The bill was designed to lift the contribution limits after a measure is put on the ballot.

On April 14, the Florida Senate passed the bill 23-17. Twenty-three Republicans were in favor, and 16 Democrats and one Republican were opposed. On April 26, the Florida House of Representatives passed the bill 75-40. All 75 voting Republicans were in favor, and all 40 voting Democrats were opposed.

In Florida, initiative proponents must collect signatures equal to 8% of votes cast at the previous presidential election. The requirement to put an initiative on the 2022 ballot is 891,589 valid signatures. Florida also has a signature distribution requirement, which requires that signatures equaling at least 8% of the district-wide vote in the last presidential election be collected from at least half (14) of the states 27 congressional districts. In 2020, four initiatives qualified for the ballot in Florida. The petition drives to put those measures on the ballot cost an average of $6.7 million each, ranging from $4 million to $8.8 million. From 2016 through 2020, the average total cost of an initiative petition drive that successfully qualified an initiative for the ballot in Florida was about $5.1 million.

Nationwide, the average total cost of a successful initiative petition drive was $2.1 million in 2020. It was $1.2 million in 2018.

In Florida, the petition drives that put the four initiatives that were on the ballot in 2020 were each funded by one donor or entities that were all associated.

On May 8, the ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida arguing that SB 1890 violates First Amendment freedom of speech rights and that the state has no significant state or public interest in curtailing debate and discussion of a ballot measure. The lawsuit cited previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings that overturned limitations on campaign contributions for ballot measure committees, including Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981), First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), and Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases that political contributions constitute freedom of speech and cannot be limited without a compelling state interest, such as to prevent corruption and bribery. The court has also ruled that referenda are held on issues, not candidates for public office. The risk of corruption perceived in cases involving candidate elections simply is not present in a popular vote on a public issue.

As of May 3, 2021, Ballotpedia had tracked 197 legislative proposals concerning ballot initiatives, veto referendums, referrals, local ballot measures, and recall in 39 states in 2021 legislative sessions. At least 18 had been approved, and 20 had been defeated or had died.

Notable topics among bills introduced in 2021 sessions include supermajority requirement increases, signature requirement and distribution requirement increases, single-subject rules, pay-per-signature bans, residency requirements and other circulator restrictions, fiscal impact statement and funding source requirements, and ballot measure campaign contribution restrictions.

Additional reading:

Go here to read the rest:
Florida governor signs bill limiting contributions to ballot initiative petition drive campaigns to $3000 - Ballotpedia News

Photograph by Danna Singer / ACLU / Reuters

In 2017, Brandi Levy, a junior-varsity cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School, in Pennsylvania, was denied a spot on the schools varsity squad. That weekend,off campus, Levy posted a furious, profanity-filled photo and message about the decision on Snapchat. A student who saw the message showed a screenshot to her motherthe cheer coach. Levy was barred from cheerleading for the rest of the year. The A.C.L.U. helped Levys parents file suit against the school in federal court, claiming that Brandis First Amendment right to free speech had been curtailed. Last week, four years after that pivotal snap, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. Jeannie Suk Gersenjoins Dorothy Wickenden to discuss this contentious case and what it means for free speech in the digital age.

Read the original here:
A High-School Cheerleader, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment - The New Yorker

The tumultuous events of the past year have highlighted the First Amendments vital role as a pillar of American democracy. They have also underscored the need for vigilance in defending it.

Journalists coverage of these events the pandemic, the nationwide protests denouncing police killings of Black Americans and supporting racial justice, and the bitterly contested presidential election and its aftermath has put renewed focus on the protection of freedom of the press.

Attacks by law enforcement on protesters and journalists have brought to prominence two other First Amendment protections: freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Freedom of speech is also at the center of ongoing debates over controversial speakers on college campuses and the role of social media companies in limiting or blocking hate speech and disinformation on their platforms.

Now, the initial amendment to the U.S. Constitution is being tested on multiple fronts:

Because of these and other factors, understanding the First Amendments role in protecting key freedoms is now especially important.

Expression by speakers across the ideological spectrum is facing actual or threatened suppression by not only government officials, but also other powerful societal forces, from tech giants to social media mobs, Nadine Strossen, an expert on constitutional law and a former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, told me. No matter who we are, no matter what we believe, we all have a stake in ensuring meaningful free speech for everyone.

This starts with knowing the rights and freedoms that the amendment protects. A 2019 survey by the Freedom Forum Institute found that only 1% of Americans could name all five: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. More than a quarter (29%) could not name a single one.

Asked about the First Amendments language at her Supreme Court confirmation hearing last year, even Amy Coney Barrett nominated to fill the seat long held by Ruth Bader Ginsburg was unable to cite the right to petition the government.

It extends to knowing what the amendment covers and what it does not.

The First Amendment is frequently invoked in discussions of online speech. While it states that Congress shall make no law that infringes on the protections it cites, it says nothing about private companies, such as Facebook or Twitter, curating content on their platforms and restricting speech that they deem harmful.

As a result, support for it should never be taken for granted.

The future of the First Amendment seems uncertain. So does the underlying reality of public opinion in this area and its trajectory moving forward. That was the conclusion of High School Student Views of the First Amendment, a 2019 report commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation that summarized the findings of seven national surveys of U.S. high school students from 2004 to 2018. A Knight survey of college students, published in 2020, found that students today are less inclined than their recent predecessors to view First Amendment freedoms as secure in society.

Why? Heres one reason: Court decisions that are often the most important for example, whether displaying a swastika is a form of free speech or whether speakers should be permitted to share offensive views on college campuses may be challenging for many to understand.

This makes it imperative that the First Amendment be taught in schools as the bedrock of the countrys commitment to individual rights and responsibilities and a core part of civics education.

As Strossen told me, The only secure protection for free speech is a public that understands its importance and therefore defends it.

TheNews Literacy Project, a nonpartisan national education nonprofit, provides programs and resources for educators and the public to teach, learn and share the abilities needed to be smart, active consumers of news and information and equal and engaged participants in a democracy.

Original post:
Opinion: The past year has underscored the need for vigilance in defending the First Amendment - Poynter