Mediaboss Marketing

(Reuters) - In 1986, when Congress enacted the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Internet was still in its larval stage. Some U.S. government agencies communicated via the Defense Departments Arpanet, the Internets precursor. Universities and research centers were just starting to network with the government and each other. Commercial Internet service providers didnt exist. Tim Berners-Lee hadnt yet published his revolutionary proposal to link computers around the worldto share information. Mark Zuckerberg was 2 years old.

The CFAA, in other words, was not written to answer the question posed in litigation between the data analytics company hiQ and the social media site LinkedIn: Does a social media site control access to information its users post publicly? As Ive previously explained, hiQs business is to sell employers data analysis bases on their employees public LinkedIn profiles. LinkedIn believes hiQs data harvesting violates its rules. In May, LinkedIn sent hiQ a cease-and-desist letter advising the data company that LinkedIn had blocked its access to members profiles. If hiQ attempted to circumvent the block, LinkedIn said, it could face prosecution under the 1986 computer fraud law, which criminalizes unauthorized access to a computer.

Last month, hiQ sued LinkedIn, seeking an injunction to allow hiQ to continue scraping public data from LinkedIn. LinkedIn is allowing hiQ access while the litigation moves forward, but hiQs CEO, Mark Weidick, has said (including to me in an interview Tuesday) that his business probably wont survive if it loses its case against LinkedIn.

But hiQs fate is hardly the only consequence of the case. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco, who presided last week over a hearingon hiQs motion for a preliminary injunction, will have to decide whether the CFAA is in tension with the First Amendment. Can private Internet companies use the CFAA to control access to public information? Or does the doctrine of constitutional avoidance preclude interpreting the 1986 law in a way that implicates the First Amendment?

Its no accident that both hiQ and LinkedIn brought in top-notch constitutional lawyers to argue at last weeks hearing. Former U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli of Munger Tolles & Olson represented LinkedIn, which contends hiQ has no First Amendment right of access to LinkedIns computer servers. Under the 9th Circuits interpretation of the CFAA, LinkedIn argued, hiQ is akin to a trespasser who has been warned to go away.

Verrilli drew an analogy between LinkedIns publicly available profiles and books in a public library. You go and get books and other information and material from the public library, but the fact that the information's available to the public in that sense doesn't mean that you can break into the library with a crowbar at two in the morning because you're seized with a desire to read 'Moby Dick', Verrilli said. It doesn't mean that you can take a book out, when you're supposed to return it in two weeks, and keep it for a year, because you want that information. It doesn't mean if your library privileges have been revoked for abusing the rules, that you can show a fake ID at the door to get back in. The information's public, but it's subject to conditions.

Verrillis library comparison was sufficiently compelling that hiQs constitutional heavyweight, Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, took care to counter it. Library books, he said, used to have borrowing cards in the back of books showing how often books were checked out. A borrower could presumably could have looked at those cards to figure out which books were most popular a rudimentary form of the data analytics hiQ performs. LinkedIn, in Tribes analogy, is trying to use the threat of government prosecution under the CFAA to bar hiQ from looking at an electronic equivalent of those old-school library book cards.

For the government to make it a crime for me to make use of that information because they want to be the exclusive distributors of information about what's popular to read would, of course, be unconstitutional, Tribe said. That's the setting in which I want to put this case.

According to hiQ, which is also represented by Farella Braun & Martel, LinkedIns trespassing comparisons dont apply because hiQ never ventured beyond public LinkedIn profiles. The data company didnt use someone elses password to access LinkedIn, for example, or hack LinkedIn servers. HiQ argued that social media sites like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter are modern-day public forums, as the U.S. Supreme Court just held in June, in Packingham v. North Carolina. The CFAA, hiQ contends, cannot be read to give LinkedIn the power to use government authority to suppress the public flow of information.

Giving any powerful entity, public or private, the ability to choke off, at its discretion, speech is a dangerous path down which we should not go, Tribe said at the hearing.

Judge Chen, who previously presided over one of the 9th Circuits landmark CFAA cases, U.S. v. Nosal, was admirably engaged with both sides lawyers during oral argument, thanking them at the end of the hearing for their superb presentations. He promised a quick decision, since, as he said, I've got a feeling it's not going to end here.

Ive got a feeling hes right about that.

View original post here:
HiQ v. LinkedIn: Does First Amendment limit application of computer ... - Reuters

Shirley Tipton's Friday, July 28 Herald and News letter, "Johnson Amendment needs to be kept alive", deeply disturbs bothers and angers me.

This letter is predicated upon blatant ignorance! Her letter in essence is not only promoting continuing government censorship of the First Amendment and free speech by targeting and censoring pastors, but likewise defends another career criminal politician from America's shameful past.

I previously alluded to this in my Sept. 27, 2016 letter, also to the Herald and News, titled: "Trump description would fit LBJ well."

question: why are the worse socialists in America ignorant, deluded self righteous senior citizens who blindly "suck up to the party line," continue to re-elect repeat offenders to both houses of Congress and state legislatures, and stubbornly embrace the almighty nanny state?

Perhaps the links listed below will help expose and rebuke the unconstitutional 1954 Johnson Amendment which rightly is government censorship. These include:

"How the Johnson Amendment Threatens Churches's Freedoms" by Michelle Terry

"Come Out of Hiding Pastors, Trump Has Set You Free", May 11, 2017 by Dave Daubenmire.

This along with other credible writers such as Devvy Kidd, Chuck Baldwin, etc. remain archived

"Lawmakers Have a Plan to Stop IRS From Censoring the Free Speech of Pastors" by Rachel del

guidice", October 4, 2016.

Need I continue on? Probably not. Again, after reading Shirley Tipton's letter "I got heated up

like the barrel jacket on a World War II German MG-42 machine gun!" Yet, the Bible states: "Be ye angry and sin not, do not let the sun go down on your wrath."

I attempt to channel my anger into civic activism.

Read the original:
Promoting First Amendment censorship | Letters | heraldandnews.com - Herald and News

As a chapter chair of College Republicans, I have never been more alarmed by the blatant attack on our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech than I am at the present.

Over the past decade (and particularly the past year), universities across the country have left conservative-leaning students and faculty reeling over their treatment of seemingly benign ideas. Organizations like Campus Reform were forced into existence as a response to faculty and administration officials on various campuses to expose behavior that was intended to stifle conservative views. While student groups like College Republicans and Turning Point USA are attempting to reverse the dangerous course that many of these campuses are set on, the have a long way to go before higher-education can be taken seriously again.

While stories about liberal campuses enforcing liberal policies and in some cases disenfranchising their conservative students go back many years, it appears that incidents have spiked over the past year in particular. It doesnt take much for many of us to recall the riots in Berkeley, California over Milo Yiannopoulos and the violence that was caused. However, the nonsense continues heavily in California, where a case in which conservative students at Orange Coast College allege that their college hired an investigator to harass them is only one of many in the state.

However, its clear that the problem isnt just California, its everywhere. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has logged hundreds of cases across the nation, including ones in Louisiana and Texas. The organization has handled cases at LSU, Texas A&M San Antonio, TCU, Texas Tech, and others over cases regarding free speech and other topics. As recently as yesterday, in a case that has not been noted by FIRE but rather by media outlets, a student government diversity chair from the University of Central Florida declared on social media that Trump supporters are not welcome on our campus. These cases are not isolated; they are rampant throughout the United States.

Today, that very same sort of case came to Southern Methodist University in the worst sort of way. Last week, the SMU chapter of Young Americans for Freedom submitted a request in order to place 2,977 flags in memory of the victims of the September 11th attacks. Not only was their request denied by SMU administration, but the administration included in its response letter that The University also respects the right of all members of the community to avoid messages that are triggering, harmful, or harassing. The SMU College Republicans, along with SMU College Democrats, Turning Point USA at SMU, Mustangs for Life, SMU Feminist Equality Movement, and SMU Young Americans for Freedom all responded with a fierce bipartisan rebuke of the administrations decision.

A flag memorial to honor those who lost their lives in the events of 9/11, or displays promoting the education and discussion of the pro-life, pro-choice movements among SMU students must not be viewed as attacks on others. In choosing to view these displays as such, SMU is deviating from its call as a center of higher learning. Its mission is to be a place where ideas are challenged and intellect thrives, not a place to hide or silence alternative points of view, reads the letter from the student groups to the SMU president. The letter is absolutely correct: inhibition of free speech, no matter which side of the spectrum, no matter how much you individually disagree with it, and no matter how stupid it may seem to you, is not good for a free society. Its insulting to the memory of the 2,977 victims of 9/11 to insinuate that a memorial to them would be triggering, and its even more disconcerting the standard that this policy would set. Colleges and universities will undoubtedly produce our nations next set of leaders, conservative or liberal. By teaching these students that its okay to void another persons opinion simply because it offends you in some way isnt diverse, and its intellectually bankrupt. In fact, its degrading the very purpose of our Constitution. It teaches potential future leaders that its okay to take away the rights of someone due to their opinions.

Luckily for us, it appears that the student body at Southern Methodist University at least understands that free speech is something to be valued. Lets hope that message is spread to the rest our campuses as well.

Go here to read the rest:
SMU Becomes the Face of the Collegiate War On The First Amendment - The Hayride

By a margin of over two to one, Republicans support using the courts to shut down news media outlets for biased or inaccurate stories, according to a recent poll from The Economist and YouGov.

When asked if cracking down on the press in this manner would violate the First Amendment, a narrow majority of Republicans agreed that it does, seeming to create a contradiction. However, a further question gave them a chance to clear the air and reaffirm the primacy of principle over political expediency: Which is more important to you? it asked, (A) Protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories; (B) Punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press; (C) Not sure.

Shockingly, a full 47 percent of Republicans support punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press, versus just 34 percent who support protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories. By contrast, 59 percent of Democrats said they prioritize protecting the freedom of the press, dwarfing the 19 percent who see it the other way.

On this issue, the Democrats are right. Freedom of the press is included in the Bill of Rights for two reasons: It matters, and there is perpetually an illiberal temptation to extinguish it. Republican politicians will always call CNN and the New York Times biased and inaccurate. Democratic politicians will always say the same about Fox News and Breitbart.

Both sides are right, and it doesnt matter: None of those organizations should be forcibly shuttered. Thats what happens in Turkey or Russia when a newspaper offends the ruling party. In America, if you think a media outlet is biased, your best recourse is to say so, convincing others with reason instead of blocking their access to information you dont like. This way, individuals decide which outlets deserve their trust. The only other option, the one that is apparently favored by a plurality of Republicans, is for the state to make those decisions for all of us.

This would be incredibly dangerous, even under the best of circumstances. Who, after all, can agree on what is or is not biased, or what amount of bias can be tolerated? Republicans correctly complain, for example, that ostensibly neutral fact-checkers like Politifact are themselves biased and sometimes inaccurate. The same is true of judges and politicians. In fact, I remember when every right-wing talk-radio host would decry the fairness doctrine, which also sought to suppress speech under the guise of eliminating bias.

In fact, giving the state the power to shut down media outlets for bias or inaccuracy is an admission of a lack of confidence in our ability to self-govern as a free people. A free people could deliberate and vote without relying on the fist of the state to crush all sources of information that might mislead them.

The proximate cause of the yearning for that fist among Republicans, it is only reasonable to assume, is President Trumps strident criticism of the media. Trump seems to be obsessed with the media, constantly denouncing it on Twitter and elsewhere for crimes both real and imagined. He even called it an enemy of the American people. To some conservatives, this is such a joy to behold that it has almost become an acceptable substitute for tangible accomplishments.

This is a grave mistake. Though it may satisfy a human yearning, punishing ones enemies should not be the purpose of our politics. Conservatives and Republicans have plenty of ideas to improve the country, and they have the power to implement them. From education to tax policy to abortion, we could make America more fair, more free, more prosperous, and more humane. But instead, Trump directs Republican power and attention at CNN and MSNBC.

Ignoring our principles and subordinating the First Amendment to the impulses of the moment, Republican voters, if the poll is in fact representative, seem to have let the desire to punish overwhelm them. This is both an effect and a cause of the Trumpified conservatism that some, including National Reviews own Jay Nordlinger, have warned us not to indulge.

Trump does not speak, you may have noticed, of freedom or tradition or principle. He has little time for imagined republics and principalities in which ought overshadows is. He prefers victory, even if it requires an untraditional and un-conservative approach. Forget principle: To win is now to be virtuous.

It is not hard to see the appeal of this ultimately ruinous mindset. Its viscerally satisfying to punish ones enemies, after all. But American conservatives would do well to remember Nietzsches dictum, and Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. Though the policies we have to enact are more constructive than our impulse to punish the media for its bias, we risk becoming too free from the burden of principle to care.

Elliot Kaufman is an editorial intern at National Review.

See the article here:
Republicans, Don't Sacrifice Free Speech to Punish the Media - National Review

U.S. Sen. James Lankford inserted himself on Monday into a squabble between a conservative legal advocacy group and ABC News.

In a letter to ABC News President James Goldston, Lankford lodges his displeasure with a July 12 on-line story that quotes the Southern Policy Law Center's description of the Alliance Defending Freedom as an "anti-LGBT hate group."

Lankford says the story "classified a religious liberty non-profit, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), as a hate group using a standard set by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). I found it odd that ABC would designate ADF as a hate group not based on any actual crime or action, but apparently based on their belief in religious liberty or traditional marriage."

Many people, especially conservatives, object to groups like the alliance being classified with with neo-Nazis and reconstituted versions of the Ku Klux Klan as hate groups. Lankford's staff said the majority of ADF's cases are not related to LGBT issues.

The ADF has been very open in its disdain for non-traditional sexual identification, and it's desire to overturn same-sex marriage. Lankford asserts that is the organization's First Amendment right as a matter of religious freedom and free speech.

Its attorneys have spoken about the "deification of deviant sexual practices" and "made-up sexual identity. For awhile, a web site affiliated with ADF said its goal was to "restore the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries."

Lankford says that doesn't qualify as hate speech and that ABC shouldn't have given credence to SPLC's designation of it as such.

"SPLCs definition of a 'hate group' is overly broad and not based in fact or legal accuracy," Lankford writes. "The Alliance Defending Freedom is a national and reputable law firm that works to advocate for the rights of people to peacefully and freely speak, live and work according to their faith and conscience without threat of government punishment."

At issue in the ABC story was a closed-door speech to the group by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the Justice Department's refusal to release information about it.

The rest is here:
Randy Krehbiel: Lankford says anti-LGBT organization is exercising First Amendment rights - Tulsa World (blog)