Mediaboss Marketing

Under US law, its well established that the First Amendment of the US Constitution gives search engines near-total discretion over the content on their pages and ranking algorithms. However, a court in Florida previously allowed a case against Google to survive a motion to dismiss (Plaintiffs links were removed as pure spam in violation of Googles quality guidelines).

The case, e-ventures Worldwide, LLC vs. Google, survived Googles procedural motion. Among other factual claims, the complaint against Google alleged a kind of conspiracy that the search engine sought to use delisting as a tool to force plaintiff to buy AdWords.

Google was sued under various federal and Florida state statutes, basically for unfair competition. The failure to grant Googles motion to dismiss was legally in error. However, the Florida court has now granted Googles motion for summary judgment, effectively ending the litigation in Googles favor.

Eric Goldman quoted the courts ruling and rationale, which reaffirmed and relied upon earlier law asserting that the First Amendment protects search engine results as speech:

But there is a more fundamental reason why the First Amendment bars e-ventures claims. Googles actions in formulating rankings for its search engine and in determining whether certain websites are contrary to Googles guidelines and thereby subject to removal are the same as decisions by a newspaper editor regarding which content to publish, which article belongs on the front page, and which article is unworthy of publication. The First Amendment protects these decisions, whether they are fair or unfair, or motivated by profit or altruism.

Its strange that the court waited until after the discovery phase was over to come to this position, which is a matter of law rather than a factual question. Nonetheless, its a recognition of the search-results-as-speech principle first announced in 2003 in Search King v. Google:

Therefore, the Court finds that under Oklahoma law, protected speech in this case, PageRanks cannot give rise to a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations because it cannot be considered wrongful, even if the speech is motivated by hatred or ill will.

While e-ventures could appeal, its chances of success are basically zero. The law says that Google can present its search results in any manner it wants a rule that does not exist in Europe.

See the article here:
Florida court: Google permitted to delist sites regarded as spam ... - Search Engine Land

We've all noticed the division over the last election. Many are disappointed and many are inspired with the outcome and losing sight of the privilege we have to voice our disagreement in politics.

But we are gradually losing that privilege. We can't protest and disrupt political rallies any longer and that was the hallmark of the '60s and '70s.

The people's opinion is addressed in our Constitution, and we are taking that for granted.Voicing displeasure is a privilege some countries do not allow, and it is vital that America remains open to all being heard.

Violence in a protest used to be the exception and not the norm it is today. Today the exception is the peaceful protest, such as the recent Women's March. Women giving high-fives to police made the news, and what fun it was seeing that. Police had to appreciate not having to use pepper spray and tear gas to control. Who knew a smile and a laugh could get attention and be remembered?

But we are losing our First Amendment right to voice our differences while journalists feel the noose tighten on reporting the news. It makes me appreciate the arguing. At least we have the right to differ in opinions.

Is diversity within America perishing? We are a nation of immigrants and always have been when you ask a Native American. We need more colors, more languages and all preferences in Congress to represent a country of and for the people.

If the world were all Rogers, it would be boring. Disagree with someone today and learn something.

Roger Clayton

Burlington

Read the original:
Letter: Americans are losing First Amendment rights - Burlington Times News

On Feb. 3, a conservative speaker was slated to speak at the University of California at Berkeley. That's when "Black Bloc" intervened.

According to CNN (cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/), "150 masked agitators caused more than $100,000 worth of damage at UC Berkeley ... when demonstrators gathered to protest Milo Yiannopoulos, who was scheduled to give a speech at the school.

"Black-clad protesters, wearing masks, threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police. Some even hurled Molotov cocktails that ignited fires. They also smashed windows of the student union center on the Berkeley campus.

"At least six people were injured. Some were attacked by the agitators -- who are a part of an anarchist group known as the "Black Bloc" that has been causing problems in Oakland for years ..."

If you haven't hear of Black Bloc, watch the video at usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/02/what-black-bloc/97393870/.

We are told by some that Black Bloc is not an organization; rather, it is a "spontaneous coming together of individuals" to act as a "protective shield" for "progressive protesters" against "police brutality." If you buy that, I've got a nice bridge to sell you!

As I watch the USA Today video, I can only come to one opinion: Black Bloc is a criminal conspiracy which engages in overt acts of violence intended to deprive other Americans -- with whom they disagree -- of their Constitutional rights of free speech, peaceable assembly and private property.

So what justifies rioting, the fires, the destruction of property? The left-wing anarchists disagreed with the political opinions of a man scheduled to give a speech.

So how long will the new administration put up with left-wing anarchists clad in black hoods and black masks? Are criminal thugs who run around and do violence in black hoods and black masks any better than the Klu Klux Klan? Are stormtroopers in black masks and robes any more noble than Klansmen in white robes and masks?

In 1870, The Congress, at the behest of President Grant, passed "An Act to enforce the Right of Citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of this Union, and for other Purposes."

The act was a response to terror, force and brutality used by the Klan (KKK) to prevent newly freed blacks from voting and exercising their newly granted Constitutional Rights. Section 6 criminalized "conspiring" or "going in disguise" to "intimidate" or to "hinder the free exercise" of any right granted by the Constitution. Conviction carried up to 10 years imprisonment.

Criminals, anarchists and rioters in hoods and masks -- whether those hoods and masks be white or black -- who riot in the streets to prevent anyone from exercising his First Amendment right to speak freely or assemble peacefully, or the right of any other citizen to own private property, are therefore playing a dangerous game.

The U.S. government virtually wiped out the first wave of the KKK using the Enforcement Acts. If the government decides enough is enough, 150 guys in black hoods and masks, as well as their financiers, may find themselves spending the next 10 years in federal prison.

Any thinking American should be revolted by Black Bloc's wanton destruction of property and attacks on police and bystanders. This rioting is exactly what the Nazi Brown Shirts, aka Stormtroopers, did in Germany in the 1930s.

The riots in Berkeley have the stench of Kristallnacht about them. Kristallnacht occurred Nov. 9-10, 1938. It was the night when Nazi Stormtroopers, wearing civilian clothes, to create the illusion of a "spontaneous demonstration," destroyed 267 synagogues and innumerable Jewish businesses throughout Hitler's Reich. Mobs of SA men roamed the streets, attacking Jews in their houses and forcing Jews they encountered to perform acts of public humiliation.

Our Constitution guarantees free speech. But free speech does not include incitement to riot, or the act of rioting. Attacking police and burning down buildings has never been constitutionally protected.

John Donald O'Shea, of Moline, is a retired circuit court judge.

See more here:
Rioting not protected by First Amendment | Don O Shea | qconline.com - Quad-Cities Online

Education Week (subscription) (blog)

More High School Students Support First Amendment Freedoms ... Education Week (subscription) (blog) The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation's sixth annual study on the topic finds a growing share of students support First Amendment rights. and more »

Read more from the original source:
More High School Students Support First Amendment Freedoms ... - Education Week (subscription) (blog)

Mauro Grigollo Westend61/Newscom"Today is Jim Stewart's birthday. Reply to post a wish on his Timeline or reply with 1 to post 'Happy Birthday!'" That's the text, from Facebook to Colin Brickman, that launched a legal battle between Brickman and the social-media giant.

You see, Brickman had opted out of receiving texts from Facebook via the platform's notification settings. In response to the unwanted birthday reminder, Brickman filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook, representing "all individuals who received one or more Birthday Announcement Texts from [Facebook] to a cell phone through the use of an automated telephone dialing system at any time without their consent."

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that Facebook's sending unauthorized text messages is a violation of the federal Telephone Communications Privacy Act (TCPA). "A valid TCPA claim requires plaintiff to allege (1) a defendant called a cellular telephone number; (2) using an automated telephone dialing system ('ATDS'); and (3) without the recipient's prior express consent," explains lawyer Jack Greiner in the Cincinnati Enquirer. "A text message is a 'call' within the meaning of the TCPA."

In its defense, Facebook alleged that the TCPA in unconstitutional. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Facebook attorneys argued that the TCPA's allowed exceptionsfor emergency communications and debt collectorsrender it an umpermissable, content-based restriction on speech. But the judge, while agreeing that the TCPA's restrictions are content-based (and thus subject to strict scrutiny, legally speaking), found that the law passed constitutional muster nonetheless.

The case will go forward with Facebook defending its text messages on technical grounds; it argues that the texts were not automated because Brickman and others who received them had supplied Facebook with their phone numbers. But, for now, Facebook's argument that it has a First Amendment right to send people text messages against their will has been rejected.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has twice found the TCPA to be constitutional in previous casesMoser v. Federal Communications Commission (1995) and Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez (2016)the Department of Justice pointed out in a memorandum in support of TCPA's constitutionality. In the latter case, the 9th Circuit rejected the idea that the government's interest with the law "only extends to the protection of residential privacy, and that therefore the statute is not narrowly tailored to the extent that it applies to cellular text messages."

"There is no evidence that the government's interest in privacy ends at home," ruled the 9th circuit in Campbell-Ewald. Furthermore, "to whatever extent the government's significant interest lies exclusively in residential privacy, the nature of cell phones renders the restriction of unsolicited text messaging all the more necessary to ensure that privacy."

Go here to read the rest:
Facebook Has No First Amendment Right to Send Unauthorized Texts, Says Court - Reason (blog)