Mediaboss Marketing

Over the past few years, officials from a number of federal agencies have met regularly with senior executives from the major social platforms to talk about foreign troll armies, the fight against disinformation, and other areas of mutual interest. Last week, such discussions suddenly became illegal as a result of an injunction imposed by Terry Doughty, a federal judge in Louisiana, who ruled that they likely constitute an attempt by the government to coerce the social platforms and as such a violation of the First Amendment. Doughty ordered officials across large parts of the US government to (at least temporarily) stop talking to tech companies about content moderation and removal. He also prohibited officials from collaborating, coordinating, partnering, switchboarding, and/or jointly working with certain academics who focus on social media.

In his 155-page, 45,000-word decision, Doughty, who was appointed by Donald Trump in 2017, wrote that the lawsuit that led to his decisionwhich was filed last year by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouriaddressed no lesser stakes than the most massive attack against free speech in United States history [sic]. The attorneys general, Doughty said, had presented evidence of a massive effort by the White House to suppress speech based on its content. He went on to list the types of speech that the government had allegedly coerced the platforms into blocking, including the story about Hunter Bidens laptop, the lab-leak theory of the origins of COVID-19, the efficacy of masks and lockdowns, the efficacy of COVID vaccines, the 2020 election, the security of voting by mail, parody content, and negative posts about the economy and President Biden.

A Biden administration official said after the ruling that in talking to the platforms, the government has merely been involved in efforts to promote responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security, and that it never coerced anyone. Either way, the ruling quickly had an effect on such talks: last Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that the State Department had canceled a meeting with Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, in which they had planned to discuss foreign influence campaigns. The next day, the Justice Department asked for Doughtys injunction to be stayed, arguing that it was both sweeping in scope and vague in its terms. The government also characterized the injunction as internally contradictory: it prohibits officials from speaking publicly about social media posts, but at the same time assures the government that its officials are free to exercise their own right to free speech.

This week, however, Doughty refused to stay the injunction, which, in his words, only prohibits something the Defendants have no legal right to docontacting social media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner, the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech. Within hours, the White House took its case instead to a federal appeals court, arguing that there was no evidence that it had made threats against social media companies and that the injunction would unduly restrict public statements. May federal officials respond to a false story on influential social-media accounts with a public statement refuting the story? the governments appeal asked. No plausible interpretation of the First Amendment would prevent the government from taking such actions, but the injunction could be read to do so.

The allegation at the heart of the lawsuitthat the government has colluded with social media companies to censor speechis not new; indeed, it predates the Biden administration. Conservatives first raised concerns even before Trump was elected president; in 2020, Trump signed an executive order that directed the Federal Communications Commission to rethink Section 230, the law that protects internet services from legal liability for the content that users post on their networks. (As the Post noted, that order came in the same week Twitter applied fact-checking labels to two of Trumps tweets.) The attorneys general for Louisiana and Missouri argued in the case before Doughty that in 2017, officials began a systemic and systematic campaign to control speech on social media by putting pressure on the social platforms. Several individualsjoined the lawsuit, including Jim Hoft, the owner and operator of the conservative site Gateway Pundit, who said that he had been censored online because of his comments about vaccines and mail-in ballots.

In legal parlance, what the government is accused of doing is known as jawboning, or trying to exert undue influence through the use of rhetoric. In a post for Lawfare in 2021, Genevieve Lakier, a free speech expert at the University of Chicago, wrote that scholars have long expressed alarm at the tendency of government officials to use informal means, rather than democratically enacted laws, to pressure the social media companies to remove speech. Doughtys ruling nonetheless met with a scathing reaction among many commentators and internet experts. Daphne Keller, the director of platform regulation at Stanfords Cyber Policy Center, argued on Twitter that the ruling contained a classic logical error: the judge wants to have his cake and eat it too, Keller wrote, by blocking the government from contacting social media companies to discuss certain kinds of lawful speech while condoning their doing so in other situations (including those involving national security threats). Nieman Labs Joshua Benton wrote on Twitter that Federal Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana is a hack.

As critical as many legal analysts were of the decision, others argued that Doughty and the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri have a point. Jeff Kosseff, an associate professor of cyber law at the US Naval Academy and author of a book about Section 230, wrote on Twitter that while he doesnt agree with the scope of the injunction in the case, its impossible to read the opinion and not be angry about a lot of the governments actions, including threats to change or repeal Section 230 unless the platforms behaved in a certain way. Threatening to repeal or limit a vital technology protectioneither because the platforms moderate too much or too littleis a huge problem, Kosseff wrote.

Mike Masnick, a writer at Techdirt, agreed with Kosseff that some of the governments behavior crossed a line. For example, Masnick wrote, officials in the White House sending emails with statements like wondering if we can get moving on the process of having [a tweet] removed ASAP was definitely inappropriate. However, Masnick also argued that Doughty sees censorship where there is none. The lawsuit before him claims that the government violated the First Amendment by having Twitter block a New York Post story about Hunter Bidens laptop, an incident that remains a key Trumpist talking point, as Masnick put it. Twitter did stop the story from spreading, Masnick said, but there is absolutely no evidence that the government forced or pressured it to do so.

In the past, some conservatives have threatened legislation that would alter or suspend Section 230 as grist in their battle with the platforms, which they have claimeddespite a conspicuous lack of evidencecensor right-wing content. The lawsuit from Louisiana and Missouri is a new front in the same battle. Whether it is ultimately successful remains to be seen, but Masnick noted that the appeals court that is set to hear the Biden administrations appeal is the same one that, last year, found in favor of a Texas law restricting the platforms right to moderate contenta ruling that one legal expert characterized as the most angrily incoherent First Amendment decision I think Ive ever read. This particular battle is still far from over.

Other notable stories:

ICYMI: Mathew Ingram on a week of Threads

View original post here:
The government talking to the platforms is a First Amendment minefield. A judge just blew it up. - Columbia Journalism Review

By Olivia Adams | on July 14, 2023

On Thursday, July 13, Columbia police, along with Spring Hill police, arrested Daniel Walls, 38, and a 17-year-old juvenile on charges related to the posting of bias-based rhetoric flyers on historically Black churches and at least one business in Columbia.

Flyers were placed on Mt. Calvary Missionary Baptist Church, Bethel A.M.E. and Faith United Missionary Baptist churches last week that included language warning mixed-race couples, communists and homosexuals that the Klan is back again and here to stay, and those people should make amends or stay away.

Walls was arrested and charged with four counts of Civil Rights intimidation and one count each of vandalism and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

In a statement to Main Street Maury, Wells apologized for his actions, stating he did not post the flyers as an act of hatred, but only as recruitment of like-minded individuals.

Im truly sorry for the actions and flyers; it was not done out of hatred for any skin color or targeting anyone, he said. It was just for recruiting purposes only. I wasnt aware the congregations were all black, but everyone gets them no matter their race. How are we supposed to know who lives or goes where?

Wells claims he was simply distributing the preprinted materials as a recruitment pitch and chose churches because he is also a Christian.

Im no terrorist or racist, I have black friends that will vouch for me, he said. I did not create those flyers, I just distributed them for my organization as I thought the First Amendment gave us the right to do.

I stand for what I believe in. Im a Christian, but just have different views than others on things as we all do and I thought we had that right, but I guess not so much. I apologize to the churches, the public and anyone else who my actions may have offended. I didnt have any intention to harm anyone in any way shape or form.

Walls said he does not have an attorney, as he cannot afford one at this moment. His previous employer Peek Pools and Spa in Spring Hill has terminated him. He was released from custody on July 13, after posting bail on a more than $4 million bond, and is set to appear in court Aug. 14.

Read the original post:
Suspect in KKK flyers case claims First Amendment allows distribution - Main Street Media of Tennessee

The Lone Star State's TikTok ban for state-owned devices the First Amendment rights of professors and researchers, according to the federal lawsuit.

AUSTIN, Texas (CN) A First Amendment rights group filed a federal lawsuit against Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Thursday, claiming the state's ban on the video-sharing app TikTok from all state-owned devices is unconstitutional.

The Coalition for Independent Technology Research says in its 24-page lawsuit that the ban violates the First Amendment because it limits the research capabilities of faculty at public universities.

While faculty are public employees, the governments authority to control their research and teaching is limited by the First Amendment and the ban cannot survive First Amendment scrutiny, the group says in its complaint.

TikTok is owned by ByteDance, a private company headquartered in Beijing, China. The company has long held that the Chinese government bears no influence over it or TikTok as a product.

The coalition argues that the ban fails to stop the Chinese government from collecting sensitive data and harms researchers' ability to discover threats to people's privacy and the nations security interests. They want a federal judge to declare the ban unconstitutional as to members of the organization and those who are accessing TikTok for the means of teaching and research.

This past December, Abbott directed leaders at state agencies to ban their employees from downloading the popular app on their state-issued devices. The governors decision to take such action came as a response to fears that the app may be used as a route for the Chinese Communist Party to gain access to critical U.S. information.

TikTok harvests vast amounts of data from its users devices including when, where, and how they conduct internet activity and offers this trove of potentially sensitive information to the Chinese government, Abbott wrote in his letter to state agencies.

In addition to Abbotts directive, the Texas Legislature passedSenate Bill 1893 which codified the TikTok ban for government-issued devices into law. Abbott signed the bill into law last month and it is now in effect.

Faculty at public universities are now prohibited from downloading TikTok to university-owned devices or accessing it on personal devices that are also used to conduct university business.

Jacqueline Vickery is a member of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research and the director of research at the Youth Media Lab at the University of North Texas. The complaint details how nearly all of Vickerys research focuses on TikTok and its impact on the lives of young people. Without such access, her research has come to a complete standstill.

Even reading the TikTok-related work of other scholars has become challenging, because authors often support their claims by including links to TikTok videos that Professor Vickery cannot open on her work computer or the universitys network, the plaintiffs say. Because of the ban, she can no longer teach lessons that require live interaction with TikToks recommendation algorithm, search functions, or platform design.

If the coalition is successful in its suit, Vickers would be exempt from the ban and able to continue her research.

Founded in 2022, the Coalition for Independent Technology Research is a nonprofit member organization that works to protect the right for people to study the effects technology has on society.

Since its initial release in 2016, TikTok has become one of the most popular social media apps on the market. There are over 1 billion active monthly users around the world, with over 150 million in the United States alone. Despite its reputation as a teen-oriented space to share dance videos, the app has become a place for people including public figures, politicians and activists to share all types of content.

Over two dozen states have taken steps to ban TikTok on government-owned devices. Earlier this year,TikTok sued the state of Montanato block a bill that would ban the app entirely in the state. In its lawsuit, the company argued the bill violates its First Amendment right to speech. The law is set to go into effect Jan. 1.

Sign up for the Top 8, a roundup of the day's top stories delivered directly to your inbox Monday through Friday.

View post:
Texas TikTok ban challenged by First Amendment rights group - Courthouse News Service

In a recent opinion piece, a professor at Northwesterns Pritzker School of Law lamented that religious freedom has become an excuse to break the law. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The First Amendment protects Americans from being compelled to violate their faith in word or deed. Thats Constitutional Law 101.

Until recently, however, scholars and jurists have largely focused on religious speech while ignoring the robust protections the First Amendment affords to religious deeds too.

But thats starting to change. Increasingly, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment doesnt just protect freedom of belief. It also protects the freedom to exercise ones religious beliefs.

And as the Framers and ratifiers of the First Amendment understood, free exercise is more than what a person does in a house of worship. It encompasses all aspects of life.

>>>Its the First Amendment, Stupid: Supreme Court Holds That Free Speech Prevails in Challenge to Anti-Discrimination Law

Sadly, its no surprise to see novel arguments for curtailing religious freedom. Like in centuries past, animus still rears its ugly head against those who hold religious beliefs that are not in voguethough only a few years ago many of these same beliefs would have been considered mainstream.

When hearts and minds remain unpersuaded to adopt the beliefs of the day, mainstream advocates have reframed disagreement as discrimination and dialogue as hate. Even the long-protected right to speakor not to speakon religious topics has come under attack.

But again, as the Supreme Court recently explained in 303 Creative v. Elenis, the First Amendment prohibits governments from compelling ideological conformity. After all, its not discrimination for someone to refuse to speak a message with which they disagree.

This basic tenet of constitutional law poses a problem, however, for those who want to enforce ideological homogeneity. Perhaps thats why the Northwestern law professor didnt really discuss the First Amendment in his recent op-ed, and why others are so troubled by the Supreme Courts recent litany of decisions protecting free speech (including the right not to speak) and religious freedom.

Maybe they are troubled by the notion that a football coach can pray in public or that Americans are free to hold differing views on gender identity and sexuality. But those disagreements do not change the law.

Contrary to its critics assertions, the Supreme Court is not placing a thumb on the scale for religious claims and allowing litigants to use religion as a pretense to break the law. On the contrary, the court is simply following the highest positive law in our land: the U.S. Constitution, which protects against restrictive government action even in times of crisis like a pandemic or warincluding when that action enjoys popular support.

This fundamental notion is why so many lawyers and scholarsand more recently, at least four current justiceshave been critical of the courts 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which permitted the government to prohibit or restrict religious practices so long as the government does so through a generally applicable law that is neutrally applied.

>>>The Constitution Allows a Level Playing Field, but Not a Rigged Game

Indeed, the Smith decision was so hotly debated that a bipartisan majority in Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law, to protect religious freedom RFRA reflected what the First Amendment said all along: The government cant just trample on religious freedom under the fig leaf of neutrally enforcing a generally applicable law.

Of course, this law and others like it have also come under fire from those who favor ideological conformity over religious freedom. But the First Amendment, RFRA, and similar laws exist to protect beliefs that some, perhaps even many, might find disagreeable.

Thats good news for everyone, especially religious minorities. The vast majority of human history has featured persecution of religious groups who, because of their faith, lived differently from most of the society around them.

Recognizing that history, our fledgling nation chose a better course and enshrined the free exercise of religion as one of our first freedoms.

America has been a refuge for those who endured religious persecution precisely because the law does not condition religious freedom on a ruling partys will or the whims of popular opinion. The courts recent decisions rightly recognize that religious freedom is not a second-class right and are returning religious liberty to its proper, preferential place.

Religious freedom isnt an excuse to break the law. It is a right enshrined in our nations highest law.

And when courts uphold that right, they uphold the law. Thats something we should celebrate, for ourselves and for the oppressed who look to our nation for refuge.

Read the original here:
Public Opinion Is No Excuse To Ignore the First Amendment - Heritage.org

When parents no longer live together and mom or dad gets remarried, what should the child call the new adult in their lives? Should the child be permitted to call their stepfather dad or their stepmother mom? Does it matter if the child has half-siblings or step-siblings who call the new adult by a derivative of mom or dad?

Parents have a fundamental constitutional right to raise their children as they deem fit. See, e.g., Interest of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 1108, 1126 (Pa. 2021); see also Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000). When parents in Pennsylvania engage in custody disputes, they give up a part of this right by asking the courts to determine the best interest of the child by considering the sixteen enumerated factors set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. Section 5328(a). These disputes often implicate First Amendment rights to freely exercise religion and freedom of speech, but it is not always clear whether the First Amendment trumps the best interest of the child or the line where one becomes more important than the other.

Continue reading here:
Do Parents Have First Amendment Rights? | The Legal Intelligencer - Law.com