Mediaboss Marketing

Marjorie Taylor Greene Can Add First Amendment to Long List of Things She Doesnt Understand

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

A lot of people who have cycled through the United States Congress over time have been divisive, but Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene takes it to a whole new level. Shes had issues with Jewish people, liberals, and now, doesnt really get civics.

The family values preacher who has also reportedly had multiple bouts of infidelity during her now-dissolved marriage posted the above yesterday on Twitter. For Greene, Fox News recently choosing to dismiss Tucker Carlson is the same as what happens in repressive societies. Of course, it is not (someone should remind her what the Nazis actually did to the Institut fr Sexualwissenschaft), and as one Greene critic points out, she is not really showcasing an understanding of the actual amendment.

Indeed, the text of the actual part of this section of the Bill of Rights says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This would thus exclude private entities, and over the years, the United States Supreme Court has been called on to decide just where this applies when the situation is unclear. They decided video games were a form of protected speech in 2011 and, while some agree with Greene due to the increased polarization in America which automatically makes members of one party right, others see the irony within her post.

Greene has not responded or shrieked at any of her critics as of this story being filed. There is still time, and, given how she took a trip to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to educate herself in the past, she could grow a bit and learn here as well.

Though, we will not hold our breath.

'+// ''+// '

Read the rest here:
Marjorie Taylor Greene can add First Amendment to long list of ... - We Got This Covered

Mounting concerns over young peoples mental health have prompted state legislatures across the country to propose a slew of age restrictions to protect minors online. Lawmakers say the rules should help shield young people from online pornography, predators and harmful social media posts.

The current push for age restrictions on certain online content echoes a similar legislative drive three decades ago, when the internet was in its infancy. In 1996, Congress passed a major telecommunications bill that made it illegal to knowingly send or display obscene or indecent material to people under 18.

That law had a longstanding precedent: federal rules dating back to the 1920s that prohibited radio and TV shows from broadcasting obscene language, to prevent a child wandering into a living room from overhearing it.

The anti-pornographyrules in the 1990s had strong bipartisan support. But civil liberties groups thought the prohibitions on online indecency violated the First Amendment and squelched free speech. Among other objections, they said it was too difficult and expensive for websites to verify a visitors age. That could have led sites to simply get rid of anything inappropriate for children, creating a Disneyfied internet.

To protect Americans access to information that could potentially be deemed indecent under the new law like educational material about AIDS the American Civil Liberties Union sued the government, challenging part of the law called the Communications Decency Act.

The A.C.L.U. wanted its name on the lawsuit, said Chris Hansen, a former senior lawyer for the group. But to be a plaintiff, the group needed to be directly threatened by the law and there was nothing on its website that could potentially harm children. So the A.C.L.U. uploaded a Supreme Court ruling concerning a riff by the comedian George Carlin on the seven dirtiest words in the English language, which included a transcript of Mr. Carlins monologue in all its un-bleeped glory.

The A.C.L.U. also posted a quiz asking readers to guess the seven obscenities.

After a federal court in Philadelphia temporarily halted the law, the government appealed, and the case, Reno v. A.C.L.U., named for Bill Clintons attorney general, Janet Reno, was taken up by the Supreme Court. There, the A.C.L.U. argued thatthe laws speech restrictions could curb the internets unique potential and prevent people including minors from having access to all kinds of information.

The A.C.L.U. contended that the internet, where users typed or clicked to get to a web page, was more like a book or newspaper than radio or TV, recalled Ann Beeson, a former assistant legal director for the group. Language in printed material, which individuals freely perused, was more lightly regulated than in broadcast media, where audiences had less control over what they were exposed to.

The justices at the time were not especially familiar with the internet. So court employees arranged a demonstration to show how easy it was to find pornography. Senator Ted Cruz, then a Supreme Court law clerk, later recounted how he, alongside Justice Sandra Day OConnor, had looked at hard-core, explicit image results for a search of a fruit sometimes used as a bawdy euphemism for breasts.

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the A.C.L.U., finding that the federal restrictions could chill free speech.

The judges said the blanket restrictions were unacceptable because parents would soon be able to use content-filtering software to protect their children, and because age-verification systems at the time, which had typically involved verifying a users credit card, were not yet widely available. (That has changed; today, many current online age-checking systems use credentials like a drivers licenses to verify a users age. One vendor said they were now easily integrated and cost as little as 10 cents per visitor.)

In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a longstanding principle in American law that you cant censor speech to adults in the name of protecting minors, Mr. Hansen said. If the A.C.L.U. had lost, the internet would not be what it currently is.

But that was before the current, extremely online era in which critics say powerful social media algorithms have promoted hateful, divisive comments; scaled disinformation; and recommended posts on anorexia and self-harm to young girls.

To try to bolster online safeguards for children, California last year enacted the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. The legislation would require online services that are likely to be used by young people such as social media and video game platforms to default to the highest privacy settings possible for minors.

It would also require those services to turn off by default features that could pose risks to minors, such as friend finders that might allow adult strangers to contact children.

A tech industry association, NetChoice, has now sued to block the childrens protections from taking effect next year. In a legal complaint filed in December, NetChoice said the restrictions would stifle important resources for users of all ages, echoing arguments made by the A.C.L.U. in the 1990s.

In March, the Congressional Research Service, a public policy institute that serves Congress, also weighed in, urging lawmakers to consider the possible unintended consequences of new online age restrictions such as companies collecting more user data and limiting content.

Even so, lawmakers continue to propose new online age and content rules.

Last week in the Senate, Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat, promised his new child online protection bill will help us stop the growing social media health crisis among kids by setting a minimum age.

Read more:
Echoes of History in New National Push to Shield Children Online - The New York Times

By Harriet Alexander For Dailymail.com 06:58 29 Apr 2023, updated 07:20 29 Apr 2023

Elon Musk and Bill Maher took aim at Great Britain on Friday night, with Maher criticizing British libel laws and praising instead the free speech protections under the First Amendment.

Musk, 51, was eagerly welcomed on to Maher's show, with the host tweeting that the Twitter owner was 'the guest I've wanted to have on more than any other.'

The pair discussed Musk's concept of a 'Woke Mind Virus' infecting the nation, and Maher asked for his thoughts on censorship.

'In many parts of the world - including parts of the world that people might think are relatively similar to the United States - the speech laws are draconian,' said Musk.

'England is quite different,' replied Maher.

The South African-born billionaire declined to comment, saying: 'I won't name any country but -'

Maher interjected: 'England - why we protecting them. They have no First Amendment. It's very easy to prove libel in England whereas here...'

Musk cut him off, saying: 'I love England.'

The host replied: Me too. But I wouldn't want to say the wrong thing. Or you could be sued easier.' Musk didn't refute any of Maher's comments.

England and the UK also have hate speech laws which can see people prosecuted for slurs against minority groups, while the First Amendment prevents the imposition of any such laws in America.

Maher also referenced France, where it is illegal to deny the Holocaust - a law that exists also in Spain, Switzerland, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Canada, and multiple other countries. Holocaust denial is not illegal in the UK, but a February 2019 landmark case saw a blogger prosecuted for the 'grossly offensive' concept.

Maher said he found denying the Holocaust 'abhorrent', but he thought it should be protected under the First Amendment.

'I really can't emphasize this enough,' said Musk.

'We must protect free speech - and free speech only matters, it's only relevant, when it's someone you don't like saying something you don't like.

'Because obviously free speech that you like is easy.

'So the thing about censorship is that, for those who would advocate it, just remember at some point that will return on you.'

His remarks were met with resounding applause.

'Free speech is actually extremely important and it's bizarre that we've come to this point,' he said.

'Free speech used to be a left or liberal value.

'And yet we see from, in quotes, the left, a desire to actually censor.

'And that seems crazy.'

Musk said he was deeply concerned about the 'Woke Mind Virus', describing it as a 'deeply undemocratic' herd mentality.

'You can't you can't question things,' he said.

'Even the questioning is bad.'

He said that he considered himself a moderate, noting he had 'spent a massive amount of my life energy building sustainable energy' which was 'not exactly far right'.

But he said he was troubled by the indoctrination of people, in particular young people.

'I think the parents are just generally not aware of what their kids are being told or what they're not being taught,' he said.

Musk said he had a friend whose child was at school in the Bay Area, and the parent asked the child what they knew about U.S. presidents.

'You know, who are the first few presidents of the United States,' Musk recalled him saying.

'They could name Washington but, I said what do you know about him.

'Well, he was a slave owner. What else?

'Exactly, nothing.'

Maher asked Musk, who bought Twitter in October for $44 billion, about Tucker Carlson's two-minute clip he posted on Wednesday night - which has now been viewed 76 million times, massively more than his Fox News show.

Carlson was fired by Fox on Monday:Maher joked that Musk had recently appeared on Carlson's show, and said that he hoped Musk's presence wouldn't usher in his own demise.

Musk chuckled at the concept of him being, as he said, 'the Typhoid Mary of talk shows'.

He said he only became aware of Carlson's post after it went live, and had not tweaked the algorithm to boost the video.

'We didn't do anything,' he said.

'To be clear: we did nothing special whatsoever.

'I learned about it afterwards that he had posted something on Twitter.'

He said Twitter had250 million people spending on average half an hour a day on the platform, which equated to120 to 130 million user hours per day.

Carlson's show averaged three million viewers a night - the most of any cable news host.

'So it's just that Twitter has a lot of people's attention, and it tends to be the people that read a lot, or are interested in current events.

'And generally are pretty influential.'

Read more here:
Bill Maher and Elon Musk slam ENGLAND for its anti-free speech laws - Daily Mail

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribunes daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Journalists and free speech advocates are raising alarms about a bill moving through the Texas Legislature that they worry would make news organizations and regular Texans more susceptible to frivolous lawsuits designed to squash free speech.

At issue is a proposed adjustment to the 2011 Texas Citizens Participation Act, also known as the anti-SLAPP law, which is designed to prevent litigants from weaponizing the legal system to punish people for or dissuade them from exercising their First Amendment rights. The idea is that without such a law, big companies or wealthy individuals could inflict major damage by suing people over speech they dont like. Those suits are known as SLAPP strategic lawsuits against public participation cases. Even if the suits are frivolous, their existence could cost the defendants thousands of dollars or more in court fees and legal bills. Or the threat of those suits could force people to censor themselves.

Under the 2011 law restricting SLAPP suits, a person or company that is sued in what they believe is a SLAPP case can file a motion to dismiss the suit. If the trial court judge denies the motion, the defendant may file an immediate appeal and the case is stayed while the appeals courts take it under consideration.

But Senate Bill 896 would remove that automatic stay from state law, which opponents fear could allow some cases to proceed with expensive, time-consuming demands for evidence. The measure has already passed the Senate and was debated by the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee on Wednesday.

The bill is supported by business groups such as the Texas Association of Business and Texans for Lawsuit Reform. They argue that defendants have misused the automatic stay during appeal to delay legitimate cases, sometimes in proceedings that have nothing to do with the First Amendment.

One civil litigator, Shahmeer Halepota, described a case between a developer and a contractor involving the construction of apartment towers in Houston in which the defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion three years into the case and a month before it went to trial. That automatically put the case on hold, causing his developer client to miss out on business opportunities, he said. An appeals court later found the anti-SLAPP motion frivolous, he said.

My clients have literally lost millions of dollars, Halepota said Wednesday.

SB 896 would lift the automatic stay on the case if the anti-SLAPP motion were found by the trial court judge to be frivolous or solely filed as a delay tactic. If the anti-SLAPP motion were denied and found not to have been filed in a timely manner, an automatic stay would still go into effect, but would expire in 45 days if an appeals court didnt step in. The idea, proponents say, would be to prevent what is meant to be a legal shield from being turned into a sword used aggressively to needlessly delay legitimate cases.

Opponents of the bill say it would burden an already overwhelmed court system.

The bill would create a two-tier system in which parties, in certain instances, would be forced to litigate their cases simultaneously at the trial and appellate courts, which will cause significant perils for both litigants and courts, Wallace B. Jefferson, who served as chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court from 2004-13, said in prepared testimony.

Media groups have lined up against the proposal, with leaders of the Texas Press Association and the Texas Association of Broadcasters, as well as First Amendment attorneys, speaking out against it at Wednesdays committee meeting. Advocacy groups across the political spectrum from the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas to the Tea Party group True Texas Project and numerous news outlets including The Associated Press, Axios, Fox Television Stations, The Dallas Morning News, The Houston Chronicle, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Texas Tribune have also registered their opposition.

The groups note that trial court judges often make mistakes and that libel cases are frequently overruled on appeal. They say that not having an automatic stay in cases could force media companies to litigate the same case simultaneously in two venues, trying to have a case tossed out on appeal while also going through arduous and expensive discovery at the trial court level.

Ultimately, they say, SLAPP cases are designed to be punitively expensive, even if the person who filed it knows they will lose. The proposed new law would increase the cost for news outlets to defend themselves from SLAPP cases in courts and would raise media liability insurance premiums, opponents say.

A free press and accurate news reporting depend upon journalists to identify, investigate, and report out stories without concern that the subjects in the story could sap their newsroom of resources through a meritless court case, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press wrote in a letter to state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, chair of the judiciary committee and sponsor of the bill. The letter was also signed by 44 news outlets, including the Tribune.

In a letter, editors of the four Hearst Newspapers newspapers in Texas noted a 2016 case in which one of the papers, the Houston Chronicle, was sued by a local bar over a brief article describing a shooting that occurred nearby. The newspaper filed a motion to dismiss; a judge deemed the motion untimely. It took seven months for that ruling to be corrected and another five years before the Chronicle was able to get a court to consider the merits of its motion to dismiss and find that the claims were baseless.

Weakening the anti-SLAPP law, the letter said, would put defendants in an intolerable situation of having to simultaneously pursue costly litigation at both the trial and appellate levels, or of pursuing settlements that might not go anywhere if the court finds the defendant was lawfully exercising its constitutional right. The letter was signed by Maria Reeve, the Chronicles executive editor, and by top editors in San Antonio, Laredo and Beaumont.

Media advocates also warned about the impact on small news outlets that dont have the resources to defend themselves. Donnis Baggett, executive vice president of the Texas Press Association, told the committee on Wednesday that many of the hundreds of newspapers his organization represents are small-town, family-run newspapers that just cant survive a long, drawn-out lawsuit.

Those papers provide vital information about a community, from high school sports to civic coverage to accountability work about the actions of their local governments, and many would see their survival at risk from SLAPP suits, he said.

If you bleed a small newspaper dry, that community is without a newspaper, he said.

Leach said Wednesday that he will not support any bill that weakens the First Amendment protections of free speech. But he also acknowledged some very real problems and concerns with the law as it is written and expressed a desire to address them while preserving the anti-SLAPP rules.

After hearing emotional and at times tense testimony on the measure, he encouraged advocates on both sides to go to lunch and come up with a solution that worked for all of them. But the bill did not receive a vote Wednesday morning.

Disclosure: Texans for Lawsuit Reform, Texas Association of Business and New York Times have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

We cant wait to welcome you Sept. 21-23 to the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, our multiday celebration of big, bold ideas about politics, public policy and the days news all taking place just steps away from the Texas Capitol. When tickets go on sale in May, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.

Original post:
Journalists fear Texas anti-SLAPP law could be weakened - The Texas Tribune

'They say I'm ancient': Joe Biden pokes fun at White House correspondents' dinner video US politics

The 80-year-old US president chooses annual address to have some fun with a crucial voter concern, mixed with digs at Don Lemon and Fox News

Age shall not weary him, but it might provide some good punchlines.

Joe Biden, the oldest president in American history, faced his biggest political liability with a smile on Saturday as he addressed a gathering of Washingtons political and media elites.

The 80-year-old, who this week announced a bid for re-election in 2024, flipped between a pugnacious defence of press freedom and crisp one-liners at the expense of political opponents as he addressed the White House Correspondents Association annual dinner.

As opinion polls show that a majority of Americans have little appetite for a second Biden term, with many citing his age as a defining concern, he chose not to hide from his most obvious vulnerability but run towards it.

I believe in the first amendment, not just because my good friend Jimmy Madison wrote it, he said, referring to one of Americas founding fathers, who died in 1836.

He went on: Look, I get that age is a completely reasonable issue. Its in everybodys mind and by everyone, I mean the New York Times. Headline: Bidens advanced age is a big issue. Trumps, however, is not.

The president had a dig at Don Lemon, a CNN host who was fired this week after a series of missteps including remarks that Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley, 51, isnt in her prime because a woman is considered to be in her prime in her 20s and 30s and maybe 40s.

Biden earned a big laugh when he said on Saturday: They say Im ancient; I say Im wise. They say Im over the hill; Don Lemon would say, Thats a man in his prime.

There was also an indirect pitch that, despite concerns over his readiness for a gruelling election campaign, Biden is spoiling for the fight with Republican opponents.

He said of Marjorie Taylor Greene, a far-right congresswoman from Georgia: I want everybody to have fun tonight but please be safe. If you find yourself disoriented or confused, its either youre drunk or Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Referring to Florida governor and potential presidential candidate Ron DeSantiss protracted battle with Disney, he quipped: I had a lot of Ron DeSantis jokes ready but Mickey Mouse beat the hell out of me and got there first.

And Biden said of House of Representatives speaker Kevin McCarthy: Look, you all keep reporting my approval rating as 42%. I think you dont know this. Kevin McCarthy called me and asked me, Joe, what the hell is your secret? Im not even kidding about that.

Biden also had fun poking fun at the media, especially Fox Corps recent settlement of a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5m in a case that centred on Fox Newss false claims that the 2020 presidential election had been manipulated in favour of Biden.

Its great the cable news networks are here tonight. MSNBC owned by NBC Universal. Fox News owned by Dominion Voting Systems. That line earned laughter and applause.

Last year your favourite Fox News reporters were able to attend because they were fully vaccinated and boosted. This year, with that $787m settlement, theyre here because they couldnt say no to a free meal.

In a jab at former president Donald Trump, Biden quipped that comedian Roy Wood Jr, who also was a featured speaker at the dinner, had offered him $10 to keep his speech short. Thats a switch a president being offered hush money.

Earlier this month Trump was charged with 34 felony counts in a case involving an alleged $130,000 hush payment to an adult film star during his 2016 presidential campaign.

Biden assured Wood: Im going to be fine with your jokes but he put on his trademark sunglasses Im not sure about Dark Brandon. This was a nod to an internet meme that began as a rightwing attack but has been co-opted by Bidens supporters.

Wood, a regular on Comedy Centrals The Daily Show, naturally could not resist making Bidens age a target. He said: We should be inspired by the events in France. They rioted when the retirement age went up two years to 64. Meanwhile in America, we have an 80-year-old man, begging us for four more years.

For all the comedy, Biden also used his speech to issue forceful denunciations of attacks on press freedom and on misinformation that threatens to undermine democracy.

The president and first lady Jill Biden met privately with the parents of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich upon arriving at the dinner. Gershkovich has been imprisoned in Russia since March after being charged with spying, despite strong denials from his employer and the US government.

Also among the 2,600 guests in a cavernous hotel ballroom was Debra Tice, the mother of Austin Tice, who has not been heard from since disappearing at a checkpoint in Syria in 2012.

Biden said: Journalism is not a crime. Evan and Austin should be released immediately along with every other American detained abroad. I promise you, I am working like hell to get them home.

The president acknowledged Brittney Griner, a basketball player who was detained in Russia for nearly 10 months last year before her release in a prisoner swap. Griner attended with her wife, Cherelle, as guests of CBS News. This time last year we were praying for you, Brittney, Biden said.

In another preview of a 2024 campaign theme, Biden condemned news outlets that use lies told for profit and power to stir up hatred. Lies told for profit and power. Lies of conspiracy and malice repeated over and over again designed to generate a cycle of anger and hate and even violence.

The Washington black-tie dinner returned last year after being sidelined by the pandemic in 2020 and 2021. Biden was the first president in six years to accept the invitation after Trump shunned the event while in office.

This year the gala drew politicians including Vice-President Kamala Harris and celebrities such as actor Liev Schreiber and singer John Legend and his wife, Chrissy Teigen, a model and television personality.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

View post:
They say Im ancient: Biden speech to White House media proves to be one for the ages - The Guardian US