Author Topic: The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, & Assembly  (Read 129047 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71210
    • View Profile
Murthy v Missouri
« Reply #250 on: June 27, 2024, 08:52:00 AM »
Barret's opinion is quite unsound, and Alito's dissent is dead on.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/23-411

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18977
    • View Profile
Re: Murthy v Missouri
« Reply #251 on: June 27, 2024, 11:54:01 AM »
Barret's opinion is quite unsound, and Alito's dissent is dead on.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/23-411


Barrett has been quite a disappointment - unless I'm missing something.  I will have to read the whole thing, thank you for the link.

I don't care that they will rule half the time against our politics.  I care that they don't uphold our constitutional principles.  The war on free speech has to be stopped.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71210
    • View Profile
Re: The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, & Assembly
« Reply #252 on: June 27, 2024, 01:54:17 PM »
I could be wrong, but I sense she was, and is, intimidated by the threats of court packing.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71210
    • View Profile
WSJ on Murthy
« Reply #253 on: June 28, 2024, 11:24:25 AM »
Murthy Wounds, but Doesn’t Kill, Free Speech on Social Media
The ruling was limited to whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue. RFK Jr. has a much stronger case.
By Jed Rubenfeld
June 27, 2024 5:04 pm ET




The Supreme Court’s Wednesday ruling in Murthy v. Missouri is being touted as a vindication of the Biden administration’s highly successful efforts to induce social media platforms to censor disfavored speech. The ruling is no such thing. The court’s opinion was based solely on standing, leaving the door wide open for other parties, with firmer standing, to continue the fight. And the three justices who reached the merits found that the First Amendment had very likely been violated.

In Murthy, two states and five individuals sued the federal government for pressuring and colluding with Facebook, YouTube and other giant social-media platforms to suppress protected speech. Discovery in the case, together with independent investigations such as the Twitter Files, revealed a yearslong multiagency federal effort to induce the platforms to censor specific individuals, facts and opinions the government didn’t want people to hear. While the censored content was invariably described as “misinformation,” it included wholly accurate reporting as well as legitimate opinion, such as the original Hunter Biden laptop story and assertions that Covid might have originated in a Chinese lab.

The district court, finding what it called “arguably the most massive attack on free speech in United States history,” issued a preliminary injunction halting the government’s censorship campaign. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirmed that injunction. The Supreme Court, however, reversed it in a six-justice majority opinion.

But the majority held only that the plaintiffs lacked standing and didn’t reach the merits of their claim. The two state plaintiffs had asserted parens patriae standing—the authority to sue on behalf of their citizens—but the court reaffirmed that states have no such standing in suits against the federal government. As to the five individual plaintiffs, while they showed they had been censored in the past, the court found that they couldn’t prove that they were likely to be censored in the future. Because they sought injunctive relief and not money damages, past injury wasn’t enough to establish standing.

These rulings weren’t unexpected. At oral argument, several justices telegraphed their skepticism about standing. Writing in these pages in January 2023, I warned that the Murthy case might be kicked out of court on just these grounds. But the plaintiffs’ lack of standing doesn’t mean that no one has it. The Murthy opinion points to two kinds of cases as stronger candidates for standing.

First would be suits brought directly against the platforms. According to the court, the “one-step-removed” nature of the plaintiffs’ claims in Murthy—suing the government for censorship actions taken by the platforms—made it harder to establish standing. In numerous pending cases, plaintiffs have directly sued the platforms for working in partnership with the government to censor speech. In these cases, the platforms have frequently argued that the plaintiffs lack standing because they should have sued the government. After Murthy, lower courts should reject that argument.

Second, the Murthy majority emphasized that the plaintiffs in that case had demonstrated only past censorship against them and had failed to establish that they were specifically targeted for suppression by government officials. In other pending cases, plaintiffs should have no problem with these obstacles.

In Kennedy v. Biden, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and a nonprofit, Children’s Health Defense, have sued federal officials on essentially the same grounds as did the Murthy plaintiffs. But unlike the Murthy plaintiffs, Mr. Kennedy and CHD are still being censored. CHD remains completely deplatformed from Facebook and Instagram. Moreover, government officials have repeatedly and specifically targeted both Mr. Kennedy and CHD by name when demanding more censorship from social-media platforms.

The plaintiffs won Kennedy v. Biden in the district court, which stayed its preliminary injunction pending the high court’s decision in Murthy. The government defendants have appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit, where they will undoubtedly argue that Murthy dictates reversal. It doesn’t. The Murthy majority opinion indicates that the Kennedy plaintiffs have a much stronger claim to standing and didn’t reach the question of the censorship campaign’s constitutionality. Only the three dissenting justices did, and they agreed that it is, in Justice Samuel Alito’s words, “blatantly unconstitutional.”

Murthy is a limited holding. American law doesn’t permit the government to get away with violating constitutional rights by making it impossible for anyone to seek redress in court. As Chief Justice John Marshall held in Marbury v. Madison (1803), “where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy.”

Mr. Rubenfeld is a professor at Yale Law School and a First Amendment lawyer. He represents Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the other plaintiffs in Kennedy v. Biden.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71210
    • View Profile
I'm thinking this needs more careful thinking
« Reply #254 on: July 04, 2024, 05:11:25 AM »


==================
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2024/07/03/ny-times-straight-up-attacks-free-speech-the-first-amendment-is-out-of-control-1469919/?utm_campaign=bizpac&utm_content=Newsletter&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Get%20Response&utm_term=EMAIL


Supreme Court asks lower courts to reevaluate red states’ anti-censorship laws
July 1, 2024 | Katelynn Richardson |  Print Article
ShareTweetTruthGettrTelegram
Daily Caller News Foundation

The Supreme Court sent cases on whether two red state laws intended to prevent viewpoint-based censorship on social media violate the First Amendment back to lower courts on Monday.

The majority reversed two lower court rulings in cases brought by NetChoice, an internet trade group that sued Florida and Texas over the laws. NetChoice argued the states violated the First Amendment rights of platforms by compelling speech and preventing the companies from exercising editorial discretion.

“The parties have not briefed the critical issues here, and the record is underdeveloped,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the ruling. “So we vacate the decisions below and remand these cases. That will enable the lower courts to consider the scope of the laws’ applications, and weigh the unconstitutional as against the constitutional ones.”

In 2022, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Florida’s law, which restricts platforms from banning political candidates and “journalistic enterprises.” However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals later that year upheld Texas’ law, which prohibits platforms with over 50 million monthly U.S. users from censoring users or content based on viewpoint.

The Fifth Circuit found that corporations do not “have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.”

Kagan wrote there is “enough litigation already to know that the Fifth Circuit, if it stayed the course, would get wrong at least one significant input into the facial analysis.”

Advertisement

“The parties treated Facebook’s News Feed and YouTube’s homepage as the heartland applications of the Texas law,” Kagan wrote. “At least on the current record, the editorial judgments influencing the content of those feeds are, contrary to the Fifth Circuit’s view, protected expressive activity.”

Oral arguments for the NetChoice cases were held in February.

The Supreme Court ruled last week on another major First Amendment case, Murthy v. Missouri, reversing a lower court’s injunction preventing the Biden administration from “coercing or significantly encouraging” social media companies to suppress speech. The Court found 6-3 that plaintiffs who challenged the government’s efforts encouraging platforms to censor speech on hot-button issues like COVID-19 and the 2020 election did not have standing to sue, as they failed to “link their past social-media restrictions to the defendants’ communications with the platforms.”

In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito slammed the majority for permitting “the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.” He called the government’s efforts “blatantly unconstitutional.”

In May, the Court unanimously allowed the National Rifle Association (NRA) to pursue its free speech lawsuit against former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) Maria Vullo. The justices found the NRA had “plausibly alleged” the official violated its First Amendment rights, holding that government officials cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”

=================

1) The article mentions what seems to me to be a very important point: The concept of the Goolag (FB etc) being "common carriers" (e.g. a RR, a telephone company)-- the argument being that no more than the phone company can regulate what you say over its lines, FB cannot control/censor your thoughts.  On the whole, this seems to me a correct and dispositive argument.

2) Closely related to this is the cognitive dissonance of FB being a Publisher (hence editing control) with the legal protections of a Platform -- I refer to Section 720.

3) Then there is the AI issue. Like most folks (especially clueless Boomers like me) I don't really understand AI at all, but I gather that plenty of top level serious people in this stuff see deep Skynet dangers ahead-- including that people as a matter of heuristic thinking will become slaves to the AI by deferring to its judgments without any of us understanding even how it comes to them!

It does not at all seem irrational to me to think that AI does not get 1A protection.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2024, 08:59:32 AM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19256
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71210
    • View Profile
The errors of Murthy
« Reply #256 on: July 09, 2024, 04:03:28 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71210
    • View Profile
DOJ promises to declassify
« Reply #257 on: July 26, 2024, 07:19:17 PM »
HT BBG

===================

Not a fan of this site, but it’s the first place where I’ve read about this fix the DOJ will supposedly introduce:

Dept of Justice Promises to Declassify Standard Operating Procedure for Coordinating with Social Media Platforms

Just Security / by Justin Hendrix / Jul 26, 2024 at 10:04 AM

Co-published with Tech Policy Press.

After the US Supreme Court punted, just last month, on First Amendment questions concerning how U.S. law enforcement agencies should interact with social media companies, the Department of Justice is now days away from declassifying its operating procedures for handling such matters. That outcome is the result of a multi-year investigation by the Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), which released a report earlier this week.

Background

In late June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration in Murthy v Missouri, a case that concerned whether the federal government violated the First Amendment rights of citizens by allegedly coordinating with social media platforms to remove disfavored speech. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the decision by the Fifth Circuit, finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case, since the evidence failed to connect any specific moderation decision by the platforms to inappropriate government influence.

The case’s path to the Supreme Court started on May 5, 2022, when Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a lawsuit accusing Biden administration officials of either coercing or colluding with tech companies in a “coordinated campaign” to remove disfavored content. Among the defendants named in the suit were the Section Chief of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), and a special agent in the San Francisco division of the FBI who regularly interacted with social media platforms. The suit alleged that “communications” that influenced Meta’s decision to temporarily limit the propagation of a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop ahead of the 2020 election emerged from the FITF.

The allegations in the suit sparked a wave of congressional investigations, and while its most lurid claims turned out to be flimsy or bogus on inspection, fair-minded experts generally agree that there should be clearer rules about how social media platforms interact with the federal government, particularly when it comes to law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies. Missouri’s Attorney General was likely unaware at the time he filed his suit that the Justice Department’s Inspector General had already initiated a probe to look into the subject. This week, the OIG published the result of its effort in a report titled, “Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Efforts to Coordinate Information Sharing About Foreign Malign Influence Threats to U.S. Elections.”

The Next Phase

The report says that OIG’s goal was to assess the effectiveness of the Justice Department’s system for sharing information related to “foreign malign influence directed at U.S. elections,” to evaluate “the Department’s oversight and management of its response,” and to help streamline or otherwise improve the department’s processes. The evaluation, which included fieldwork that commenced in October 2021 and concluded in April 2023, focused on “information sharing with social media companies to evaluate the aspect of the Department’s information-sharing system that the FITF developed following foreign malign influence directed at the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” During that election cycle, a substantial campaign by the Russian government gave rise to concerns over social media platforms as a vector for foreign influence.

The OIG report found that while the FBI had developed an “intelligence sharing model” (depicted in a graphic reproduced below) involving various actors in US law enforcement and intelligence communities and social media companies, there was in fact a significant gap in policies and guidance governing interactions between the government and the platforms. Until February 2024, when the OIG report says the Department of Justice issued a new standard operating procedure (SOP), there was no formal policy, which the OIG says created potential risks such as the perception of coercion or undue influence over private entities and, in turn, the speech of American citizens. The SOP, which is contained in a classified document, sets criteria for determining what constitutes foreign malign influence, lays out supervisory approval requirements for investigating it, and provides standard language for disclosures and guidance on engagement with social media companies, according to the OIG report.

While the OIG says that the operating procedure is an improvement, it notes the information’s classified nature is a drawback. “Because DOJ’s credibility and reputation are potentially impaired when its activities are not well understood by the public, we recommend that the Department identify a way that it can inform the public about the procedures it has put into place to transmit foreign malign influence threat information to social media companies in a manner that is protective of First Amendment rights,” the report says.

The report also notes that DOJ lacks “a comprehensive strategy guiding its approach to engagement with social media companies on foreign malign influence directed at U.S. elections,” a circumstance that resulted “in varied approaches to its information-sharing relationships with social media companies depending on where those companies were based,” a particular problem when firms are foreign-owned or located outside of the US.

While the OIG found that the FBI’s model for tracking foreign influence and sharing that information with social media companies primarily relied on identifying foreign actors rather than monitoring for specific types of content, the report does note that there were instances where the FBI did share “content” information, such as specific posts, with social media companies in order to alert them to specific themes or narratives that foreign actors intended to promote. This is a particularly fraught area, as it opens the door to the types of risks that were at the core of the original complaint in Murthy v Missouri.

The OIG report makes two recommendations “to address risks in DOJ’s mission to combat foreign malign influence directed at U.S. elections,” including that the department:

1. Develop an approach for informing the public about the procedures the Department has put into place to transmit foreign malign influence threat information to social media companies that is protective of First Amendment rights.

2. Develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to ensure that the Department of Justice’s approach to information sharing with social media companies to combat foreign malign influence directed at U.S. elections can adapt to address the evolving threat landscape.

The DOJ’s response to the OIG report, located in an appendix, notes that the department concurs with the first recommendation, and plans to address it “by making publicly available a detailed summary version of the SOP and posting that summary on DOJ’s website by July 31, 2024.” The response notes that the SOP emerged from the development of “a standardized approach” to sharing information on foreign influence operations that kicked off after the Supreme Court issued a stay of the Fifth Circuit injunction that temporarily prohibited contact between agencies such as the FBI and social media firms.

DOJ also concurred with the second OIG recommendation, and plans to address it with “additional actions by August 31, 2024,” including:

Development and Release of Strategic Principles. DOJ will set forth in a public manner the principles reflecting DOJ’ s strategy for sharing FMI information with social media companies to combat the evolving threat landscape.

Resumption of FBI’s Regular Meetings with Social Media Companies. As part of that strategy, FBI will resume regular meetings in the coming weeks with social media companies to brief and discuss potential FMI threats involving the companies’ platforms. FBI will conduct these meetings-as FBI did before pausing the meetings in summer 2023 due to the now-vacated Missouri injunction (see infra at 5)–in a manner that is entirely consistent with applicable first Amendment principles. As has been FBI’ s practice, FBI will conduct these engagements with social media companies located across the country, depending on the circumstances and nature of the potential threats.

Outreach by FBI Field Offices, to Social Media Companies. FBI will instruct FBI Field Offices in the coming weeks to conduct outreach– in coordination with the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF)– to any identified social media companies located in their areas of responsibility, to develop contacts at those companies and ensure they are aware of the SOP and DOJ’ s overall approach for engaging with social media companies regarding FMI threat information.

Engagements by Senior Officials. In the coming months, senior DOJ officials will highlight and explain, during public engagements with relevant stakeholders and the public, DOJ’s strategy for information sharing with social media companies to combat FMI directed at our elections.

Launch of DOJ Website Page. DOJ plans to launch a new section on its website dedicated to ensuring public awareness of DOJ’s strategy for engaging with social media companies regarding FMI. The website page will collect and highlight in a single location relevant resources, guidance, and other materials, including the summary of the SOP discussed above.

The OIG report notes that the relationship between the FBI and social media companies has been successful in disrupting multiple campaigns by foreign actors to interfere in US elections. Whether the DOJ, FBI, and other security and intelligence agencies can effectively quell public fears not about foreign interference but rather about their own government’s interference in elections is an open question; certainly, these recommendations and the DOJ’s responsiveness to them should help.

The post Dept of Justice Promises to Declassify Standard Operating Procedure for Coordinating with Social Media Platforms appeared first on Just Security.

https://www.justsecurity.org/98164/fbi-social-media-foreign-influence/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fbi-social-media-foreign-influence
Modify message

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19256
    • View Profile
Turley victom of Newsguard
« Reply #258 on: July 29, 2024, 08:53:14 AM »
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/newsguard-rate-censor/2024/07/28/id/1174248/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsGuard

Of course:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Brill_(journalist)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Glocer

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/L._Gordon_Crovitz

All Yale law grads.
One related to WSJ but the others left wing media

formed Newsguard to "fight fake news".

Did they contact CNN and MSNBC to make them warn viewers they are an ultra DNC fake news outlet?

Of course not.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71210
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18977
    • View Profile
Re: The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, & Assembly
« Reply #263 on: August 25, 2024, 07:48:18 AM »
Is it your read in Murthy that specific people that were censored and harmed needed to be the plaintiffs?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71210
    • View Profile
Re: The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, & Assembly
« Reply #264 on: August 26, 2024, 01:42:14 PM »
I confess to not having actually read it  :oops: but working from what I read here, yes.


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2790
    • View Profile
Re: Turley on the arrest of Pavel Durov
« Reply #266 on: August 28, 2024, 06:53:01 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71210
    • View Profile
WSJ: Kommiela vs. the First Amendment
« Reply #267 on: September 05, 2024, 02:38:26 PM »


That Kamala Harris Video and Censorship
Even after the fact checks, her comments were at war with the First Amendment.
James Freeman
Sept. 3, 2024 6:46 pm ET


In a widely viewed post on X, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. falsely describes the context of a video clip in which Kamala Harris talks about silencing someone with whom she disagrees. Once one understands the accurate context, her comment is just as appalling.

Mr. Kennedy’s mistake is in presenting the video as depicting our vice president describing why she thinks Elon Musk and his X media platform should be denied the right to free speech. In fact it’s a clip from 2019 in which Ms. Harris was trying to silence President Donald Trump and trample on First Amendment rights across all social media platforms.

Back in 2019 X was still called Twitter. Here’s what Ms. Harris told CNN about her campaign to pressure Twitter to turn off Mr. Trump’s account:

He has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. And the bottom line is that you can’t say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.
Government must regulate speech across all media platforms and dictate one set of rules for what people are permitted to say? This is a proposal for a frontal assault on the First Amendment, and a great reason for voters not to grant Ms. Harris the promotion she now seeks. Why most media outlets have not regarded her authoritarian message as disqualifying for the presidency is a question for another day. But it’s important that Mr. Kennedy’s error not obscure the danger to liberty expressed by a candidate in her own words.

In 2019 Ms. Harris was speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper right after the network had hosted a Democratic presidential candidates debate in Westerville, Ohio. News consumers may recall Sen. Elizabeth Warren as among the most aggressive proponents of giant, overbearing government in that primary race. But that night’s drama featured Ms. Warren resisting as Ms. Harris badgered her again and again to agree that Twitter should disable the sitting president’s account. Here’s an excerpt from CNN’s transcript, as Sen. Warren was given a chance to respond to Ms. Harris:

WARREN: So, look, I don’t just want to push Donald Trump off Twitter. I want to push him out of the White House. That’s our job.
HARRIS: Well, join me — join me in saying that his Twitter account should be shut down.
WARREN: But let’s figure — no. Let’s figure out…
HARRIS: No?
WARREN: … why it is that we have had laws on the books for antitrust for over a century, and yet for decades now, we’ve all called on how the big drug companies are calling the shots in Washington, big ag, how the gun industry, big tech — you know, we really need to address the elephant in the room, and that is how campaigns are financed.
HARRIS: You can’t say you’re for corporate responsibility if it doesn’t apply to everyone.
WARREN: I announced this morning — I announced this morning that I’m not going to take any money from big tech executives, from Wall Street executives. We’ve already agreed, Bernie and I, we’re not taking any money from big pharma executives.
Ms. Harris continued demanding that Sen. Warren endorse censorship of their chief political rival while the Massachusetts senator continued trying to change the subject. At one point questioner Marc Lacey of the New York Times tried to bring another candidate into the discussion but Ms. Harris said, “I’m not finished. I’m not finished.” She then continued to demand Ms. Warren’s assent in censorship, as the Massachusetts senator continued to resist.

Can you imagine a federal government so large and so contemptuous of constitutional liberty that Elizabeth Warren is the voice of restraint and the bulwark protecting individual rights?

Don’t say you haven’t been warned about Kamala Harris.

Her argument for shutting down the Trump account rested on an outrageous claim tying him to an El Paso shooting for which he was not responsible, and another bogus claim that criticizing the purported “whistleblower” that House Democrats would use for their partisan first impeachment amounted to threatening a witness. That night in Ohio, even CNN’s Mr. Tapper sounded skeptical:

TAPPER: So, without disputing that, let me ask you, but then there’s a slippery slope, right? I mean, does that mean anybody who writes about the whistleblower, anybody who questions the credibility of the whistleblower, that they shouldn’t have their articles, their statements on Twitter read also? I mean, that’s where it all starts heading.
HARRIS: I think that is a fine conversation for a law school debate, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about actual words issued by the president of the United States, unfiltered, which have clearly been threatening the life of witnesses to what might be a crime.
She didn’t say which actual words she considered a threat and of course there was no actual crime established in the Democrats’ partisan first impeachment effort, which ended with acquittal in the Senate in early 2020.

Kamala Harris didn’t want Mr. Trump to be able to defend himself in the public square. And that should concern every American, whether they support Mr. Trump or not.

***

James Freeman is the co-author of “The Cost: Trump, China and American Revival” and also the co-author of “Borrowed Time: Two Centuries of Booms, Busts and Bailouts at Citi.”