Mediaboss Marketing

Thanks to Eugene for inviting me to guest-blog about my new book, The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech.

For more than a half century, U.S. courts have held that the First Amendment provides a right to speak and associate anonymously. Courts have applied this right to the Internet and found a robustthough not absoluteability for people to control the identifying information they reveal online.

Anonymity is deeply rooted in the constitutional values and social norms of the United States. Anonymity has allowed speakers to communicate unpopular political viewpoints, whistleblowers to expose their employers' illegal schemes or ineptitude, and citizen journalists to document corruption and fraud. Anonymity is also employed for nefarious uses, such as defamation, persistent harassment, and online crimes.

The longstanding U.S. tradition of anonymous speech has enabled Americans to often separate their identities from the words that they communicate. In my book, I examine how the First Amendment protections, combined with technology that prevents identities from being associated with online activities, have created a culture of anonymity empowerment.

Anonymity is the "condition of avoiding identification," as David Kaye, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, wrote in 2015. What does it mean to empower anonymity? Does anonymity empowerment simply mean allowing people to hide their names when they post thoughts online?

My conception of anonymity empowerment is broad. Anonymity empowerment allows people to control what, if any, details about their identity to reveal. It includes, but goes beyond, merely separating a person's name from that person's speech; anonymity empowerment includes the protection of details that could increase the likelihood of the speaker being identified.

The culture of anonymity empowerment includes both true anonymity, when no identifiers are linked to expression, and pseudonymity, when speech or activity is associated with a pen name that does not directly identify the author but stays with that person over time.

The book first explores the origins of the American right to anonymity, dating back to England and the colonies. The nation's Founders made their case for independence and the Constitution in part by circulating anonymous pamphlets and writing inflammatory newspaper columns under pseudonyms. With that history in mind, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a qualified right to anonymous speech, striking down laws that require the NAACP to disclose its membership lists and prohibitions on the circulation of anonymous political writings.

The book then examines how courts have applied these First Amendment anonymity values to the Internet. Beginning in the 1990s, companies tried to use the court system to unmask people who criticized their business practices on online bulletin boards (and, if the posters turned out to be employees, they often would be fired). Judges gradually developed a process, rooted in the First Amendment, by which they only would order online service providers to reveal identifying information if the plaintiffs had a particularly strong case and satisfied other requirements. The right to anonymity exists in some other countries, but is especially strong in the United States. These legal rights, however, are not the only protections for anonymity. For instance, Tor, based on a technology developed by the Naval Research Laboratory in the 1990s, allows people to protect their online anonymity. Technology such as Tor, coupled with the First Amendment anonymity safeguards, have fostered substantial protections for those who wish to separate their online words from their identities.

The book considers how these robust online anonymity protections shape everyday life in the United States. The culture of anonymity empowerment in the United States has enabled citizen journalists to challenge the powerful in ways they never would have been able to do under their real names. Anonymity also has been a tool in some substantial harms, such as people who ruin the lives of innocent people hiding enough of their identifying information to at least temporarily avoid prosecution.

Finally, the book contemplates how to continue to empower anonymity. The First Amendment addresses government intrusions on free speech; its anonymity protections, like the other First Amendment safeguards, generally do not restrict the voluntary actions of private companies. Some platforms require their users to operate under their real names. And technological advancements have not only led to anonymity protections, but also to increased surveillance by the government and the private sector, often making anonymity empowerment harder. Technologies like facial recognition and geolocation allow companies to have unprecedented access to information that often can easily identify a speaker. Thus, I argue that to continue the U.S. tradition of anonymity empowerment, lawmakers should supplement the First Amendment protections and anonymity technology with robust privacy laws that restrict the ability of private parties and the government to collect, use, and share identifying information.

I ultimately conclude that we must preserve and improve upon the culture of anonymity empowerment, even though the equities are more complex than ever. It is difficult to imagine the American conception of free speech surviving without robust anonymity protections. I do not argue for absolute anonymity protections; even if such a goal were achievable, in extraordinary circumstances we should pierce the veil of anonymity.

Given the wide range of online harms, it might be tempting to call for an end to online anonymity, such as by imposing real-name requirements that other countries have adopted. I agree with free speech expert Jillian York, who has called such proposals the "White Man's Gambit." LGBT teenagers, domestic abuse survivors, and other vulnerable groups often are the ones that rely most on anonymity and pseudonymity, York wrote.

The second post will examine the historical context for anonymous speech. The third post will explore one of the first cases in which the Supreme Court recognized a right to anonymous speech. The fourth post will describe how courts have applied anonymous speech rights to the Internet. And the fifth post will consider the future of anonymous speech, and the need for more robust privacy laws that incorporate anonymity values.

Excerpt from:
The United States of Anonymous - Reason

Somerset State Rep. Shane Baker's bill that would prevent religious organizations from being discriminated against during a state of emergency has just one final hurdle: A vote from the full Senate.

House Bill 43 passed the Senate State and Local Government Committeeon a 10-1 vote on Thursday.

"I really feel good about (the bill's) final passage," Baker said after the committee vote. "But I will breathe easier when they add it to their calendar."

Baker told the committeethe bill is in response to the shutdown of churches and other religious organizations in 2020, as the scourge of COVID-19 crept across the nation.

The bill does a couple of simple things, he said. No. 1, it says that churches and religious organizations should be treated in the same manner as other essential organizations during times of emergency.

The bill would also prevent the state from taking adverse action against a religious organization simply for being religious. Additionally, it would codify recent Supreme Court decisions, which make clear that free exercise rights are fundamental, and that governments cant treat religious organizations more adversely than other groups, Baker said.

Basically, it would make churches "essential" in the face of another emergency, such as the pandemic. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear tried to close houses of worship during the crisis but courts have deemed that measure unconstitutional.

The governors executive order specified houses of worship, churches were to be shut down, Baker said. There was also a list that was released that talked about essential entities, which included home improvement centers, grocery stores, gas stations, banks liquor stores were included in there, oddly enough but churches were shut down.

"You go to the grocery store and these other places and they are deemed essential," Baker added. "If you can visit those safely you can also go to church safely."

The bill also allows religious organizations to bring a lawsuit if they have been discriminated against, he said.

David Walls, executive director of The Family Foundation, offered supportive comments on the bill to the Senate committee.

Its vitally important that we ensure churches and other religious organizations receive at least equal treatment during an emergency, and that the state is not allowed to discriminate against them on the basis of them being a religious organization, he said.

Baker saidBeshear's order was a violation of First Amendment rights the U.S. Constitutional amendment that states government cannot make laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The First Amendment obviously protects our religious liberties, and its a clear violation to shut the church down, he said.

He added that there are a number of functions churches fulfill in society that many consider essential. Not only does it offer a place for people to gather for worship, but it also offers a lot of ways to meet needs, such as providing ministry, food and clothing to those in need.

He also said the church provided a needed way for many elderly residents widows and widowers to socialize, where it might be the only time during the week that they leave their homes.

Sen. Christian McDaniel, R-Taylor Mill, voted for the measure, but expressed concerns about unintended consequences.

You are opening up for interpretation with this, what is actually constituted as religious expression and a right of action against the state that currently exists. I think that we may be opening ourselves up to some unintended consequences that have not been thought through very well with this," McDaniel said. "Im going to vote aye because Im with you on the issue, but I think we have the potential to be heading into some dangerous territory here."

"We have the votes to pass it in the House, and I have no doubt the Senate would have the votes to pass it there, Baker said. The question is, do we understand the need for it to make this a priority to move this forward.

Rep. Kelly Flood, D-Lexington, voted no on the bill when it came before the House, stating in a news release she is not endorsing a bill that says it's ok to break civil rules in emergencies.

"I'm saying that we are not breaking civil rules," Baker insisted. "We are supporting our constitutional rights."

House Bill 43 passed the House 83-12 with support from both Democrats and Republicans.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

See the original post here:
Baker's bill making churches 'essential' passes another hurdle - Commonwealth Journal's History

From secrecy in hiring presidents at state universities and community colleges to knowing about key information about companies that make and supply drugs used in executions, lawmakers continued to keep Florida residents in the dark in the 2022 session.

Floridas First Amendment Foundation this week published a post-session report on what did or didnt get done for Floridians when it comes to public records and public meetings.

The Legislature enacted 25 exemptions new or reinstatements related to whats called the Open Government Sunset Review Act. (While the Legislature approved the exemptions, they would need to be approved by Gov. Ron DeSantis.)

The foundation noted that while several bills will limit public access to government information, some particularly bad bills died. The legislature failed to pass bills that would limit access to law enforcement investigative records and autopsy reports of minors.

That said, many bills were flying through committees without question or opposition during the session, according to the foundation.

DeSantis already approved SB 520 on Tuesday, the legislation that would make presidential searches confidential for applicants, at first, at state universities and community colleges. The final group of candidates would later become public.

The foundation wrote that: For as long as this bill has been debated, proponents have argued that secrecy is necessary to have the largest pool of qualified candidates possible. However, Florida has selected presidents in leadership positions from top universities. The pool of candidates may be broader with secrecy candidates who fear scrutiny and public vetting can apply. Data from other states makes clear that secret searches lead to the hiring of more insider candidates and political appointeesHow secrecy will lead to more transparency will be scrutinized in the search for president at four Florida universities.

Other exemptions in the foundations report include:

/Information that could reasonably lead to identification of a person or entity participating in any aspect of an execution. This legislation will prevent the public from knowing the reputability and safety records of the companies making and supplying the drugs used in executions. The bill misleads the public and drug manufactures who dont want their products used in lethal injections from discovering the states use of the drugs in executions.

/A last-minute bill will limit the publics access to legal notices.

/Requires a clerk of court, upon written request, to keep all official records separate and out of public view in a proceeding involving a family trust company, licensed family trust company, or foreign licensed family trust company. Makes confidential and exempts court records defined as the docket, all filings, and other records of such cases.

The foundation wrote: This legislation is counter to the long tradition of open access to court proceedings in our state and country.

You can see other exemptions in the foundation report here.

More here:
Floridians in the dark as secrecy abounds following the 2022 legislative session - Florida Phoenix

Its a remarkable pitch for a party that will retain full control of Washington, at least through the end of the year. But many lawmakers on the left the progressive wing, the Black Caucus and even some members of leadership say they have little choice after theyve passed bills on almost every piece of Bidens agenda, only to see them languish or outright die in the Senate.

And for many Democrats who are retiring or may lose their seats, this year is their last chance to see their priorities advance.

People are realizing that, at this point in the cycle, executive order is probably where youre going to start seeing more things get done, said Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Md.), ticking off still unfinished items, including voting reforms and a policing overhaul bill named for George Floyd. Browns among the Democrats eyeing the congressional exits this year; hes running for attorney general of his state.

The legislative window is rapidly closing ahead of the November elections, which threaten to send House Democrats back to the minority before theyve achieved some of their loftiest campaign promises. While they still say the Senate could take up more of Bidens goals, the new widespread focus on executive actions illustrates their intense anxiety that Congress may not deliver leaving them with nothing new to tout to voters this fall.

Senior Democrats say the shift is not a reflection of the party adopting a minority mindset, but rather an evolution toward whats more achievable with a 50-50 Senate and margins in the House that are nearly as tight.

And not all Democrats are on board, insisting they must focus on passing more party-line policies this year using the Senate filibuster workarounds of the annual budget, as well as notching bipartisan wins that can outlast a Republican taking over the White House.

But three months after Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) knifed a House-passed social spending package that liberals packed with legislative dreams such as universal pre-K and paid leave, key factions of the House Democratic caucus have been plotting exactly what Biden can do while their own hands remain tied.

As senior Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) quipped: Youve seen how easy thats been, right?

Executive action, its a last resort. This is a legislative body, Larson said. But there are other important issues that need to be discussed. And if the Senate isnt going to vote, theyre not going to vote.

For some liberal Democrats, its also a reflection of how many of their dearly held aims required a filibuster overhaul to get done including reforms to elections and gun control, areas where bipartisan deal-making efforts have always fallen short. And dreams of weakening the filibuster got effectively squashed last year by resistance from Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).

Three months after Sen. Joe Manchin knifed a House-passed social spending package, key factions of the House Democratic caucus have been plotting exactly what Biden can do while their own hands remain tied.|(J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)

Other Democrats say executive actions are a chance for Biden to use his presidential pen to give the party a quick lift ahead of the midterms. Even if more bills are passed this Congress, they question if the benefits would make a tangible difference back home before November.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said she wanted to provide options for the White House to act right now to cut costs for Americans as gas prices are going up and other things are uncertain for people. The progressive group released its full slate of executive actions on Thursday, tackling federal student debt, criminal justice and prescription drug prices, among other issues.

Jayapals isnt the only influential House Democratic group preparing lists of potential actions for the Biden administration to take on priorities that have stalled out in Congress. That group also includes leaders of the Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus and the Asian Pacific American Caucus, whose leaders are talking with the White House about the policy areas where theyd like to see change.

Some of those Democrats have brought their requests to Biden himself during talks with him after the State of the Union. The Asian and Black Caucuses, who met with Biden and senior White House staff last week, raised concerns about everything from voting reform to the implementation of anti-hate crime legislation. The Hispanic Caucus, which is likely to meet with Biden soon, is drawing up executive orders to address immigration issues, both related to Ukraine and at the southern border.

Its not clear exactly which executive orders Biden might consider, and the White House did not offer a comment for this story.

If we could do voting rights whether its executive order or any way we can I think its something that we should not walk away from, Black Caucus Chair Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) said. Her group met Wednesday to discuss potential executive actions related to voting rights and criminal justice, among other issues, and plans to discuss them further on Thursday, she said in a brief interview.

Lawmakers acknowledge the orders are hardly a substitute for legislation and could easily be undone by the next administration. Despite the prospect of legal challenges, some view Bidens executive powers as perhaps their best chance to spur immediate action.

We all agree theres no substitute for legislation and passing bills that can become laws ... but occasionally there will be needs to address this through executive action, Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), vice chair of the caucus, said Wednesday.

Other Democrats, however, are adamant that the party shouldnt shift its focus away from Congress, particularly while they hold all levers of power.

If were talking about long-term durable policy that helps people, Congress needs to act, said Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), who leads the centrist New Democrats Coalition. Thats our job.

Still, the push for executive actions emerged as a dominant theme at House Democrats retreat in Philadelphia last week. There, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn endorsed the idea, even noting that the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, too, acknowledged the role of presidential powers, though she reiterated the need for Congress to pass its own bills.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn endorsed the idea of executive actions, even noting that the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order.|Kevin Dietsch/AP Photo

The pressure on Biden to take action has been building for months within a frustrated House Democratic caucus, where some more liberal lawmakers have privately described him as overly cautious in wielding presidential authority.

That includes the progressive call for cancellation of student loan debt, a critical topic for younger voters. As many Democrats have beseeched Biden to act on his own to erase tens of thousands of dollars in student debt, White House press secretary Jen Psaki recently told reporters that the president is waiting for Congress to send him a bill on the subject.

But the failed push on student debt, like much of the partys to-do list, has House Democrats again pointing to the Senate.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) joked perhaps with a scrap of seriousness that one-third of House members would like to have legislation over here to do away with the Senate. And one House Democrat could barely contain his sarcasm after the Senate, following months of delay on Bidens social spending plan, unanimously cleared a bill that would make daylight saving time permanent.

I was so concerned about the inflation we were dealing with, Larson said after the Senates surprise vote. But you know what? They fixed daylight saving time. God bless. My life has just been made.

Originally posted here:
House liberals start asking Biden to sidestep Congress months before the midterms - POLITICO

Making use of a time-honored tradition in government communications, Canadas Department of Finance last Friday afternoon released its amended proposal for a tax on luxury goods. Outside of tax season, of course, most people dont visit government websites on the regular. But burying an official release in the wee hours of the working week makes it even less likely anyone will notice something potentially controversial or embarrassing. In this case, the governments timing is almost certainly owed to a new provision added to the legislation since its initial drafting last year, which reads as follows: Relief for aircraft is proposed to be expanded to take into account qualifying flights that are conducted in the course of a business with a reasonable expectation of profit.

Its a pretty soporific sequence of words, even with more context. But what it appears to mean is that Canadas governing Liberal Party plans to amend their proposed tax on new luxury cars and aircraft so that private jets used in the course of business can be written off. Revisit the language in the Liberals 2021 budget and the more detailed backgrounder published in August, and the word profit does not appear. Some possible exemptions to the tax are mentioned, but they mostly have to do with planes imported for use by hospitals, local governments, or police and fire departments.

In other words: in the roughly seven months since the government published its previous version of the legislation, a major carveout has been added that quite visibly opens the door to all kinds of avoidance by wealthy individuals. According to its Friday release, the amended draft reflect[s], and respond[s] to, input received during consultations with stakeholders, which very likely means that the owners of private jets agitated for an exemption.

It would hardly be the first time Canadas wealthy have successfully advocated for obscene carveouts in tax policy. In breaking his promise to close a $750 million stock-option loophole used almost exclusively by CEOs and other executives, former finance minister Bill Morneau claimed hed received input from many small firms and innovators to the effect that they use stock options as a legitimate form of compensation. Documents published by PressProgress, however, found that Morneau (himself a wealthy former executive) had been aggressively lobbied by corporate Canada to maintain a loophole used almost exclusively by eight thousand of the countrys wealthiest people.

Canadas tax system is riddled with absurd exemptions like this. They may be completely indefensible as extensions of the public interest, though theyre also par for the course given the imbalances of power inherent in who lobbies the government and the resources different groups have at their disposal to do so. Its a clear case of special-interest capture and class bias in policymaking but also a reminder of one of the cardinal flaws in how the liberal state conceives neutrality. On paper at least, liberal states in a representative democracy act as neutral arbiters of the public interest. Sometimes, of course, this requires policy trade-offs or the balancing of competing demands. Regardless, what emerges is supposed to be autonomous from the particularist considerations of one interest group or another.

Even in the case of something entirely noncontroversial such as a luxury-goods or stock-option-compensation tax, however, it quickly becomes obvious that many policies are rarely assembled this way. In the course of policymaking, various stakeholders lobby, agitate, and put pressure on the government, but those with the means to do so most effectively are most often monied private actors rather than public interest groups or concerned citizens. Especially when it comes to tax policies or large expenditures, the former generally have an army of lawyers, lobbyists, and PR professionals at their disposal not to mention considerable influence by virtue of their location in the economy. Except in a few exceptional cases, the latter are unlikely to be able to mobilize anything like the same reach or pressure.

The result, as looks evident here, is often policy with no significant popular buy-in and that no sensible person not being paid to think otherwise could convincingly defend.

See the original post:
Canada's Liberals Are Letting the Wealthy Write Their Own Tax Policy - Jacobin magazine