Mediaboss Marketing

Activist organizations and families affected by Florida's bill restricting discussions on LGBT issues in public schools have filed suit to stop it, arguing that it violates the First and 14th Amendment rights of students, parents, and teachers in the state.

H.B. 1557, known by its opponents as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, was passed by Florida's Legislature earlier in the year and signed into law by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in March. The bill's supporters insist that its purpose is to stop inappropriate discussions of sex and gender in front of young school children from kindergarten through third grade.

But that's not what the law actually saysit instead bans discussion about "sexual orientation or gender identity" in those grades, not sex. It further bans any discussion about topics that are not "age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students" without identifying what any of that means. It also allows parents of students to take schools to court and seek financial damages for violations of this very vaguely written law.

Nonprofit group Equality Florida filed suit Thursday in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Florida, joined by some gay and trans students in Florida schools, several gay couples with children in public schools, and a teacher.

The lawsuit describes H.B. 1557 as a bill that does not, in fact, stop overly vivid discussions of sex with children but instead attempts to censor speech about LGBT issues, sexual or not:

It offends principles of free speech and equal protection by seeking to censor discussions of sexual orientation or gender identity that recognize and respect LGBTQ people and their families. It offends due process by using broad and vague terms to define its prohibitionsthus inviting discriminatory enforcement and magnifying its chilling effect on speech. And it arises from discriminatory purposes and outdated sex-based stereotypes that offend deeply rooted constitutional and statutory requirements.

The lawsuit explains what people mean when they call it the "Don't Say Gay" bill, even though the text of the bill doesn't technically forbid saying "gay." The bill authorizes families to sue over violations of terms that are never defined by the bill:

H.B. 1557 recruits every parent as a roving censor, armed with a legal warrant to sue schools for damages whenever they believe a teacher, a student, or any "third party" has provided any "classroom instruction" that may be perceived as relating to "sexual orientation" or "gender identity." The potential for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement here is self-evidentand it reflects a choice designed to maximize the law's in terrorem (threatening) effects. H.B. 1557 thus operates in a manner antithetical to reasonable requirements of an age or developmentally appropriate education, instead creating a scheme in which parents can use the threat of litigation over vague statutory terms to menace school boards and intimidate teachers into offering a skewed, discriminatory curriculum.

The lawsuit lists a bunch of potential discussions of LGBT issues that aren't inherently about sex or gender identity and questions whether they run afoul of the law. "Can a student of two gay parents talk about their family during a class debate about civics? Can that student paint a family portrait in art class? Can a lesbian student refer to their own coming out experience while responding to a work of literature? Can a transgender student talk about their gender identity while studying civil rights in history class?"

If you believe people who say that H.B. 1557 is about stopping only sexual discussions around children, you might think that the answer to these questions would be "yes." But that's not what the bill actually says, and this lawsuit is intended to highlight that fundamental flaw. In fact, when one lawmaker attempted to amend the bill to make the language more explicitly about prohibiting discussion of "human sexuality or sexual activity," he was shot down.

The lawsuit lists six counts of potential First and 14th Amendment violations. Plaintiffs argue that the law should be considered "void for vagueness," a judicial principle that requires that laws (particularly criminal laws or laws that have penalties like this one) have clear definitions of their prohibitions. In this case, because all the terms go undefined and the "state standards" the bill refers to do not yet exist, the plaintiffs argue that they are uncertain about what they can legally discuss without violating H.B. 1557.

The lawsuit further claims that the bill violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by targeting LGBT people and treating them differently from other people. (Under the text of the bill, a teacher could quite vividly discuss sexual behavior with school children as long as it's heterosexual behavior.) They argue the law violates the First Amendment rights of students to receive information for reasons unrelated to pedagogical concerns and by creating a chilling effect that censors speech.

The lawsuit asks the court to stop Florida from implementing and enforcing H.B. 1557.

As a reminder, the last big bill Florida passed out of political spite, S.B. 7072, their "anti-Big Tech" bill that attempts to wrest control away from social media platforms, has been blocked by a federal judge for violating the First Amendment rights of the social media companies. The judge further warned that several of the bill's provisions were "especially vague," an issue because the bill also threatened massive fines. Don't be surprised if the exact same thing happens here.

Excerpt from:
Florida Sued by Activists, Students, Parents, and Teachers Over LGBT School Censorship Bill - Reason

This is a version of an article published in the Out of Frame Weekly, an email newsletter about the intersection of art, culture, and ideas. Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Friday.

In this newsletter, we often talk about how social media companies decide what content is and isnt allowed solely based on the subjective opinions of people who run the platforms. And this week gifted us two glorious examples.

The Intercept reported that Facebook will allow users to praise the Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian White nationalist paramilitary group, in contradiction to the social network's policy banning support for "dangerous individuals and organizations." According to the United Nations, the Azov Battalion raped and tortured civilians in 2014.

Facebook said it made the change to "allow Facebook users to obtain information about the forces' military activity" and "ensure that news coverage of the conflict can continue to be shared on the platform," according to Insider. It is unclear why this change was necessary to allow that, but that may speak to bigger problems in how Facebook's rules conflict with users' ability to freely share information.

Facebook also made an exception to its hate speech policy to allow statements like "death to the Russian invaders" and calling for violence against Russian president Vladimir Putin and his ally, Belarussian president Aleksandr Lukashenko.

The change only applies in several countries in the Caucasus and Central and Eastern Europe, including Russia, where Facebook is currently banned.

People should rightfully condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But these actions by Facebook, along with decisions to ban propaganda from only one side in the war, demonstrate that decisions that should be made on some kind of objective principle are instead being made on the basis of team sport. Policies are chosen on the basis of trying to help "the good guys" and harm "the bad guys." What is the objective reason that people should be allowed to call for the death of Putin and Lukashenko but not any of the world's dozens of other dictators?

This shows that while banning "false information" or "hate speech" sounds good in theory, in practice it is not so simple, and the execution is prone to political bias.

Read more:
The Most Blatantly Biased Social Media Censorship Decisions of the Week | Matt Hampton - Foundation for Economic Education

An unknown person on Top Channels show Top Storys Facebook page on Thursday sent shockwaves across Albania after claiming that the TV channels bosses had cancelled the airing of an important documentary entitled The Oligarchs of the Urban Renaissance.

This #Investigation sheds light on abuses and corruption in town centre reconstructions carried over the last eight years, the anonymous statement read.

Top Story staff have been under pressure from the directors, starting from the way in which themes were dealt with to the firing of the shows director, it adds.

Shortly after, Top Channel issued a statement naming former director Endrit Habilaj as the author of the Facebook post, and accusing him of blackmail. The channel called the statement defamatory and said Habilaj had been fired for breach of ethics.

Our legal team is preparing the documents and will forward them to the authorities to ascertain the legal responsibilities and damages that the individuals caused the company by using the profession and the show as a tool for extortion and threats, also misusing foreign donations, the statement read.

It claimed that the doc was axed for breach of ethics.

When the board analyzed the materials and observed serious ethical and professional breaches, it decided to not air this extortion, done in the name of two individuals who once worked for Top Channel but not in the interests of the truth, the statement added.

Habilaj, who anchored the show for four years, responded by accusing the CEO and owner of Top Channel, Vjollca Hoxha, of a list of extortion campaigns against other businessmen and state officials.

He did not deny, nor did he confirm authoring the statement on the shows Facebook page but dismissed claims that the canceled show was an act of blackmail.

Oligarchs of the Urban Resonance was not produced by me but by Esmeralda Keta, the winner of two EU Awards [on Investigative Journalism], Habilaj said.

This show was produced through an EU-funded project, he added, listing several alleged acts of blackmail carried out by channel owner Hoxha.

Habilaj is also an entrepreneur who owns two companies whose stated activities are media production, marketing and media buying.

A number of businessmen in Albania have been targeted as oligarchs in reference to their alleged sway over the government of Prime Minister Edi Rama.

Rama has claimed these oligarchs do not exist and has accused the media of using its own influence on public opinion to extort money from businesses.

Go here to see the original:
Censorship and Blackmail Accusations Rock Albania's Top TV Station - Balkan Insight

OPINION:

The last few weeks have not been good for the corporate media or anyone who values the principle of free speech on social media. From Hunter Bidens laptop to the bogus Russian dossier, to COVID-19 vaccines and transgender issues, glaring errors of journalism and stringent thought control have been proven, once again, to always flow in one direction.

The Washington Post became the latest media outlet to belatedly confirm the authenticity of Hunters laptop, nearly a year and a half after his emails and texts surfaced late in the 2020 presidential election. These materials had been derided by most media as Russian disinformation for 17 months.

The Post story followed The New York Times, which two weeks earlier inserted its own confirmation of the laptop into the 24th paragraph of a report about the ongoing federal investigation into Hunters lucrative, habitual selling of access to his powerful father, now-President Joe Biden.

But still unexamined by the media are the emails that link Mr. Biden to Hunters international business schemes.

Even so, the burst of reporting birthed a segment on CNN, previously unthinkable there, in which senior legal analyst Elie Honig intoned that the case building against Hunter represents a very real, very substantial investigation of potentially serious federal crimes, creating a realistic chance this could result in federal charges.

In the wake of this grudging journalism came news from the Federal Election Commission that Hillary Clintons 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee were fined a total of $113,000 for improperly disclosing how they paid for the infamous Steele Dossier. The fabricated opposition research document was central to the now-discredited Russian collusion hoax that most media and Democrats in Congress used to undermine the first two years of former President Donald Trumps administration.

Silicon Valley also got in on the action, and as a consultant to GETTR, a new free speech platform, I pay close attention to what happens on social media.

Twitter reminded us that it still wields unchecked power to stifle free speech by suspending journalist John Solomons account for linking to his own story about a peer-reviewed COVID-19 vaccine study.

Mr. Solomon reported on research from Swedens Lund University, which has worked closely with the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization, examining how the Pfizer vaccine interacts with liver cells.

Despite the studys appearance in Current Issues in Molecular Biology, a respected medical journal, Twitter ruled that Mr. Solomon had violated its policy on spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.

Apparently, Twitter is now staffed by expert molecular scientists who feel empowered to invalidate complex medical research.

To this point, defenders of the social media oligarchs have claimed that they run private companies, and so can enforce whatever rules they want. But what about when the government is the entity which instigates the censorship?

White House press secretary Jen Psaki has already admitted that the Biden administration flags selected social media posts and certain accounts for Facebook, identifying them as spreaders of COVID-19 misinformation. Its unknown if Mr. Solomons tweet was singled out by the White House, but at the very least, the executive branchs engagement in censorial activity emboldens tech companies and is precisely the sort of overreach the First Amendment is intended to prohibit.

And Twitter has been on a suspension rampage of late, targeting conservative accounts over the alleged misgendering of transgender people.

The satirical website Babylon Bee, commentator Charlie Kirk and Fox News host Tucker Carlson were all locked out of their Twitter accounts for various offenses involving tweets about Rachel Levine, an official in the Biden administration who is transgender.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler, a congresswoman from Missouri who is running for the U.S. Senate in that state, was suspended for tweeting her television ad about University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas, a biological male who has been dominating womens collegiate swimming.

At the end of this troubling period of overdue reporting and crackdowns on free expression all of which displayed bias against conservatives there was at least the chance for reporters to ask the White House about the revelations contained in the presidents sons computer.

Biden communications director Kate Bedingfield handled the White House press briefing on Tuesday and Wednesday this week, which was good timing since she had dismissed the laptop as Russian misinformation during the closing days of the 2020 presidential race.

Only, not a single reporter asked her about it.

But why would they? Most of them agreed with her back then and dont want to admit their error now.

But is a tiny bit of objectivity really too much to ask?

Tim Murtaugh is a Washington Times columnist and the founder and principal of Line Drive Public Affairs, a communication consulting firm.

Read more here:
Media and Big Tech censorship is alive and well - Washington Times

Google has told its Russian translators not to use the word "war" when describing the war in Ukraine, and instead to use vague terms including extraordinary circumstances, according to The Intercept.

The order was directed at contractors who translate Google products and communications into Russian. It's a clear concession to Russia's recently passed censorship law, which imposes up to 15 years of prison time for anyone who spreads what the Kremlin considers to be false information about the invasion. That law is what prompted TikTok and some news organizations to suspend operations inside Russia.

In a statement to The Intercept, Google spokesperson Alex Krasov said the company is working to ensure "the safety of our local employees."

Google has ample reason to believe its employees really could be targets they already have been. Last year, according to The Washington Post, Russian agents went to the home of one Google executive in Moscow and threatened her with prison time if Google didn't remove an app linked to opposition leader Alexei Navalny from the Play store. When Google moved the woman to a hotel, where she checked in under a fake name, the same Russian agents reportedly found her there and doubled down on their threats. Shortly after, both Google and Apple removed the app.

Google has since suspended operations of several of its commercial products, including Google ads, inside Russia. But it's continuing to offer information services, including search and YouTube, inside of the country. These products "provide access to global information and perspectives," Google president of Global Affairs Kent Walker wrote in a company blog post.

Digital rights advocates have emphasized the importance of continuing to allow information and communications to flow in and out of Russia, putting pressure on the Biden administration to ensure sanctions don't interfere with the ability of the Russian people to share and get information about the war that hasn't been filtered through the Kremlin. But ultimately, some of that is out of U.S. tech companies' hands. Last week, a Russian court deemed Meta an extremist organization, outlawing both Facebook and Instagram inside the country.

See the rest here:
Google ordered translators to censor the word 'war' in Russia - Protocol