Mediaboss Marketing

The US Supreme Court is poised to consider a question with seismic consequences for online speech. Over the past year, laws in Texas and Florida have set up a legal battle over whether the First Amendment protects social networks right to curate user-generated content or whether these sites should be treated more like phone companies, required to host nearly any speech their users post. The courts split reflects a deepening shift in how to interpret a basic constitutional right, filtered through a political culture war and backlash against large web platforms.

For years, sites like Facebook and YouTube have broadly assumed that moderation decisions are protected by the First Amendment. But, last month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals made a surprise ruling over Texas HB 20, a law that bans large apps and websites from moderating content based on viewpoint. The court ruled against NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and let the law go into effect, sending the groups scrambling to file an emergency Supreme Court petition. That petition was granted temporarily blocking the law but also offering a preview of a seemingly inevitable Supreme Court battle.

I would be surprised if the court doesnt take this up, says Ari Cohn, counsel at the libertarian-leaning nonprofit TechFreedom one of roughly 30 groups that supported the petition. The Fifth Circuit still hasnt decided on the laws merits, but it seems highly sympathetic to Texas reasoning. And that reasoning conflicts directly with a May ruling from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which blocked Floridas similar law. Barring a sudden and massive shift, its almost inevitable this is going to create a circuit split and go up next term, says Cohn.

The central issue is whether the government can regulate how social networks sort and remove legal content. Opponents argue that curating posts and setting community standards involves private companies exercising a constitutional right to speak (or not speak, in the case of content bans). Supporters compare the sites to shopping malls or telephone networks, whose First Amendment rights are limited.

But both sides so far are leaning on old cases involving non-digital spaces and tech, and the Texas law in particular repurposes legal terms outside of even relatively recent judicial context. It designates social networks as utility-like common carriers, a label that federal rules explicitly avoid applying to internet service providers let alone websites. And it also bans viewpoint discrimination, a term the Supreme Court has used to describe unlawful government restrictions on speech but that Texas lawmakers have treated as synonymous with private companies moderating conservative content.

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Texas could make that legal repurposing stick, and its implications would go far beyond Facebook banning former President Donald Trump. Democratic politicians have discussed punishing the spread of health misinformation or other harmful but legal speech. And, depending on how its written, the ruling wont necessarily just apply to the biggest social media companies. Even Texas law, which applies to services with 50 million monthly active users, would likely scoop up non-Big Tech sites like Yelp or Tumblr.

Texas and Florida politicians have also taken the unusual step of describing their bills as conservative weapons against the alleged liberal bias of tech companies. To Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at media advocacy group Free Press, that makes them a risky place even for good-faith debate over the First Amendment and makes any Supreme Court decision particularly fraught. This is not a great opportunity to talk about free speech, because this is not the way to appropriately regulate the First Amendment. There are ways that that can be done, Benavidez says. A states partisan interest in protecting certain speech is not one of those avenues.

Benavidez acknowledges real concerns around large social networks, which have tremendous power to shape speech online in some cases literally changing the way a generation talks. But a ruling that their community standards arent protected speech, she argues, would have catastrophic consequences. People who are supportive of HB 20 imagine that the law will help protect speech, she says. In reality, governments dictating what private actors can and cant do, and essentially picking and choosing speech that is acceptable, is a precursor in every country around the world to totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and the demise of democratic engagement.

For a hugely consequential law, however, HB 20 has moved between courts with a marked lack of explanation. The Fifth Circuit declined to offer a rationale for its decision, and the case flowed through the Supreme Courts shadow docket emergency petition system something NetChoice and the CCIA called a necessity after the Fifth Circuits abrupt decision but that resulted in only a short dissent from Justice Samuel Alito and no majority opinion.

This case has been anything but normal, says Cohn. There has definitely been a dearth of information from the majorities at every level except the district court level.

Thats left court watchers speculating about what last weeks 54 vote means. Its really hard to make predictions on the basis of the decision we have so far, because the majority didnt issue an opinion, says Alex Abdo, litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Alitos dissent, which was co-signed by the Republican-appointed justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, emphasized that he hadnt reached a conclusion on the law. Former President Barack Obama appointee Justice Elena Kagan voted against the decision without signing a move several experts suggested might be a protest against the controversial shadow docket itself but also said was still open to interpretation.

Columbia Law School professor Philip Hamburger, who filed one of the two legal briefs supporting HB 20, believes that this early vote simply doesnt say much about the laws prospects. Justice Alito hinted that the Supreme Court vacated the stay simply because the case is so important, he tells The Verge. It did not resolve the constitutional question.

CCIA president Matt Schruers contends that theres little ambiguity. I think we have five members of the federal judiciary who have made unmistakably clear their views, and theyre all aligned that a Fairness Doctrine for the internet is not constitutional. He also disagreed with the idea that courts havent spoken clearly on the law. We have gone three for three in federal court, he said referring to district court opinions in Texas and Florida plus the appeals court decision in Florida, all of which have largely rejected the states reasoning.

Other critics of the law arent as optimistic. I dont agree with every First Amendment argument the platforms are making, but the central argument they make that they have a right and their users have a right for the platforms to enforce community norms of their choosing is an incredibly important right for free speech online. And the three justices in the dissent seem ready to reject that argument, says Abdo. Justice Thomas in particular is a well-known proponent of some novel legal theories about internet law, and he seems likely to favor arguments for regulating social media.

Beyond the pressing question of whether sites can be required to carry certain content, the court could address more nuanced questions about what the First Amendment might protect. As Will Oremus of The Washington Post discusses, the Eleventh Circuit let parts of Floridas law stand, saying that limited regulation like transparency requirements doesnt necessarily violate speech rights. The Knight Institute in particular has praised that nuance, saying it properly rejects the platforms argument that the First Amendment insulates them from all regulation.

The recent court decisions are part of a political and cultural landscape where the First Amendments interpretation may be increasingly up for grabs. In a recent University of Chicago Law Review Online analysis, law professors Evelyn Douek and Genevieve Lakier noted that First Amendment politics are more complicated, uncertain, and, well, just plain weird than they have been in a long time partly because of things like the Fifth Circuits surprising decision and partly because of larger cultural and technological shifts.

Abdo compares the brewing Supreme Court showdown over speech to the past decades fights over digital privacy and surveillance culminating in decisions that set a promising precedent for a new era. Over the past 15 years, the Supreme Court has been called on to answer the question of how the Fourth Amendment applies in the digital age. What are our privacy rights in the digital age? Do Supreme Court precedents from the 1960s and 70s and 80s decide the question of state power to surveil in the 2000s? he says. The Supreme Court said emphatically, no technology has changed. The governments ability to surveil has changed. Peoples expectations of privacy have changed. And we have to answer these questions.

In a best-case scenario, Abdo believes that could happen here. I think we may be witnessing something similar in the First Amendment context that courts will have to analyze anew how the First Amendment ought to apply to new technologies, he says. And what I hope they will keep as their guiding point is whether their interpretation of the First Amendment ultimately serves the values that free speech is meant to serve.

Read the rest here:
A Supreme Court speech showdown is coming, and nobody knows what to expect - The Verge

Blockchain advocacy group Coin Center filed a lawsuit on Friday against the U.S. Treasury Department and the IRS for allegedly drafting an unlawful amendment to the controversial infrastructure bill.

The lawsuit against the Treasury Department alleged that a 2021 infrastructure legislations requirement for tax reporting is unconstitutional, specifically challenging the amendment of Section 6050I of the Tax Code.

Under the amendment, U.S. citizens would be required to report information about any transaction of at least $10,000, which includes providing the senders name, social security number, and date of birth.

In 2021, President Biden and Congress amended a little-known tax reporting mandate. If the amendment is allowed to go into effect, it will impose a mass surveillance regime on ordinary Americans [] The reporting mandate would force Americans using cryptocurrency to share intrusive details about themselves, both with each other and with the federal government. Under the terms of the mandate, everyday senders and receivers of cryptocurrency would be forced to reveal their names, Social Security numbers, home addresses another personal identifying information, the complaint reads.

Prior to the bill becoming law last year, Coin Center served as part of the crypto advocates that kicked against some of its crypto privisions. Additionally, many stakeholders considered several provisions in the bill to be unconstitutional and unproductive at the time.

Since its passage, the organization claims it has worked with Congress to find ways to repeal and amend some of the law provisions. In addition, some provisions will require Treasury Department guidance for their implementation.

While the Act is set to go into effect in 2024, the nonprofit organization claims it will significantly affect the crypto industry, including NGOs receiving anonymous donations.

In its complaint, Coin Center claims that the amendment violates the Fourth Amendment, subjecting anyone involved in crypto transactions to unreasonable searches and seizures.

It also points to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling which prevents the government from compelling organizations to keep and report a list of its members.

Demanding that politically active organizations create and report lists of their donors names and identifying information to the government is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, the public announcement reads.

The announcement also calls on stakeholders in the crypto community to support the lawsuit:

We are considering adding additional co-plaintiffs to this suit, so if you might fit this description and are interested, please get in touch.

What do you think about this subject?Write to us and tell us!

DisclaimerAll the information contained on our website is published in good faith and for general information purposes only. Any action the reader takes upon the information found on our website is strictly at their own risk.

Read more here:
Coin Center Sues US Treasury for Unconstitional Amendment to Tax Bill - BeInCrypto

Jehovah's Witnesses are marking the 20th anniversary next week of a landmark Supreme Court decision that upheld their right to knock on doors and share their faith without getting government permission.

The 8-1 ruling in Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of N.Y., Inc. v. the Village of Stratton, Ohio, et. al. struck down a town ordinance that made it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first filling out a registration form and obtaining a permit from the mayor.

The ruling was a victory -- not only for the organization, but for anyone who wants to knock on a neighbor's door and talk about religion or politics.

A live webinar highlighting the significance of the decision is scheduled for Friday, 20 years to the day after its release. See tinyurl.com/a6bb9wbb.

Witnesses have paused going door-to-door, voluntarily, due to covid-19, but they plan to resume once it is safe to do so.

No matter a member's occupation, "We're ministers first. We go out door to door, we write letters, we make phone calls. If we didn't, we would not be fulfilling our obligations as Christians," said Robert Hendriks, the Witnesses' U.S. national spokesman.

The tract society, founded in the 1880s, has distributed literature to every corner of the globe.

FUNDAMENTAL TENET

For members of the group, spreading the faith is a fundamental tenet, according to Paul Polidoro, the Witnesses' associate general counsel and the man who made the case to the court during oral arguments.

"From a religious perspective, Christ Jesus gave his followers the command to share the message of the Kingdom with everyone. And so this Good News of hope and comfort and peace is something very important to Jehovah's Witnesses," Polidoro said in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette this week.

Commanded in Matthew 28:19 to "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations," the Witnesses had made inroads in many communities, but not Stratton.

Witnesses did not have a place of worship, known as a Kingdom Hall, within the township, a community of 278 that is nestled against the Ohio River, a stone's throw from the Pennsylvania state line.

But members of the faith were visiting from nearby Wellsville and knocking on doors, a practice that irked Stratton's mayor, John M. Abdalla.

So village officials passed the ordinance, ostensibly to deter crime and protect residents from con artists.

But the law was not limited to door-to-door salesmen or to commercial speech. It covered a broad range of activities, including religious and political speech.

Abdalla denied the measure targeted Witnesses, who had offered to bypass any house posting a "No Solicitation" sign.

COURT HEARING

The ordinance -- which had the backing of the state of Ohio and the National League of Cities -- was largely upheld by the lower courts, but it failed to impress the nine people sitting on the nation's high court.

During oral arguments on Feb. 26, 2002, they, at times, sounded incredulous.

Abraham Cantor, the attorney representing Stratton, told the justices that the ordinance targeted "canvassers, hawkers, and those who are going door to door for a cause."

But it covered plenty of other people, too, the justices were quick to note.

"Well, how about trick-or-treaters? Do they have to get a permit," asked Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, prompting chuckles in the courtroom.

Somehow, Cantor managed to side-step the question.

But Polidoro, the attorney representing the Witnesses, circled back around to address it, telling O'Connor that under the language adopted by Stratton, "trick-or-treaters during Halloween are mentioned, so they're encompassed under the ordinance."

Throughout the oral arguments, Cantor was peppered with questions -- and laughter, which broke out 11 times, according to the official court transcript. See tinyurl.com/ycxjs25n.

Would youngsters be required to get a permit to sell Girl Scouts cookies, one justice asked?

"Yes, Girl Scouts would be covered," Cantor replied.

"Or Christmas carolers?" a justice asked on follow up.

"Or how about borrowing a cup of sugar from your neighbor," asked another.

Cantor said sugar borrowing would be exempt.

POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS SPEECH

Antonin Scalia noted that the ordinance limited not only commercial speech, but also political and religious speech.

"Do you know any other case of ours [the Supreme Court] that has even involved an ordinance of this breadth, that involves solicitation, not asking for money, not selling goods, but even, you know, 'I want to talk about Jesus Christ,' or 'I want to talk about protecting the environment?' Have we had a case like that?" he asked. "I don't even know of such cases, over two centuries."

On June 17, 2002, the Supreme Court issued its ruling. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said that "making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment."

"The mere fact that the ordinance covers so much speech raises constitutional concerns. It is offensive -- not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so."

Only Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented and argued that the ordinance imposed, "at most, a negligible burden on door to door communication."

STRATTON'S IMPACT

According to Josh McDaniel, director of the Religious Freedom Clinic at the Harvard Law School, the decision has had a "wide-ranging impact" on free speech for all.

"Stratton is an important but underappreciated decision because it affects citizens throughout the country without us realizing it. The case recognized that the First Amendment protects our right to cross the street and ring our neighbor's doorbell to talk about anything from religion to political candidates to issues affecting our neighborhood," he said in an email. "Without this decision, going door to door without first getting government approval could be a criminal offense."

Jason Scott Smith, an Arkansas Witness who has shared his faith for more than 35 years, said Stratton "has allowed more than 13,000 witnesses in Arkansas to continue to do that, following the example of the First Century congregation," adding, "This decision brought great joy to every minister of Jehovah's Witnesses in Arkansas and the United States.

The ruling had an effect on every faithful Witness.

Each of them is engaged in evangelism -- even members of the organization's legal department.

Asked whether the church's attorneys are required to go door-to-door like everyone else, Polidoro said the Bible commands all Witnesses to share their faith.

"We're all ministers first. Our obligation is to Jehovah God so it's a privilege for us personally to go from door to door," he said.

Phillip Brumley, the group's general counsel, portrayed the task as a privilege, not a chore.

"It's not so much that we have to do it; we get to do it," he said.

"I've had the privilege of helping seven [people get] to the point of baptism and they came right out of door-to-door work. When I look over at them, one is still in my congregation, boy, there's just a sense of joy," Brumley said. "I know what his life was like before he knew Jehovah and Jesus. And I know what his life is like today. And I think to myself, 'Wow, I had a little part in helping him understand these things,'" he said.

Audio of oral arguments is here: tinyurl.com/3nbsw83x.

The court's ruling is here: tinyurl.com/ye28tc8n.

Read more:
Knock on any door: Jehovah's Witnesses mark anniversary of landmark decision - Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

The House Jan. 6 committee on Thursday night laid out in horrifying detail the overwhelming evidence of a deliberate and well-planned effort to overturn the 2020 election. In future hearings we will surely hear more, much more.

A critically important set of questions remains, though: Where did the money come from? Who paid for this over two-month effort to reverse the results of an election that President Joe Biden won by over eight million votes? And who paid for what almost became a military coup as well as a violent insurrection?

There are several key areas where the Jan. 6 committee should be directing their focus.

Who paid for this over two-month effort to reverse the results of an election?

First, the committee (and the Federal Election Commission for that matter) should investigate how political funds were used in connection with Jan. 6. It is illegal for a candidate to use campaign funds to pay for a fur coat, a fancy car or vacation travel. It is also illegal to use campaign funds to pay for an insurrection or any other illegal conduct.

Many of the insurrectionists came to Washington on bus trips organized and paid for by political organizations in their states of origin, in many cases with funds from state Republican Party organizations, campaigns or related political entities. Political funds can be used for legal challenges to the results of an election when a legitimate challenge can be made. Likewise, campaign funds can be used to stage a rally to support the election of a candidate before the election or a rally to claim victory or concede defeat after the election.

But campaign funds cannot legally be used to attempt to overturn an election by anti-democratic means. Moreover, campaign funds cannot legally be used to encourage political supporters to break the law. Both the Trump campaign and state GOP organizations should have known as much.

Noticeably absent in the evidentiary record so far is any communications from the Trump campaign or from any of the many state Republican parties telling the rally participants sent to Washington that they were to obey the law there. There was no warning not to, for example, threaten lawmakers or Vice President Mike Pence. Most of the heated rhetoric from Republican Party organizers, including from former President Donald Trump, pointed in the opposite direction.

The second source of funding that should be considered wasnt cash, but the in-kind donations that came from the conservative media outlets that spread the Big Lie. Fox News of course comes to mind, but there were many others, including talk radio stations, blogs and more.

Here, of course, the First Amendment gives broad protection. Even calling for the reversal of a clearly valid election result is likely protected, so long as there are no concrete calls to violence or other acts that would violate criminal laws prohibiting incitement of insurrection. Indeed, a few of Trumps more unhinged critics seriously, or perhaps jokingly, used blog posts to call for a military coup against him before the election in 2020.

Nonetheless, the Jan. 6 committee should expose the actions of the largest media companies, including not just cable television and radio stations but social media giants like Facebook as well. Congress already has heard from the Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen about how Facebook was adjusting its rules to accommodate false statements posted by Trump, his campaign and his supporters up to Jan. 6. Likewise, these companies were happy to take campaign money to post and air ads that spread these lies after the election.

Facebook, Twitter and many of the media outlets that helped spread the Big Lie are public companies. If they are going to allow their platforms to be used for misinformation and incitement of insurrection, using shareholders and other investors money not just to promote a very conservative worldview, but to help destroy Americas status as a representative democracy, they are legally required at least to inform their investors that that is part of their business plan. Facebook didnt do that and has already been sued by its investors over this lack of disclosure.

Congress should follow up on the allegations in this complaint, as knowingly lying to investors is a securities fraud that can be prosecuted not only civilly but criminally. Furthermore, there needs to be a lot more explanation of what happened at a 2019 White House dinner attended by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Trump. The two reportedly discussed an understanding where Facebook would continue to avoid policing clearly false items posted by Trump and his supporters in return for the Trump administration going easy on regulation of Facebook.

Finally, Congress should investigate how taxpayers own money was used to foment insurrection inside the United States government. We heard on Thursday about the overwhelming evidence that Trump pressured the Justice Department to reverse the results of the election. Congress has already enacted a statute making it a felony for anyone to order or coerce a federal employee to engage in partisan political activity. That is exactly what happened at the DOJ and probably at other agencies as well.

In sum, the Jan. 6 insurrection did not come cheap.

In addition to criminal statutes prohibiting insurrection and sedition, the Jan. 6 committee should address the obvious violations of the political coercion statute, which Trump probably already had violated before the election by coercing high ranking officials in several federal agencies to support his re-election bid. The intensity of this coercion of federal officials accelerated after Trump lost the election and it was clearly illegal.

In sum, the Jan. 6 insurrection did not come cheap. Campaign money was used to spread the Big Lie and incite insurrection. Media companies, cable TV anchors and radio talk show hosts joined in. Social media companies allowed their platforms to be used for similar purposes and may have lied to their shareholders about what they were doing. Finally, taxpayers money was likely used to support the false claim that Trump had won the 2020 election and actions to turn that fantasy into a reality.

For all the evidence it has clearly gathered, the Jan. 6 committee has a lot of work to do. The most important part of that effort can be summed up with that old, all too familiar, adage: Follow the money.

Richard W. Painterwas the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007, underPresident George W. Bush. He is currently the S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Minnesota, and is a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School.

Read more from the original source:
The Jan. 6 committee investigation needs to track the money - MSNBC

Our view| Abilene Reporter-News

Askedtoday, What's in your wallet?, we'd all probably acknowledge "not as much."

Prices for gas, groceries and other items are draining our finances.

Yet, a bigger question in Abilene last week was, "What's in your library?"

Another large crowd gathered Thursday at a morning meeting of the Abilene City Council, which addressed why certain books wereon shelves in the children's section of the Abilene Public Library.

This issue has taken hold in Abilene, beginning with questions this spring aboutpublic school libraries. Of particular concern are books with themes that aredeemed not age appropriate. Particularly targeted areLGBTQbooks.

Coincidentally, or not, the latest effort was mounted at the start of Pride Month.

It seems as if location is the issue. A book ban is not being ordered, but moving the books elsewhere requested.

That, others say, would senda demeaning message.

This issue indeedis tricky.

We should know what's in our libraries. We usually don't, until we try to locate a certain book only to findit's checked out or not available here.

It's likelyfew considered what's in the children's section until they started lookingfor certain titles with content deemed offensive or inappropriate. Lists are available to conduct these literary scavenger hunts.

The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of expression, which includes a person's right to receive information. The American Library Associationin 1948 developed the Library Bill of Rights, which affirmed this protection.

We see school libraries and public libraries differently.

School libraries are intended to support the education of students, based on expertise on what is appropriate for grades. Diversity in books is important because the student population of a school can vary greatly in ethnicity, gender, life experiences, socio-economic status - all the things that make us different. A good lesson to learn.

While teachers and librarians are their guides, children are more on their own. Parents may not discover what a child has picked until the book arrives at home.

A public library is different.

For starters, youngsters and parents/guardians shouldgo togetherto choose books.

It's like going to the grocery store. A child may grab the box of sugar-laden cereal, say Kellogg's Honey Smacks, but an adult replaces it with something healthier. Or at this time, something less expensive. The decision provides the adult the opportunity to explain to the child why Box B is better than Box A.

It's unlikely the adult will go to the store manager to have Box A banned, unless to complain that only sugary cereals are for sale.

A library is a grocery store for readers. You pick and choose, and you let others do the same.

What you like, someone else may not like.

What you don't find offensive, someone else could.

Are Stephen King books too long? A fan might argue otherwise.

Library hunts for "bad books" come and go in history. The efforts are more about going on in society. We know too well we currently live in a divisive time.

There seems to be two stumbling blocks.

Today, it's more "our way or the highway."Are we afraid we'd find our views faulty, or, at least, better understand one contrary to ours? Would our friends run us off the road if we did?

More troubling is blaming someone else. The school. The public library. The City Council.

While some parents are championing their right to parent, parents are not taking the responsibility to parent.

It can't work that way.

There was no local public library issue until one was created. Now that we have, let's review current procedure toaffirm it. A Questionable Books Section is out of the question.

There is no need to create more divisiveness and a retaliatory cycle. Anyone's favorite books could be targeted next.

Visit link:
The new librarygate: Let's affirm the freedom to pick and choose - Abilene Reporter-News