Mediaboss Marketing

Censorship doesnt always look like a black line across a document, or a clear order to remove a piece of content. Websites feel pressured without the government having to issue a clear directive that they host certain speakers or carry certain content. The First Amendment recognizes that speech can often be chilled in other waysfor example, by a burdensome governmental investigation. In an amicus brief filed yesterday, EFF, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and R Street, urged the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to take the case en banc and protect Twitter from a retaliatory investigation by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

On January 8, 2020, two days after the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol, Twitter banned then-President Trump from the platform, citing a risk of further incitement of violence. Five days later, Attorney General Paxton issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to Twitter (and other major online platforms) for, among other things, any documents relating to its terms of use and content moderation practices. Paxton explicitly connected his investigation to Twitters decision. The CID alleged "possible violations" of Texas's deceptive practices law.

The demand subjected Twitters internal discussion about content moderation rules or decisions to discovery under the CID and second-guessing by AG Paxton. This put Twitter in a difficult position and pressured it to minimize its legal, reputational, and financial risks by self-censoring along the lines indicated by AG Paxton. Twitter sued Paxton, claiming that he was abusing his authority as the highest law-enforcement officer of the State of Texas to intimidate, harass, and target Twitter in retaliation for Twitters exercise of its First Amendment rights.

Last week, a panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit wrongly ruled that Twitter cannot sue Paxton until a possible enforcement action at the conclusion of Paxtons investigation, or until the CID is enforced.. But as our brief to the Ninth Circuit says, even pre-enforcement, threatened punishment of speech has a chilling effect. Since the previous panel got this wrong, a more comprehensive en banc hearing is needed. From the moment it was issued, the CID chilled Twitter from exercising its First Amendment-protected right to engage in content moderation. Requiring the company to endure even more retaliation by Paxton before it can sue harms Twitters First Amendment rights.

From the brief:

An investigation and CID from a state attorney general for documents about a hosts content moderation practicesparticularly when coupled with the attorney generals critical public statements about the hosts content moderation decisionssend a strong message of disapproval and threat of legal consequences for the host if it continues its disfavored content moderation actions. Hosts targeted by a CID as part of a state attorney generals retaliatory investigation will fear harsh legal consequences if they continue content moderation practices like those that sparked the investigation. In the face of such retaliation, a host may believe that the state attorney general will treat it more leniently or drop an investigation entirely if it ceases the content moderation practices with which the attorney general disagrees.

Paxtons investigation is part of a trend of government officials in the United States using investigations to pressure or punish hosts for making content moderation decisions with which they disagree. This is bad for everyone: access to online platforms with different rules and environments generally benefits users. The Ninth Circuits decision risks encouraging this unconstitutional trend of government officials investigating hosts for content moderation decisions with which they disagree. There are certainly content moderation issues on online platforms, which have rightfully been criticized for removing benign posts, censoring human rights activists and journalists, and other bad content moderation practicesas we noted in our brief. But a chilling government investigation is not the right way to resolve those issues.

Original post:
EFF and Partners to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Retaliatory Investigation of Twitter Chills First Amendment Rights - EFF

Free speech is vital for progress. It makes fighting for change possible by protecting and exposing new ideas and perspectives, which leads us to innovate, learn and solve problems together. Because the First Amendment is crucial to our freedom, its imperative that Americans especially public officials remain on high alert to protect it.

Thats increasingly a monumental task. From misguided anti-protest bills to censoring books and divisive concepts, some lawmakers, either knowingly or unknowingly, look for ways to silence other Americans and ideas they dont like. While these speech issues are seemingly in the news every day, one little-known and under-discussed method to silence other Americans takes place through our legal system: strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs. These are meritless lawsuits intended to intimidate and silence journalists, whistleblowers and everyday Americans.

People who file SLAPPs know they are unlikely to result in victory in court. The lawsuit itself is the goal. Getting sued is expensive, time-consuming, embarrassing and stressful, even when the suit is without merit. And most people lack the knowledge, resources and time to properly defend themselves, so often being sued or just getting threatened with being sued is enough to cause people to back down and keep their mouths shut.

Fortunately, there is a policy solution to this problem. State and federal anti-SLAPP efforts enable people to voice their opinions. Our organization, Americans for Prosperity, works with a diverse array of partners to reform policies to make it easier for courts to quickly identify and dismiss SLAPPs. Most recently, AFPs efforts to protect free speech paid off in Tennessee and Texas, where the legislatures passed anti-SLAPP measures. This year, five more states are considering similar policies.

According to a new report by the Institute for Free Speech, 31 states and the District of Columbia now have functioning anti-SLAPP statutes. The IFS report assesses the existing anti-SLAPP statutes and provides ratings from A to F for their effectiveness in protecting First Amendment rights. Of the 32 jurisdictions with functioning anti-SLAPP statutes, 17 received a grade of B or higher; the remaining 15 jurisdictions received a C-plus or lower.

The last thing America needs is to have our already overburdened legal system clogged with pointless, frivolous lawsuits. But the more important issue is protecting the rights of Americans to exercise their constitutional right to speak freely. As public officials, lawmakers have the opportunity to protect these rights and to make sure that free speech remains the best tool Americans have to drive progress.

David Voorman is the senior policy analyst for free speech and peace at Americans for Prosperity. For a primer on SLAPPs, see this AFP post.

Read the original here:
How the Courts Are Being Used to Intimidate Americans into Silence - Governing

A measure passed off the Senate Floor Mondayto create a Free Speech Committee that will oversee Oklahomas public universities and colleges.

House author Representative Chad Caldwell (R-Enid) says he wants HB 3543 to ensure protection of all speech.

To protect the rights and the free speech rights for all of our faculty and staff. Its not punitive, its not trying to be one-sided or the other. Free speech should be a non-partisan or bipartisan issue.

Representative Caldwell says his concern about the issue comes in part from the national research group TheFire.org.

Anecdotally, Ive heard about different grades that have been given, certainly there have been some instances where there have been some professors that have maybe espoused a different viewpoint that have been suspended or even terminated, he said.

The Oklahoma State Board of Regents will oversee the Free Speech Committee.

The committee is directed to create a first amendment training for school leadership and develop a process of collecting complaints.

On the Senate Floor, lawmakers questioned how the committee would be established.

The bill does not speak to whether it's the regents directly or its the administration of the state regents who will select the committee members, said Senate author Julie Daniels (R-Bartlesville).

The measure passed 43-to-2 and is now eligible to be signed by the governor.

The State Board of Regents responded to the passage in a statement this afternoon, saying:

Were aware that HB 3543 passed on the Senate floor today. As public colleges and universities, our state system institutions embrace the First Amendment and recognize the importance of free speech, which is reflected in myriad viewpoints shared through academic discourse on campuses across the state. If this measure becomes law, we will follow the provisions to create a process that ensures our institutions continue to be places where the open exchange of ideas and perspectives is encouraged and protected.

Communications staff with the state board say they are unaware of a committee of this type being created in the past.

See more here:
Bill To Create Statewide 'Free Speech Committee' Overseeing Universities Headed To Governor's Desk - news9.com KWTV

Bret Stephens: Happy Easter, Gail. The news has been so depressing lately. A crazy guy opens fire in a subway in Brooklyn. The Russians are committing atrocities in Ukraine and are about to start a major offensive in the east. And my tuna melt on rye costs $21 at a not-much-to-look-at New York City diner, not including the tip.

Anything cheering you up?

Gail Collins: Happy holidays to you, Bret. This is one of the many times in recent years when Ive appreciated the role professional sports play in our lives. You meet a friend who starts listing all the things about the world that could plunge anyone into depression, and at some point you can break in with: But say, how about those Mets?

Bret: The Mets are off to a strong start, but give them a few months and theyll be depressing you as well.

Gail: Otherwise, I guess its reasonable to at least note that winters over, job openings are way up in the past year, and the subway shooting was miraculously miraculously! without fatalities.

I admit that the last one is not an ideal example of cheery news.

Bret: Crazy Guy Aims, Shoots, Misses could also be a contender for the next Russian national anthem.

Gail: Love the way you think.

Bret: The strong employment numbers are obviously good news. But let me put the dark cloud inside your silver lining: The Wall Street Journal reports that roughly three million Americans have dropped out of the work force, often for health reasons, and that that labor shortage is going to keep inflation high. This strikes me as yet another good argument for offering every Ukrainian refugee a green card.

Gail: Even before the pandemic, we were moving into an era in which our birthrate was just not providing enough future workers to keep the economy going. Immigrants shouldnt just be tolerated; they should be welcomed with marching bands.

Bret: The other big story of last week, Gail, is Elon Musks offer to buy Twitter at $54.20 a share. Half the punditocracy seems to think this would be great; the other half thinks its the apocalypse. Where do you come down on this?

Gail: Am I nuts to think this is not going to happen?

Bret: Youre not nuts. The Twitter board seems determined to stop him, and Musk has been known to pull stunts like this before. Also, the 4.20 in $54.20 is an inside joke about getting high.

Gail: Lord help us. Even if Twitter tanked, wouldnt there be some new post-Twitter communications system coming around the bend soon? Youre 10 times smarter than me about this stuff, so tell me what you think, and Ill adopt it as my theory. At least for the spring.

Bret: Maybe in the distant future a big media company will create a platform in which non-unhinged adults can exchange ideas, air their disagreements without rancor, make a few jokes, have their claims fact-checked before they are published and then go out for a friendly drink.

Gail: Hope hes listening.

Bret: Im sympathetic to the idea that social-media companies should try to honor the spirit of the First Amendment, even if they arent legally bound by it. But the idea that Twitter is a good forum for speech is silly. Trying to communicate a thought in 280 characters isnt speaking. Its blurting. You dont use Twitter for persuasion. You use it for insults and virtue signaling. A healthy free-speech environment depends on people talking with each other. Twitter is a medium for people to talk at others. The best thing that could happen to Twitter isnt an acquisition, by Musk or anyone else. Its bankruptcy.

Gail: Wow, Ive always pretty much avoided Twitter, but it was mainly out of laziness. Now Im cloaked in righteousness and am deferring to you on all Twitter topics.

Dont suppose youd be willing to respond by deferring to me on health care?

Bret: Youve laid a trap, Gail. Whats on your mind?

Gail: I appreciate Joe Bidens call for increasing government aid to those who dont have good private coverage and putting a lid on the prices pharmaceutical companies charge for drugs people have to buy whether they want to or not. This would bring me back to my cheer for limiting the price of insulin to $35 a month.

Bret: The high cost of insulin is a national scandal. But I dont think price controls are ever a good answer. The biggest roadblock is the dearth of so-called biosimilars, which is largely a function of regulatory and legal roadblocks, including abuse of the patent system by some of the big pharmaceutical companies, as well as insufficient pricing transparency.

Here is the moment I can almost hear our readers screaming, Price controls are how other countries do it! But that almost inevitably leads to health care rationing and wait lists. Would you rather us be Canada?

Gail: You know, Ive heard that Canada threat for decades, and generally my reaction is, Thats our worst danger? Obamacare did a lot to make our health care system more efficient, but the system is still way too clogged with duplicative management and other administrative failings.

Bret: Obamacares many problems are the high road toward Medicare for all, which is why I was opposed to it in the first place.

Gail: Go, Bernie Sanders!

I guess we should move on to politics for a bit. Next month therell be big Senate primaries in places like Ohio where Republicans will have to choose between the newly anointed Trump favorite J.D. Vance of Hillbilly Elegy fame and a bunch of noncelebrities and Pennsylvania, where theyll have the option of selecting Trumps man, Dr. Oz of Oprah fame, or a half-dozen alternatives without reality-TV careers.

Anybody youre rooting for? And whats the chance the Republican Party is going to become the Home for Unwillingly Retired Entertainers?

Bret: My favorite Republican these days is the governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, who recently described Donald Trump as crazy, with a pungent modifier to go with it. Being able to say that out loud should be a litmus test for any serious conservative. Other litmus tests include the willingness to connect the words evil with Putin, legitimate with 2020 election, president with Biden and supercilious twerp with Tucker. All the rest is commentary.

Gail: Ah, Bret. Your vision of unshackling the Republican Party from Trump is stirring and about as likely as a snark-free Twitter.

Bret: Of course its easy to make fun of Republicans for their insanity. But isnt it the Democratic Party that could use a bit more introspection as it heads into what looks like a wipeout in the midterms?

Gail: Well, things certainly dont look good. Its ironic that the Democrats huge flaw is an inability to get anything serious passed in Congress because of the, um, lack of Democrats in the Senate. Which will probably cost them several more Senate seats.

But one of the other things Republicans seem to be counting on is a right-wing revolt on social issues, especially abortion. Is there any way for the pro-choice faction of the party to combat that, or is it just way too much of the Republican brand now?

Bret: Political parties often lose when their cultural values get too extreme for the mainstream. Thats what happened to Democrats in 1972 (amnesty, abortion, acid) and to Republicans in 1992 (Patrick, J., Buchanan). Right now it feels as if Democrats have become the party of wokeness, which is how they got hammered in last years governors race in Virginia and why they are losing votes over antipolice posturing. But that could change if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. As we discussed last week, that decision will be bad for women but probably good for Democratic candidates, since most Americans still want abortion to remain legal.

The other big court decision will be on affirmative action. Any thoughts on how that will play out politically if affirmative action is ruled unconstitutional?

Gail: Not sure about the politics, since its always easy to sell the idea that the people with the top scores/grades/extracurriculars should be the top choice. But for the country, ending affirmative action would be a disaster. We have to be sure that people from all races, creeds and economic backgrounds are part of the population thats moving up.

Bret: Agree about the importance of diversity in many walks of life. Disagree that affirmative action is the right way to get there. Looks like were going to have to debate this when the decision is handed down.

Gail: Theres one other huge Supreme Court decision coming around the bend: on New York Citys gun control laws. Im terrified the conservative majority is going to declare the government has no right to prohibit people from carrying concealed weapons in public. Do you think itll happen?

Bret: Yeah. And I think the decision will be 5 to 4, with John Roberts joining the liberal wing in dissent on states rights grounds. Hey, its never too late to move to Canada.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Visit link:
Opinion | This Is Not the Year of the Optimist - The New York Times

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro lived up to its green light rating last week when it affirmed the First Amendment rights of students to invite Ben Shapiro, podcaster and cofounder of conservative news media company The Daily Wire, to speak on campus. The event went off without a hitch, and the universitys response to Shapiros appearance should serve as a model for institutions nationwide when controversial figures are invited by students to speak on campus.

Back in February, UNC Greensboros Young Americans for Freedom chapter invited Shapiro to campus. To advertise the event, the group posted a photo of Shapiro with a quote: Men cannot become women. Women cannot become men. Men who believe they are women are not real women. Other students at the school responded by starting a petition to have the chapter disbanded and argued that the chapter violated policies against harassment and discrimination.

One YAF member, who is also a member of the Student Government Association, responded by introducing a resolution affirming students free speech rights at UNC Greensboro. YAF reports that the SGA voted overwhelmingly to table the resolution and, ultimately, the controversy resulted in the YAF chapter working with Shapiro to host him on campus.

Faced with numerous pleas for censorship, the university held firm. Not only did the school resist pressure to abridge fundamental rights notable in light of routine compromises elsewhere it also took the opportunity to reiterate its commitment to free speech through a shared statement and answers to related FAQs. FIRE applauds this response.

In response to the question How can I stop this? UNCG provides resounding clarity: The speech and display are protected. You cannot stop it.

Shoring up policies and educating students on their rights and where they end before highly publicized events protected the free exchange of ideas on campus

The answer continues, You can voice your opinion, you can join or host a counter-demonstration, you can educate others, but you cannot enact a hecklers veto where you block the view of a display, impede walkway on the public sidewalk, shout down speakers, or in any other way interfere with the Constitutionally-protected free speech.

Thats exactly right. By plainly laying out avenues for peaceful protest, students were able to make their own views known by engaging in lawful activities that embraced free speech principles of more speech. For example, although the event did not directly address Shapiro, a Queer Celebration event was hosted nearby by the Campus Violence Response Center, the Dean of Students Office, and Spartan Open Pantry, among others.

Shutting down opposing viewpoints is a counterproductive approach to persuading others. In contrast, free speech principles embrace the idea that individuals at odds with certain messages maintain their own free speech rights to counter those views. Further, by having an opportunity to listen, those with conflicting beliefs are better able to come to their own conclusions.

Despite the opportunity to join active and lawful counter-activities, one student attended the speech and was escorted out of the building after shouting Fuck you at Shapiro multiple times during his presentation, to which the podcaster responded, Fuck you is not an argument.

The universitys FAQ also highlighted the value of academic inquiry, stating, We believe there is no better place than a college campus for thought-provoking discussions.

Similarly, the FAQs make clear that [f]ree speech is essential to a healthy Democracy, and we protect it because we believe speech is one method for learning and growth. Censorship of speech is illegal, violates our Democracy, and has no place in a University.

In response to the question How can I stop this? UNCG provides resounding clarity: The speech and display are protected. You cannot stop it.

UNC Greensboros efforts helped mitigate unlawful conduct by drawing the lawful parameters for response and reminding students of the reciprocal benefits of free speech ahead of Shapiros visit.

In the past, the on-campus presence of Shapiro, or other Daily Wire contributors, has raised concerns of violence not because words themselves are violence, but because, as was the case at UC Berkeley in 2017, banned weapons carried by demonstrators could result in it. At the time, hosting Shapiro on the California campus cost the university $600,000 in security fees and led to the arrest of nine individuals.

Violent protests are not unprecedented on campus. Some administrators take this concern as an excuse to waffle on the free speech rights of students to host certain guest speakers, which rightly raises concerns over viewpoint discrimination. Research conducted by FIRE suggests that disinvitations of guest speakers have become more common over the last twenty years and disinvitation efforts, from 2000 to 2013, were three times as likely to target speakers with views more conservative than their own than speakers with views more liberal than their own.

UNC Greensboro is a green light institution, meaning the university is one of the elite few that doesnt have any policies that seriously threaten campus expression. However, a green light rating only considers an institutions written policies, not their enforcement. Therefore, it is encouraging to see the university stick to its First Amendment commitments. By doing so, the university honors its legal obligations and preserves the academic benefits that freedom of expression affords students benefits which other universities too often deny their students.

Kudos to UNC Greensboro. Shoring up policies and educating students on their rights and where they end before highly publicized events protected the free exchange of ideas on campus and ensured that the university met its mission to prepare students for meaningful lives and engaged citizenship.

As always, FIRE stands ready to assist schools with revising their policies and speaker protocols so that students from across the ideological spectrum can hear from their invited guests without interference.

Excerpt from:
UNC Greensboro: Ben Shapiro speaks at green light university and 'you cannot stop it' - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education