Mediaboss Marketing

Bad Texas regulations could be at odds with each other. The new Texas abortion ban may contradict the mandates of social media regulation passed by the Texas Legislature. Under the mandates of the two statutes, social media platforms could be required to both take down and leave up information about abortion, Techdirt's Mike Masnick points out.

The social media lawHouse Bill 20was passed by the Texas Senate on Wednesday (the same day Texas' new abortion law took effect).

Similar to a law that was passedand blockedin Florida, H.B. 20 is designed to treat social media platforms like common carriers (such as phone and cable companies).

A "blatantly unconstitutional bill," H.B. 20 "tries to prevent social media websites from moderating content," writes Masnick. "While the bill does include some language to suggest that some content can be moderated, it puts a ton of hurdles up to block that process."

Meanwhile, the new Texas abortion law (Senate Bill 8) prohibits "knowingly engag[ing] in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise."And it allows civil lawsuits against those suspected of helping someone get an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

The aiding and abetting provision could be construed to prohibit providing information about where to get an abortion, abortion pills, how to get funding to travel out of state for an abortion, etc.

While S.B. 8 does say "that the aiding and abetting rule should not apply to 1st Amendment protected speech," Masnick doesn't see that "making much of a difference in the long run because (1) the 1st Amendment already protects such speech so you don't need a law to say that and (2) it's unlikely to stop people from suing over speech that they claim is aiding and abetting"

The digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) also has concerns that the Texas abortion law could target speech about abortion. "In addition to the drastic restrictions it places on a woman's reproductive and medical care rights, the new Texas abortion law, SB8, will have devastating effects on online speech," warns EFF:

The law creates a cadre of bounty hunters who can use the courts to punish and silence anyone whose online advocacy, education, and other speech about abortion draws their ire. It will undoubtedly lead to a torrent of private lawsuits against online speakers who publish information about abortion rights and access in Texas, with little regard for the merits of those lawsuits or the First Amendment protections accorded to the speech. Individuals and organizations providing basic educational resources, sharing information, identifying locations of clinics, arranging rides and escorts, fundraising to support reproductive rights, or simply encouraging women to consider all their optionsnow have to consider the risk that they might be sued for merely speaking. The result will be a chilling effect on speech and a litigation cudgel that will be used to silence those who seek to give women truthful information about their reproductive options.

So what happens if someone posts to a Texas Facebook group about how or where to get an abortion after six weeks?

"Until the courts actually rule on this, we don't just have a mess, we have a contradictory mess thanks to a Texas legislature (and governor) that is so focused on waging a pointless culture war against 'the libs' that they don't even realize how their own bills conflict with one another," Masnick writes. As it stands,

Under Texas's social media lawremember "each person in this state has a fundamental interest in the free exchange of ideas and information"Facebook is expected to keep that information up. However, under Texas' anti-choice lawremember, anyone can sue anyone for "inducing" an abortionFacebook theoretically faces liability for leaving that information up.

So who wins out? Well, it should be that both bills are found to be unconstitutional, so it doesn't matter. But we'll see whether or not the courts recognize that. Section 230 should also protect Facebook here, since it pre-empts any state law that tries to make the company liable for user posts, which in theory the abortion law does. The 1st Amendment should also backstop both of these, noting that (1) Texas' social media law clearly violates Facebook's 1st Amendment rights, and (2) the broad language saying anyone can file civil suit against anyone for somehow convincing someone to get an abortion also pretty clearly violates the 1st Amendment.

In other news related to the Texas abortion ban

"An activist has made a script to flood a Texas website used to solicit information on people seeking abortions with fabricated data, according to a TikTok video from the developer and Motherboard's test of the tool," Vice reports.

The Cato Institute's Walter Olson riffs on some of the elements of the Texas abortion ban and how few of "these ways of turbocharging litigationare new techniques." Twitter thread starts here:

Dating apps Bumble and Match "are creating relief funds for people affected by a Texas law that bans abortion from as early as six weeks into pregnancy," reports TheTexas Tribune.

"The Texas abortion ban could force tech to snitch on users," warns Protocol.

Amazon's web hosting wing may start cracking down on the kinds of content it hosts. The company "plans to take a more proactive approach to determine what types of content violate its cloud service policies, such as rules against promoting violence, and enforce its removal," Reuters reports.

Over the coming months, Amazon will hire a small group of people in its Amazon Web Services (AWS) division to develop expertise and work with outside researchers to monitor for future threats, one of the sources familiar with the matter said.

It could turn Amazon, the leading cloud service provider worldwide with 40% market share according to research firm Gartner, into one of the world's most powerful arbiters of content allowed on the internet, experts say.

"I would not at all be surprised that the adequate, full regimen for vaccination will likely be three doses," top COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci said at a White House briefing yesterday.

A lawsuit accusing Twitter of sex trafficking can move forward, says a federal court. The case could portend a dangerous expansion of how courts define "sex trafficking."

The South Carolina Supreme Court says Columbia city schools and daycares can't make students and staff wear masks.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has made feeding peacocks a crime punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

An NBC News poll conducted August 1417 finds 54 percent of respondents think abortion should be legal always or most of the time. Thirty-four percent say it should be illegal with exceptions, and 8 percent say it should be illegal without any exceptions.

The World Health Organization is monitoring a new variant of COVID-19, dubbed the "mu" variant.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, and Oklahoma abortion providers are challenging five new abortion restrictions passed by the state this year.

Originally posted here:
Texas Abortion and Social Media Laws Are a 'Contradictory Mess' - Reason

Trump sues Facebook, Twitter over 'blacklisting and canceling'

Claims that tech companies are biased against conservatives have emerged as a top issue to rally the GOP base ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

Associated Press, USA TODAY

Texas is on the verge of passing a new law that would crack down on social media companies Republicans say are censoring conservative speech.

The legislaturepassed the bill. It now heads to the desk of Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican who has publicly backed it and is expected to sign it.

The new law, passed in the final days of the second special session called by Abbott,would allow any Texas resident banned from Facebook, Twitter or Google's YouTube for their political views to sue the companies. The state attorney general also wouldbe able to sue on behalf of a user or a group of users.

It is similar to a Florida law that was blocked by a federal judge one day before it was set to take effect.

Trade groups representing the technology industry have pledged to challenge it as unconstitutional.

By ignoring the First Amendment, the Texas Legislature has chosen to abandon its own conservative and constitutional values in order to put the government in control of speech online," saidCarl Szabo, vice president and general counsel of NetChoice.

Dozens of states are considering legislation that targets how social media platforms regulate speech, though few have gotten this far.

Such bills resonatewith conservatives who believe their First Amendment rights are violated when posts are labeled or removed or when they are banned for violating the policies of social media platforms. Former President Donald Trump's suspensions from the major platforms spurred the new bills.

The First Amendment protects people from censorship by the federal government, not from content moderation decisions by private companies.

Social media companies say they don't target conservatives, only harmful speech that violates their rules.

Texas House Democrats warned during a hearing last week that the new law would stop social media companies from taking down harmful content.

They offered amendments that would have allowed the removal of posts promoting Holocaust denial, terrorism and vaccine disinformation, but were defeated.

"When you force social media platforms to pull their referees, the bad guys are going to throw more fouls on the court, said Adam Kovacevich, CEO of Chamber of Progress, a tech industry coalition that includes Facebook and Google. Unfortunately this law is only going to put more hate speech, scamsand misinformation online, when most people want a safer, healthier Internet."

Florida was the first state to push through legislation whenGov. Ron DeSantis, a Trump ally, signed a bill in May that penalizes social media companies for removing or barring the speech of politicians.

However, afederal judge temporarily blocked the new law after NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association lobbying groups that represent Facebook, Google and other tech giants sued. DeSantis is appealing.

Both Abbott and DeSantis are widely seen as possible GOP 2024 presidential contenders coming from big states with large electoral votes. Abbott is facing his first challenging Republican primary to be re-elected governor.

Big Techs efforts to silence conservative viewpoints is un-American, un-Texan and unacceptable and pretty soon its going to be against the law in the state of Texas, Abbott said at a news conference announcing similar legislationin March.

Conservative think tank The Heartland Institute recently estimated that 70 bills in 30 states are challenging big tech censorship.

The Republican claim that powerful tech companies are biased against and "cancel" conservatives is emerging as a top issue to rally the base in the 2022 midterm elections.

The GOP is betting it will boost voter registration, turnout and fundraising as it tries to retake the U.S. House and Senate, political observers say. It also could help Republicans at the state level.

"It's an issue that Republican state legislators know will energize and agitate their base,"Ari Cohn, free speech counsel for tech think tank TechFreedom, told USA TODAY.

Trump, who was suspended from the major social media platforms after the Jan. 6 insurrection, escalated his war with Big Tech in July when he filed suit against Facebook, Google and Twitter and their CEOs, claiming the companies violated his First Amendment rights.

Trump and Republicans fundraised off the lawsuit, though legal experts say it has virtually no chance of success.

The perception that tech companies and the billionaire CEOs who run them are biased against conservatives has been around for a long time, but intensified as Trump made social media abuses a major plank of his administration and reelection campaign.

After he lost the presidency, Trump vilified tech companies for labeling or removing posts that spread falsehoods about the outcome of the presidential election.

Complaints of ideological bias come from across the political spectrum, but its difficult to prove social media platforms are targeting any one group. Tech companies disclose little about how they decide what content is allowed and what is not.

Researchers say theyve found no evidence to support GOP grievances that social media companies stifle conservative voices.

If anything, they say, social media platforms amplify the voices of conservatives, shaping the worldviews of millions of voters.

But for some conservatives, the 2020 election proved Big Tech's ideological bias. They point to tech companies throttling the spread of a New York Post article which made uncorroborated claims about Hunter Bidens business dealings, the Trump social media bans and the takedown of Parler, a social media platform popular with the political right.

Nine in 10 Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party say its at least somewhat likely that social media platforms censor political viewpoints they find objectionable, up slightly from 85% in 2018, according to an August report from the Pew Research Center.

Originally posted here:
Texas is about to pass a new law Republicans say will stop censorship of conservatives on Facebook, Twitter - USA TODAY

AMBRIDGE The father of a 14-year-old Ambridge Area High School student is suing the district for removing his son from the football team after a heated exchange with a teammate.

Antonio Fultzfiled the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 6, claiming the Ambridge Area School District booted his special needs son from the high school football team after the boy engaged in a Snapchat argument with an alleged bully.

Fultz said his son, a freshman, played starting defensive tackle for the team beginning in April of this year. In June, he was chatting with weightlifting coaches on Snapchat when a sophomore teammate competing for the starting defensive tackle position sent the student a profanity-laced voice message calling him lazy.

The students had a history, according to the suit, with Fultzs son being bullied both emotionally and physically by the other student for years.

At one point, according to Fultz, the sophomore messaged his son You want to fight? I will kill you, to which his son responded with similar warnings. His son then sent an old photo of him holding a BB gun with the barrel pointed away and over his shoulder with no message attached. The back-and-forth altercation stopped there and was later seen by coaches.

A police investigation and school meetings were held following the exchange and, although no criminal charges were filed against either student, Fultzs son was kicked off the football team for the 2021-22school year. The other student would not be disciplined, he said.

Because Fultzs son is Black and the teammate is white, the man believes Ambridge Areas decision is discriminatory and punishes thestudent for out-of-school speech.

He also pointed to other instances where the sophomore threatened his son on Snapchat, at one point writing Anyone else have the urge to kill someone u hate at night.

The plaintiff is seeking damages in an amount to be decided at trial, and relief for the district's violations of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments, including declaring the districts actions unconstitutional, reinstating his son to the team and expunging all references to the incident from the students records.

U.S. District Judge William Stickman last week denied the plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, arguing the students words were threats and fighting words outside the scope of the First Amendment and within the right of a school to regulate.

Read the original:
Father suing Ambridge Area for sons removal from football team - The Times

Supporters of President Donald Trump riot at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021. House Democrats are asking for legislation to make sure that military personnel and recruits are not participating in extremist activities as was seen at the Capitol insurrection. (Yuri Gripas, Abaca Press/TNS)

WASHINGTON (Tribune News Service) House Democrats want the new National Defense Authorization Act to make plain that armed services personnel and recruits are not allowed to advocate or take part in extremist activities or belong to extremist groups.

But the debate over what extremism means and how such a prohibition would be enforced is expected to be fierce starting at Wednesdays House Armed Services Committee markup of the fiscal 2022 bill.

Maryland Democrat Anthony G. Brown plans to file an amendment at the markup that would make explicit a military commanders authority to bar or expel people who espouse or act on extremist beliefs or are members of such groups. The amendment also says that the military can use social media posts as evidence of extremist views that could lead to so-called separation from service.

An individual who engages in extremist activities or is a member of an extremist organization may not serve as a member of the armed forces, states a draft of the amendment.

Brown would leave it to the secretary of defense to define extremist activities. A Pentagon Countering Extremism Working Group is reportedly already at work on that question.

Brown told CQ Roll Call in a statement that he recognizes that extremists form a tiny fraction of the U.S. military, but he believes it is a growing peril.

Racism, white supremacy, antisemitism, discrimination, and other extremist beliefs are not in line with the values of our armed services and have no place in our ranks, Brown said.

Browns amendment would set up a Pentagon Office of Countering Extremism to track reports of such behavior across the Defense Departments uniformed and civilian ranks. The office would share data on the problem with other federal agencies and would produce an annual report to Congress. The amendment would empower the military services to train personnel and recruiters in identifying and avoiding extremism.

The amendment is a response to recent data indicating that extremists ranging from white supremacists to criminal gangs represent a small but seemingly growing and increasingly dangerous portion of the U.S. military. The fact that some 20% of the rioters in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol reportedly had ties to the military has catalyzed these concerns.

But Republicans have regularly pushed back against most attempts to crush extremism in the ranks and are expected to do so again. The GOP critics generally say Democrats are exaggerating the extent of the problem. Republicans say they are concerned too that what constitutes extremist activity is not clearly defined. And they worry that service members privacy and their rights to due process could be threatened.

Browns extremism amendment is not the only NDAA proposal that will stir a racially charged, partisan debate.

One of the highest-temperature debates could come when Republicans offer one or more amendments seeking to restrict the Pentagon from teaching so-called critical race theory, an academic approach to reexamining how racial bias is encoded in social institutions.

Brown, a retired Army aviator and judge advocate general, believes U.S. military commanders already have inherent authority to ban extremism to the degree that it is, by its nature, a threat to military order and discipline. His measure is intended to clarify the terms of that authority, aides said.

The amendment does not create a new crime in the Uniform Code of Military Justice but would alter the law to explicitly authorize commanders to root out be it in recruits or those currently serving anyone who advocates hatred based on bigotry or puts it into violent practice.

The measure would not mandate monitoring of social media but would authorize the services to use an online post advocating supremacist views as cause for discharge.

Brown also argues that nothing in the bill would shortchange due process protections for service members.

Even beyond the attack on the Capitol, troubling signs have appeared recently of a small but festering problem in the ranks.

The director of national intelligence said in March that violent extremists pose a heightened threat to the homeland.

Moreover, the Army Criminal Investigation Command, in a report last year, found a 66% increase in gang or domestic extremist activity from the previous year, Brown said.

A 2019 survey found more than one third of all active-duty servicemembers had witnessed instances of white nationalism or ideologically driven racism in their units.

The Pentagon has been working on this issue for many months.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III required in February that all military commanders take time over a two-month period to discuss extremism. And he set up the Countering Extremism Working Group to study the issue.

In April, Austin ordered the review of how best to define extremism. He also mandated updating security questionnaires to more accurately determine recruits backgrounds on the issue. And he required new training for retiring personnel who may face recruitment efforts from extremist groups.

In 2020, after protests over the killing of George Floyd, the department convened a task force to take a closer look at military efforts to become more racially diverse. One of the groups recommendations, buried in its voluminous report, was to make extremist violence punishable under the militarys code of justice.

The Houses fiscal 2021 NDAA included language by California Democrat Jackie Speier that would have done just that. But senators, fearing a veto by President Donald Trump over the issue, diluted that mandate in the final measure, Speier said earlier this year.

The fiscal 2021 NDAA instead created a new deputy inspector general to oversee diversity and anti-extremism efforts. Browns bill would require the director of the proposed Office of Countering Extremism to coordinate with the deputy inspector general.

The Senates fiscal 2022 NDAA would again defer definitive action on the matter. It would merely require the Defense secretary to report to Congress on whether and how to potentially make violent extremism a crime under the military code.

The House Appropriations Committees report accompanying its Defense Department spending bill would require a series of Pentagon reports on its efforts to address extremism.

During the markup of that bill, Republicans gave voice to arguments that may come up again during Wednesdays House Armed Services markup.

The Republican appropriators said they were worried the campaign against extremists could target unpopular views or become an unfair witch hunt, or target only white supremacists and not other violent extremists.

The Appropriations Committee defeated an amendment by Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., that aimed to block funding for the Pentagons Countering Extremism Working Group until 30 days after the Defense secretary performs three tasks: gives Congress a definition of extremism; briefs lawmakers on due process protections for those accused of extremism; and certifies that their First Amendment rights are not violated by that process.

The 24-33 vote to defeat the amendment fell along party lines.

2021 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Visit cqrollcall.com.

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Originally posted here:
House panel to debate amendment to defense budget banning extremism in the military - Stars and Stripes

Makana Chock

Makana Chock, David J. Levidow Professor of Communications in the Newhouse School, has been awarded a $75,000 research grant from Facebook Reality Labs to explore the impacts of augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) on bystander privacy.

Chock will work withSe Jung Kim, a doctoral student in Newhousesmass communicationsprogram. They will focus on two countries with disparate cultural normsthe U.S. and South Koreato examine the impact of cultural differences on privacy concerns and ultimately inform the design of AR/VR technology.

This is another example of how many of the leading communications companies in the world are turning to the Newhouse School to better understand some of the challenges we are facing as a society, says Newhouse Dean Mark J. Lodato.

Chock developed her proposal, AR/VR recording: Cultural differences in perceptions of bystander privacy, in response to Facebooks request for proposals on responsible innovation in AR/VR: Consider Everyone.

Chock says the ubiquitous and covert nature of AR/VR recording poses the threat of serious privacy violations as bystanders are captured without permission. At the same time, different societies often have different concepts of bystander privacy, and those differences are reflected in the way image recording is regulated.

In the individualist culture of the U.S., recording bystanders in a public space is largely accepted and often protected under the First Amendment. In the collectivist culture of South Korea, where a higher premium is placed on privacy, express permission is required to record individuals. Yet even there, younger adults regularly post images and recordings on social media that may contain bystanders.

Additionally, Chock says bystander privacy issues are especially important when it comes to vulnerable populations like immigrants.

Over the last few years, immigrants in both the U.S. and South Korea have faced restrictions and increased scrutiny from the government agencies, as well as discrimination and bullying from some members of their communities, she says. These factors may heighten concerns about privacy and the potential misuse of immigrants personal information or images. It is therefore important to increase awareness among AR/VR users of bystanders concerns and the potential for inadvertent harm.

The three-part study will begin with an online survey conducted in both countries to assess potential differences in bystanders privacy perceptions and concerns and identify additional concerns of targeted immigrant groups. The team will then conduct a series of in-depth interviews with a subset of survey participants to provide additional qualitative data about cultural differences in bystander privacy concerns. Finally, they will facilitate a series of focus groups comprised of U.S. and South Korean users in a multi-user social VR environment in order to determine if the cultural differences seen in real world public spaces also apply in social VR spaces.

Chock is set to be the founding research director of the Newhouse Schools new XR lab and is co-leader of the Virtual and Immersive Interactionsresearch clusterat Syracuse University.

More here:
Newhouse Professor Wins Facebook Reality Labs Research Grant to Study Impacts of Augmented and Virtual Reality - Syracuse University News