Mediaboss Marketing

Image: AdobeStock

North Carolina House Republicans rushed to pass a donor privacy bill Thursday shortly after a Judiciary Committee hearing. The bill (SB 636) would limit the disclosure required for a range of 501(c) nonprofit organizations. It is now up to Gov. Roy Cooper to decide whether to sign it into law.

The bill would prohibit nonprofits from disclosing the list of donors without the donors permission, unless otherwise required by law, such as investigations by state agencies including the State Board of Elections.

Rep. Hugh Blackwell, a Burke County Republican, said the bill seeks to protect donors First Amendment rights. He said, This is designed to say that if you are a donor to a charitable organization, unless you give your permission, you dont have to worry that someone is going to disclose your name broadly to other folks who may have other purposes in mind than just being well informed.

He said legislators proposed this bill in keeping with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decisionthat blocked the California Attorney Generals office from collecting the nonprofit Americans for Prosperitys tax forms containing donor information. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in the case, saying the court erroneously eliminated the burden of proof to show First Amendment violations and instead invalidated the disclosure law entirely.

Rep. Marcia Morey, D-Durham, opposed todays House action. We talked about free speech; We talked about free assembly. Thats not what were talking about here, she said. Were talking about money money that has power to influence and oftentimes money that has power to corrupt.

This bill would prevent the public from identifying big donors to nonprofit organizations and perpetuate secrecy in campaign finance, opponents of the bill argued.

Although the bill would not affect disclosure requirements for nonprofits to the SBOE, campaign finance watchdog groups said that the measure would expand a loophole already in the state statutes. Currently, dark money groups can funnel their money through layers of shell organizations. Since secondary disclosure of donors is not required, it is sometimes impossible to trace back the source donors.

Melissa Price Kromm

A preemptive strike

Melissa Price Kromm, executive director of N.C. Voters for Clean Elections, said the bill is nothing but a preemptive strike to prevent disclosure of donors if state laws close the loophole to allow for peeling the onion to identify sources of dark money.

You dont have the public clamoring for this, you have special interest clamoring for this, Kromm said. She said the sudden passage of the bill without public notice is telling of lobbying groups influence. North Carolina Republican legislators recently returned from the annual conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The conservative group famous for pre-written model legislation has pushed for similar bills in other states for years.

Rep. Blackwell was a member of ALECs Civil Justice Task Force, according to a memo.

The bill would apply to different kinds of nonprofits, including 501(c)(3) charitable, religious, and education organizations and 501 (c)(6) trade associations. However, Kromm said the bill would close the door to transparency for 501(c)(4) organizations, social welfare groups that often play an active role in campaign activities.

In an earlier op-ed to Policy Watch, she highlighted notable 501(c)(4) groups have abused the funneling loophole, including the National Rifle Association, the Club for Growth and Heritage Action, and Democratic-afiliated groups Future Forward, as well as the 1630 Fund.

On the House floor, Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, proposed an amendment to limit the donor protection to501(c)(3) charitable, religious and education organizations only. The amendment failed to gain Republican support.

The Campaign Legal Center, a Washington-based nonpartisan nonprofit organization, sent a letter to Gov. Cooper urging him to veto the bill. The letter warned, The bill mandates secrecy for 29 different types of nonprofit organizations.

While not barring current statutorily required disclosures, S.B. 636 stymies further disclosure of donor information from groups that hide their political spending in dark money shell games to avoid the reach of such statutorily required disclosures, the letter read.

The group noted that the bill would also make it easier for North Carolina officials to hide conflicts of interest. For example, the bill could keep it in the dark when legislators solicit money from individuals associated with nonprofits who wish to buy government action in secret, the letter stated.

The group noted that former Michigan Republican Governor Rick Snyder vetoed a similar version of the bill and called it a solution in search of a problem.

View original post here:
NC legislators rush bill to limit nonprofit donor disclosure | The Progressive Pulse - The Progressive Pulse

Andrea Dick is a die-hard supporter of former President Donald J. Trump and thinks the election was stolen from him, although that claim has been thoroughly discredited. She does not like President Biden, and that is putting it mildly.

Her opinions are clear in the blunt slogans blaring from the banners outside her New Jersey home: Dont Blame Me/I Voted for Trump and several others that attack Mr. Biden in crude terms. Several feature a word that some people find particularly objectionable but whose use the Supreme Court long ago ruled could not be restricted simply to protect those it offends.

When local officials asked her to take down several of the banners that they said violated an anti-obscenity ordinance, she refused. Now, she is resisting a judges order that she do so and pledging to fight it in court on free speech grounds.

Its my First Amendment right, she said in an interview on Monday, and Im going to stick with that.

In a country where the political fault lines are increasingly jagged and deep, Ms. Dicks case is the latest of several such disputes to highlight the delicate balance local officials must sometimes strike between defending free speech and responding to concerns about language that some residents find offensive.

Ms. Dick, 54, said she acquired the banners which are available from Amazon and other retailers earlier this year, but did not hang them on the home in Roselle Park where she lives with her mother, or on the fence outside, until Memorial Day.

Something must have gotten me worked up, she said.

Shortly after the holiday weekend, she said, she became aware that some Roselle Park residents, noting that her home was near a school, were upset about the language on the banners and about the potential for passing children to see it.

Ms. Dick, whose mother, Patricia Dilascio, owns the house, said that no children lived on the block and that no children routinely walk by on their way to the school.

But the towns mayor, Joseph Signorello III, said he had received several complaints about the banners, which he passed on to the boroughs code enforcement officer. Residents of Roselle Park, a town of 14,000 people about a 40-minute drive from Times Square, voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Biden in November.

This is not about politics in any way, said Mr. Signorello, a Democrat. He added that officials would have taken the same steps if the signs expressed opposition to Mr. Trump using similar language. Its about decency.

After visiting the home, the code enforcement officer, Judy Mack, cited Ms. Dilascio for violating a Roselle Park ordinance that prohibits the display or exhibition of obscene material within the borough.

Ms. Mack said that in more than 12 years as a code enforcement officer in Roselle Park, she had never invoked the ordinance before. She also said that while Mr. Signorello had passed on the residents complaints, he had not directed her to take any specific action.

Im only doing my job, Ms. Mack said.

Ms. Dick was given a few days to remove the banners, Ms. Mack said. When she did not, she was given a summons to appear in court.

At that appearance, last Thursday, Judge Gary A. Bundy of Roselle Park Municipal Court gave Ms. Dilascio, as the property owner, a week to remove three of the 10 signs displayed on the property the ones including the offending word or face fines of $250 a day.

There are alternative methods for the defendant to express her pleasure or displeasure with certain political figures in the United States, Judge Bundy said in his ruling, noting the proximity of Ms. Dicks home to a school.

The use of vulgarity, he continued, exposes elementary-age children to that word, every day, as they pass by the residence.

Freedom of speech is not simply an absolute right, he added, noting later that the case is not a case about politics. It is a case, pure and simple, about language. This ordinance does not restrict political speech. (Nj.com reported Judge Bundys ruling on Friday.)

Jarrid Kantor, Roselle Parks borough attorney, applauded the judges decision, saying that local officials had been careful not to make an issue out of the political nature of Ms. Dicks banners and had focused instead on the potential harm to children.

We think he got it just right, Mr. Kantor said.

But Thomas Healy, a law professor at Seton Hall University with expertise in constitutional issues, disagreed.

Citing a 1971 Supreme Court decision, Cohen v. California, that turned on the question of whether the same word at issue in Ms. Dicks case was obscene, Professor Healy said the word clearly did not qualify as obscene speech in the context of the political banners.

Its hard to imagine a simpler case from a constitutional standpoint, he said, adding that he would be stunned if Judge Bundys ruling were upheld.

Professor Healy said he also found it troubling that the enforcement action had come after the mayor relayed concerns about the banners to the code enforcement officer, even though both of them said that Mr. Signorello had not directed any specific action.

It doesnt look good, Professor Healy said.

Conflicts like the one involving Ms. Dick have flared up this year on Long Island; in Indiana, Tennessee and Connecticut; and about a half-hours drive south of Roselle Park, in Hazlet, N.J.

Hazlet officials received complaints like those in Roselle Park when a homeowner put up a similar anti-Biden banner there, Mayor Tara Clark said.

Citing an anti-nuisance ordinance, Ms. Clark said, officials approached the homeowner last month and asked that he remove the offending flag, but they did not take any steps to force him to do so.

We knew that there were residents who were upset, she said. but we also know that free speech is protected under the Constitution of the United States.

Though some people might have been unhappy that the banner could not be forced down, Ms. Clark said that she and her fellow Hazlet officials felt it was important to stand up for the First Amendment.

It ended there, she said. (The homeowner took the banner down last week, she said.)

As for Ms. Dick, she and her mother have about two weeks to appeal Judge Bundys ruling to New Jersey Superior Court. He said the daily fines would begin accruing on Thursday if the offending banners remained up, regardless of whether Ms. Dick and her mother chose to appeal. If they do appeal, he suggested they take the banners down pending the outcome.

On Monday, Ms. Dick did not sound like she planned to follow that advice. She said she was looking for a new lawyer and was committed to seeing the case through.

Im not backing down, she said.

Here is the original post:
She Hates Biden. Some of Her Neighbors Hate the Way She Shows It. - The New York Times

Terry Mattingly| Wichita Falls Times Record News

Florist Barronelle Stutzman andRobert Ingersoll have shared many details from the 2013 conversation that changed their lives and, perhaps, trends in First Amendment law.

For nine years, Ingersoll was a loyal customer at Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Wash., and that included special work Stutzman did for Valentine's Day and anniversaries with his partner Curt Freed. Then, a year after the state legalized same-sex marriages, Ingersoll asked her to design the flower arrangements for his wedding.

Stutzman took his hand, Ingersoll recalled, and said:"You know I love you dearly. I think you are a wonderful person, but my religion doesn't allow me to do this."

In awritten statement to the Christian Science Monitor, Ingersoll wrote: "While trying to remain composed, I was … flooded with emotions and disbelief of what just happened." He knew many Christians rejected gay marriage but was stunned to learn this was true for Stutzman.

As stated in recent U.S. Supreme Court documents: "Barronelle Stutzman is a Christian artist who imagines, designs and creates floral art. … She cannot take part in or create custom art that celebrates sacred ceremonies that violate her faith."

This legal drama appears to have ended with Stutzman's second trip to the high court and its July 2 refusal to review a Washington Supreme Court decision the drew a red line between a citizen's right to hold religious beliefs and the right to freely exercise these beliefs in public life. Supreme Court justicesClarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch backed a review, but lacked a fourth vote.

"This was shocking" to religious conservatives "because Barronelle seemed to have so many favorable facts on her side," said Andrew T. Walker, who teaches ethics at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Stutzman isa 76-year-old grandmother and great-grandmother who faces the loss of her small business and her retirement savings. She has employed gay staffers. She helpedIngersoll find another designer for his wedding flowers. In the progressive Northwest, her Southern Baptist faith clearly makes her part of a religious minority.

"Barronelle is a heretic because she has clashed with today's version of progressivism," said Walker. Many cultures have "blasphemy laws" and Stutzman has "been found guilty. … Her beliefs, and her insistence that she should live according to those beliefs, clash with the beliefs of the current zeitgeist," he added.

Part of the confusion is that this court's refusal to hear Stutzman's case appears to clash with its recent 9-0 Fulton v. City of Philadelphia decision. It protected the right of Catholic Social Services leaders to follow church teachings and, thus, to refuse to refer children to same-sex couples for adoption or foster care.

Responding to that decision, Roger Severino of the Ethics & Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., wrote: "By its actions the Court is saying people with sincere faith-informed understandings of social issues that cut against the grain of secularist thought aren't to be treated as bigots."

That was then. The subsequent decision "to punt" on the Stutzman case, said Walker, was another example of this Supreme Court delaying a clear decision on First Amendment issues caused by clashes between ancient faiths and the Sexual Revolution.

These issues will continue to haunt the court, in part because of church-state precedents such as this famous language from the 1943 West Virginia v. Barnette decision, which said the government could not forceJehovah's Witnesses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation," wrote Justice Robert Jackson, "it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

These clashes are a reminder, Walker noted in his new book, "Liberty For All," that questions about "authority" and "adoration" are at "the center of what it means to be human."

No matter what happens in American law, he argued that Christians should affirm that "every individual, regardless of their religious confession, is equally free to believe, or not to believe, and to live out their understanding of the conscience's duty, individually and communally, that is owed to God in all areas of life without threat of government penalty or social harassment. … Nothing less than personhood is at stake."

Read the original:
Flowers and the First Amendment: Once again the Supreme Court elects to punt - Times Record News

There was a spirited conversation on Mondays Talk Back show about whether the Biden Administration deliberately colluded with Facebook to get messages from private citizens deleted because they were deemed to be providing what were termed false information about COVID vaccines.

KGVO reached out to Constitutional Scholar Rob Natelson with the Independence Institute in Denver about the constitutionality of the administrations actions.

It is a violation of the First Amendment, said Natelson. There have been a number of cases where purportedly private companies acting in concert with the government have violated individual rights, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that in that circumstance, the bad conduct is attributable to the government and is a constitutional violation.

Natelson said saying that Facebook is a private company is only half the story.

A good example where a number of cases were in some states, including, by the way, Delaware, the President's home state, where governmental entities had used purportedly private companies to discriminate against African Americans, he said. The administration then had said, well, there's not a 14th Amendment issue because it's a private company. Well, the Supreme Court said, sorry, if you're that entangled with a private company, if you're engaged in a joint venture to violate somebody's constitutional rights, then that conduct is attributable to the government. You cannot hide behind the private company when you're doing that.

The reason used by the Biden Administrations press secretary for removing the messages was that the incorrect advice could place peoples lives at risk.

Expediency or the public welfare is always the first resort of tyrants, or you can come up with justification for violating almost any constitutional right, he said. Or, this is really important or the public welfare has to trump your rights and so forth. This is the way tyrants act, and it is utterly inappropriate for an American presidential administration.

Natelson then posed this question.

As a threshold question, the issue occurs to my mind, is if they're doing this on COVID-19, then what other issues are they doing it on? he asked. In other words, is the administration telling Facebook not to post notices on the election or other things that it might consider misinformation?

Natelson spoke to KGVO News while he was in Times Square in New York City preparing to make a speech before a meeting of the Epoch Times,for which he authors a weekly column on Constitutional issues.

More here:
Natelson Administration and Facebook Violated 1st Amendment - Newstalkkgvo

from the [headed-to-the-ER-to-get-my-third-degree-stupid-burns-treated] dept

Grandstands and bandwagons: that's what's headed to Social Media Town. Professional victims -- far too many of them earning public money -- have produced a steady stream of stupid legislation targeting social media platforms for supposedly "censoring" the kind of the content they really like: "conservative views." Convinced by failed-businessman-turned-failed-president Donald Trump (and his herd of Capitol Hill toadies) that social media has it in for anyone but the leftiest leftists, a bunch of legislators have hacked up "anti-censorship" bills that aim to protect free speech by trampling on free speech.

The latest (but surely not the last) legislator to grab his bandstand and board the bandwagon is Wisconsin state Senator Julian Bradley. Bradley seems convinced his low Twitter polling must be due to social media companies keeping him down.

Big tech is silencing the things I say, Bradley explained Monday morning. They are silencing and shadow banning, theyre blocking any information that I am putting out.

And he has a message for Big Social Media:

"Free expression is one of the most vital components of our democratic republic. We must ensure our citizens can engage in political speech unfiltered and uncensored by Big Tech. It's time for Facebook and Twitter to consistently and fairly enforce their own rules."

How does Bradley hope to protect free speech from the censorship private companies can't actually commit? By violating their free speech rights, of course. From the bill [PDF] Bradley says he's filing but actually has yet to file [as of July 14th, anyway]:

The bill prohibits a social media platform from using post prioritization (prioritizing certain content ahead of, below, or in a more or less prominent position than others in a newsfeed, feed, view, or search results) on content or material posted by or about a candidate for state or local office or an elected official who holds a state, local, or national office.

The bill also prohibits a social media platform from knowingly censoring, deplatforming (deleting or banning from the social media platform for more than 60 days), or shadow banning (limiting or eliminating the exposure of a user, or content posted by a user, to other users of the social media platform) a candidate for state or local office or an elected official who holds a state, local, or national office.

This compelled speech that favors only certain people is shoved into the bill alongside language that says social media companies must treat everyone equally.

Under the bill, a social media platform must publish the standards it uses for determining how to censor, deplatform, and shadow ban users on the platform. A social media platform must apply censorship, deplatforming, and shadow banning standards in a consistent manner among its users on the platform.

All social media patrons must be treated equally... except for politicians and would-be politicians, who will be statutorily more equal than others. Failure to carry compelled speech or apply rules "consistently" will potentially cost social media companies hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions per claim). And "consistency" will be defined literally on a case-by-case basis since the new law would create a private cause of action against qualifying social media platforms.

Bradley doesn't seem to know or care whether his proposal is constitutional. All he knows is he's pretty sure it's ok for the government to compel speech when courts have ruled government officials can't cut off citizens from interacting with them.

Bradley is quick to point-out that judges have ruled lawmakers and other elected officials cannot block or ban people from commenting on their posts, even if those comments are negative or ugly. The courts have ruled, essentially, that social media is the new public town hall and some online speech is protected.

Bradley is right... at least as far as getting the gist of recent court decisions. But he's wrong when he clarifies his own position:

Bradley said he is using this same logic to say that social media platforms shouldn't be able to ban elected officials, no matter the language they use.

Ah. Well then. Good luck using that "same logic" in court. This isn't junior high debate class, you rube. This is the Constitution. "This same logic" doesn't apply when there are two very clear and very distinct sets of rules that govern private companies and public servants. Public servants can't prevent the public from participating in their own governance. Private companies are free to pick and choose whose content they'll host. And social media services have cut elected officials a lot of slack over the years, keeping accounts alive that would have been shut down much earlier if platforms enforced rules consistently.

Bradley wants to create a carve-out for public officials in both the Constitution and social media platforms' terms of service. That's utter bullshit and shouldn't be tolerated by either his government cohorts or the people he's supposed to be representing.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, julian bradley, section 230, social media, wisconsin

See the original post here:
Wisconsin Senator's Social Media Bill Aims To Save The First Amendment By Violating The First Amendment - Techdirt