Mediaboss Marketing

So the Arizona Supreme Court held today (Morgan v. Dickerson), in an opinion by Vice Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer:

The superior court in Cochise County uses "innominate juries" for all criminal jury trials. Under that procedure, prospective and impaneled jurors are referred to by numbers rather than by names throughout open-court proceedings, although the court and the parties know their identities. Consequently, although voir dire examinations and trials are open for public viewing, observers are not provided jurors' names absent order of the court.

[W]e are asked to decide whether the First Amendment provides the public a qualified right of access to jurors' names during voir dire, thereby creating presumptive access to those names that can be overcome only on a case-by-case basis by showing both a compelling state interest and that denying access is a remedy narrowly tailored to serve that interest. We hold the First Amendment does not prohibit the court's practice.

Arizona law provides that "[t]he list of juror names or other juror information shall not be released unless specifically required by law or ordered by the court."

[T]he [Supreme] Court has held that the First Amendment guarantee of qualified public access attaches to criminal trials, voir dire examinations, and trial-like preliminary hearings [But] the right to attend voir dire [and] a right to access juror names are far from the same thing. Here, the public was not barred from attending any part of the criminal trials, including voir dire, so the most essential press and public right is not implicated. [T]he Supreme Court has not addressed whether the First Amendment guarantee of qualified public access to voir dire examinations extends to learning jurors' names.

The court then applied the Supreme Court's "experience and logic" inquiry into whether a particular facet of the judicial process should be open; it agreed that, as to experience, "jurors' names were traditionally revealed during jury selection proceedings," but concludes that "logic" cuts in favor of upholding departures from that tradition:

By asking whether access to jurors' names "plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question," the logic inquiry sets an exacting standard. A minimally positive role falls short.

[The] reasoning [in the Supreme Court's Press Enterprise I decision] for holding that open voir dire examinations play a significant positive role in that process guides our answer to the logic inquiry. The Court observed that the public right to attend voir dire promotes fairness and the appearance of fairness, critical to public confidence in the criminal justice system. Specifically, "[t]he value of openness lies in the fact that people not actually attending trials can have confidence that standards of fairness are being observed; the sure knowledge that anyone is free to attend gives assurance that established procedures are being followed and that deviations will become known." Open proceedings also have a "community therapeutic value" by providing an outlet for public reaction to criminal acts.

"[P]ublic proceedings vindicate the concerns of the victims and the community in knowing that offenders are being brought to account for their criminal conduct by jurors fairly and openly selected." In short, open proceedings play a significant positive role in voir dire by checking the courts to ensure established standards are being used to select jurors and by simultaneously assuring the public that fairly selected jurors are holding offenders to account for their crimes.

Morgan has failed to show that public access to jurors' names likewise plays a significant positive role in voir dire. With or without such access, the press and the public can attend voir dire proceedings and were able to do so in these cases. Anyone can sit in the courtroom during a criminal trial and observe the juror screening process, including voir dire examinations. They can also observe for-cause challenges and peremptory strikes, hear the judge's rulings, and mark any deviation from standards put in place by the legislature or this Court to select a fair jury. The public is also generally entitled to access public records reflecting how jury pools are formed in the superior court. Accessing jurors' names would not significantly add to the public's ability to assure itself that voir dire is fairly conducted or to check the courts in disregarding established standards for jury selection.

Other courts have reached the opposite conclusion, reasoning that public knowledge of jurors' names would deter prospective jurors from misrepresenting their answers during voir dire, permit public investigation of the accuracy of those answers, and assure the public that prospective jurors are drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. We disagree.

First, the public's role in voir dire is as an observer, not as a participant charged with selecting a fair jury. The judge and the parties are charged with that responsibility. See They are provided prospective jurors' names and are highly motivated to safeguard the integrity of the process, ensure the jury pool is drawn from a fair cross-section of the community, and unearth any information demonstrating juror bias.

Second, we are unconvinced that providing open access to jurors' names would cause prospective jurors to be more forthcoming during voir dire. It is just as likely that such access would motivate them to be less than forthcoming to avoid public embarrassment about very sensitive matters, like disabilities, medications, and past experiences as crime victims. And in this internet age, where jurors' names can trigger lightning-fast access to a wealth of biographical information, including addresses, any slightly positive role in divulging jurors' names to the public is outweighed by the risk to jury integrity.

In sum, public access to jurors' names promotes neither fairness in voir dire proceedings nor the perception of fairness. As such, it does not play a significant positive role in the functioning of voir dire, and we answer the logic inquiry in the negative. Consequently, the First Amendment does not provide the press or public with a qualified right to access jurors' names, and 21-312(A) is facially valid. The Cochise County Superior Court herefore did not err by presumptively using innominate juries.

Justice Clint Bolick concurred, but added:

I write only to add that the statute protecting juror names survives even the most demanding First Amendment compelling-interest standard. Unlike most states, Arizona's constitution contains an express privacy protection, providing in relevant part that "[n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs without authority of law." Whatever the scope of that right, the State plainly has a compelling interest in enforcing it to protect juror privacy.

Query whether similar reasoning could be used by courts to justify pseudonymity of litigants, notwithstanding some courts' statements that the First Amendment right of access presumptively precludes such pseudonymity (see my The Law of Pseudonymous Litigation), and not just of jurors.

Congratulations to counsel Marjorie S. Becklund and Michael A. Powell, who delivered the oral arguments in favor of this result.

Read the original post:
No First Amendment Problem with Routine Anonymous Criminal Juries - Reason

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

When James Madison authored the language that would become the First Amendment, he and his colleagues feared that the new federal government might enact legislation that would interfere with personal liberty. That fear was shared by many in the 13 states that had just ratified the Constitution. Indeed, five of the states conditioned their ratification on the addition of a Bill of Rights.

Madison who had been the scrivener of the Constitution in 1787, was, by 1791, a member of the House of Representatives and the Houses resident expert on the Constitution was designated by his colleagues as the drafter of the Bill of Rights.

Madisons language in the First Amendments is clear; it only restrains Congress. Yet, recognizing the natural origins of the freedom of speech and aware of the universal governmental animosity to free speech, and taking account of the 14th Amendments imposition of due process upon the states, the courts expanded the scope of the First Amendment so as to impose its restraints upon all government including the president, the judiciary, the states and their subdivisions.

During the Civil War and World War I, Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson incarcerated folks for their speech and argued that the First Amendment only restrained Congress, not the president. Today, such an argument would be dismissed out of hand in any court.

Today, the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech from all government.

But the First Amendment only restrains the government. It does not restrain private persons, whom lawyers call nongovernmental actors.

The old counterpoint that the First Amendment does not permit shouting fire in a crowded theater is inaccurate. If the theater is owned by nongovernmental actors, the First Amendment plays no role whatsoever in regulating or permitting the shouting; the property owner does. There are sound reasons why shouting fire in a crowded theater is actionable under the law, but the First Amendment is not among them unless the government owns the theater.

I offer this brief background as a prelude to addressing the latest turn of events concerning social media platforms that suppress speech of which they dont approve. Because the social media companies are nongovernmental actors, they are free to infringe upon the speech of their clients and customers for any reason they choose that does not violate public policy, such as infringement based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or place of origin.

Yet, a nongovernmental actor that enters into a symbiotic relationship with the government may lose its freedom to suppress speech and be subjected to the same restraints as the government.

Thus, Twitter, for example, is free to suppress any speech and any speaker because of the content of the speech, unless it is doing the governments bidding. If it is, if Twitter is doing for the government what the government cannot do on its own suppress speech because of its content and if sufficient evidence of this is properly before a court, the court may very well invoke the state action doctrine, which will impose the restraints of the First Amendment upon Twitter.

I use Twitter as an example because last week two U.S. senators obtained and revealed emails between officials of the Department of Homeland Security and Twitter executives contemplating how Twitter can suppress speech that the DHS believes constitutes mis- or dis- or mal-information. This is dangerous for personal liberty and, frankly, dangerous for Twitter.

The courts have ruled that when a governmental actor here the DHS and a nongovernmental actor here Twitter are so intertwined for their mutual benefit, and someone here those whose speech Twitter has suppressed because of its content is harmed thereby, the courts will impose First Amendment restraints upon the nongovernmental actor.

Lets say you are in Yankee Stadium at a Yankees/Boston Red Sox game and you go to buy a hot dog from a vendor in the stadium and he refuses to sell to you because you are wearing a Red Sox baseball cap. (In New York, this happens!) Who has punished you for your speech, the private vendor, which is not restrained by the First Amendment, or New York City, which owns the stadium and hired the vendor and which clearly is restrained by the First Amendment?

Since the city provides customers for the vendor and the vendor provides products for the customers and your presence at the game benefits both, and because you dont know whose rule no Red Sox caps allowed is being enforced, there is obviously a symbiotic relationship between the vendor and the city, and thus the First Amendment will restrain the vendor from punishing your speech as if it were the city.

The same may very well be the case for Twitter. The emails released last week revealed the contemplation of a symbiotic DHS/Twitter relationship that, if proven, will harm Twitter severely and expose the government for its attacks on the freedom of speech.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to keep the government entirely out of the business of interfering with speech directly or indirectly. Moreover, if Twitter does the governments bidding, and the First Amendment is applied to Twitter, it will lose its private property-generated ability to suppress speech.

The interesting question is not what does the government gain; governments always want to suppress the speech they hate and fear. The real question is why a social media entity would do the governments dirty work for it. The probable answer is to retain its statutory immunity from liability for what its clients post.

This is what happens when you get in bed with the feds. You wake up with a constitutional headache as well as fleas.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read this article:
Twitter and the freedom of speech | News, Sports, Jobs - Minot Daily News

The British home secretary has formally approved the extradition of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to the United States, in the latest development in a dangerous and misguided criminal prosecution that has the potential to criminalize national security journalism in the United States.

Previously, a major coalition of civil liberties organizations, including Freedom of the Press Foundation, implored U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to drop the case against Assange in the name of protecting the rights of journalists everywhere. So, too, have the editors of major news outlets such as The New York Times and Washington Post.

By continuing to extradite Assange, the Biden DOJ is ignoring the dire warnings of virtually every major civil liberties and human rights organization in the country that the case will do irreparable damage to basic press freedom rights of U.S. reporters.

The prosecution, which includes 17 charges under the Espionage Act and one under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, covers events that took place more than a decade ago, but was brought only under the Trump administration after the Obama Department of Justice reportedly considered charges but dismissed them for their dangerous First Amendment implications.

Reports suggest Assange may have at least one more avenue of appeal, so he may not be on a flight to the United States just yet. But this is one more troubling development in a case that could upend journalists rights in the 21st century.

You dont have to like Assange or his political opinions at all to grasp the dangerous nature of this case for journalists everywhere, either. Even if you dont consider him a journalist, much of the activity described in the charges against him is common newsgathering practices. A successful conviction would potentially make receiving classified information, asking for sources for more information, and publishing certain types of classified information a crime. Journalists, of course, engage in all these activities regularly.

There is some historical irony in the fact that this extradition announcement falls during the anniversary of the Pentagon Papers trial, which began with the Times publication of stories based on the legendary leak on June 13, 1971, and continued through the seminal Supreme Court opinion rejecting prior restraint on June 30, 1971.

In the months and years following that debacle, whistleblower (and FPF co-founder) Daniel Ellsberg became the first journalistic source to be charged under the Espionage Act. What many do not know is that the Nixon administration attempted to prosecute Times reporter Neil Sheehan for receiving the Pentagon Papers as well under a very similar legal theory the Justice Department is using against Assange.

Thankfully, that prosecution failed. And until this one does too, we continue to urge the Biden administration to drop this prosecution. Every day it continues to further undermine the First Amendment.

Original post:
The extradition of Julian Assange must be condemned by all who believe in press freedom - Freedom of the Press Foundation

The Washington Commanders' decision to fine coach Jack Del Rio has sparked a reaction from prominent television personality Bill Maher.

The popular political pundit and late night show host spoke out on the decision to fine Del Rio $100,000 for his comments on the Jan. 6 insurrection.

"They fined him, the team fined him, $100,000 for this opinion. Fining people for an opinion. I am not down with that," Maher declared.

"I would like to, if I could talk to Mr. Del Rio, I think I could probably hopefully convince him a little bit that it was more than a dust-up. He also compares it a lot to the 2020 protests that were going on after the George Floyd murder. Okay," he added.

"I think I could also convince him there are really important differences between those two things. And actually, the attack on the Capitol was worse. Nevertheless, he has a right to be wrong. In America, you have the right to be wrong."

Of course, free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without repercussion from your employer.

Still, many are agreeing with Bill.

"Good for Bill. Its called freedom of speech," one fan added.

"While there are some exceptions not relevant here, non-governmental employers can fine, fire or demote employees if the say or do something the employer finds offensive or harmful to its brand. The first amendment (free speech) applies to the government, NOT private employers," another fan pointed out.

"Tend to agree with Maher.. Just shame the bejeezus out of him . Never mention his name without a reminder of his dismissal of 1/6. He can live in infamy But, dont penalize this time. If he keeps it up well, he needs a job out of the limelight.. up to owners," one fan suggested.

Where do you stand?

See the original post:
Bill Maher Criticizes Washington: NFL World Reacts - The Spun

Via Teleconference

5:05 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR: Okay. Hello, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us this evening. Really appreciate you tuning in.

I just want to start this call with a quick reminder that this call is on background, embargoed until tomorrow morning at 5:00 a.m. Eastern. You may attribute the context of the call to a senior administration official. Today, you will hear from [senior administration officials].

And with that, Ill kick it over to [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, I was muted. Am I unmuted?

MODERATOR: Yes, youre back.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So sorry. Did you hear anything, because it seemed to do that and

MODERATOR: Nope.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay.

MODERATOR: Nope, were just starting.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, Im going to start again then, with apologies. And good evening.

The President made a campaign promise to convene a national task force to prevent and address online harassment and abuse. And this task force is charged with developing recommendations for federal and state governments, for technology platforms, schools, and other public and private entities.

Tomorrow, the Vice President is going to host an event launching the task force, and she will be joined by Cabinet officials, advocates, and, most importantly, survivors.

The task force is aims to address the growing problem of online harassment and abuse, which disproportionately targets women, girls, and LGBTQI+ people.

It will be co-chaired the task force will be co-chaired by the Gender Policy Council and the National Security Council. And it includes the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and other heads of federal agencies and White House policy councils.

You know, just to take a step back about the why here, the President made this commitment because in the United States, one in three women under the age of 35 report being sexually harassed online, and over half of LGBTQI+ individuals report being the target of severe online abuse.

So what are we going to do? Within 180 days of launching, the task force is going to provide a blueprint for recommended steps the federal government can take to counter this issue, as well as suggestions for actions in partnership with the private sector and with civil society. And these recommendations will focus on increasing support for survivors of online harassment and abuse, as well as expanding research to better understand the impact and the scope of the problem, improve prevention efforts, and strengthen accountability for offenders and for platforms.

As you all well know, its imperative that we commit to better understanding and addressing the nexus between online misogyny and radicalization to violence.

You know, sadly, the the recent mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde highlight these links between online harassment and abuse, hate, and extremist acts. The Buffalo shooter, for example, was very explicitly radicalized online. And his manifesto espoused the great replacement theory, which is, of course, rooted in racism, misogyny, and xenophobia.

And thats just one example. We see this over and over again when we see issues of extremism and how they turn into violence.

The task force is just one element of the President and Vice Presidents strong commitment to unify communities and to tackle hate and violent extremism in all its forms.

Im going to turn this over now to [senior administration official]. [Senior administration official], over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, [senior administration official].

So, as [senior administration official] just said, tomorrow, Vice President Harris will launch the White House Task Force to Address Online Harassment and Abuse, which the Gender Policy Council and the National Security Council will co-chair. We also note that the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, will be present, along with Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Sloane Stephens, the U.S. Open Tennis Champion survivor and mental health advocate.

As [senior administration official] had noted, the task force, within 180 days, will provide a series of recommendations for how the federal government, in partnership with the private sector and civil society, can better combat online harassment and abuse.

And just to take a step back, the Vice President has had a long record, as many of you know, of standing up to hate and exploitation. From her days as Attorney General of California to her tenure in the U.S. Senate, and even starting out her career as a district attorney focused on sexual assault and child exploitation cases, shes led the fight against bad actors and has pioneered innovative ways to secure safety and privacy rights in the digital world.

Ill just focus on her attorney general record for a second. She successfully prosecuted one of the first-ever cases against tan operator of a cyber exploitation website. She also launched the Privacy Enforcement and Protection Unit to prosecute individuals who infringe on the privacy rights of others. This unit was the first of its kind for the California Department of Justice at the time.

Furthermore, as Attorney General, she secured an agreement with the leading operators of tech companies that have mobile application platforms to enhance privacy protections basically, privacy agreements for millions of users on their smartphones, tablets, and other devices.

Her longstanding work in this area takes on an additional significance as the potential overruling of Roe may jeopardize data privacy.

As a senator, she introduced legislation that would have made these acts that we were just talking about a federal crime. So, she has led and will continue to lead the effort, along with the President, to dismantle cruelty, bullying, violence, and hate wherever it exists.

Back to you.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much, [senior administration officials]. With that, we will take your questions.

Great. First question, well turn it over to Chris with The AP.

Q Hi, everybody. I just want to make sure I understand whats happening tomorrow, specifically. It seems like whats going to be happening tomorrow is the announcement of a task force that will eventually issue recommendations, not were not going to get the recommendations tomorrow, if I understand that correctly.

And lastly, I just want to make sure I understand: What is the role of the National Security Council in this effort? And will we see Xavier Becerra there tomorrow, given HHSs role?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, Chris. So the answer your first question is: Yes, this is the launch of a task force. Its actually its also its first meeting. So what we will be doing is also hearing testimony from experts and survivors. And the meeting will be attended by a number of the different agencies and White House offices that are part of the task force.

We will not see Secretary Becerra because hes not able to be there. But Surgeon General Murthy will attend in his place, as will Attorney General Garland.

The other question about the role of the National Security Council is: Yes, they will be co-chairing the council with us. And you know, the the reason for that is the obvious connections. Two things one is the obvious connection between online harassment and abuse and extremism, hate, and violent acts, and the threat that has caused.

One of the things that actually we will also be touching on tomorrow and announcing tomorrow is some research from the U.S. Secret Services National Threat Assessment Center under the Department of Homeland Security, which shows the nexus between online misogyny and domestic terrorism. So that just is one example of some additional things we will be announcing tomorrow.

And I feel like there was one more part of your question.

Q No, you got it. Just beyond that misogyny is connected to the Uvalde shooter that thats the connection there, right?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Yes.

Q Okay. Thats it. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Chris and [senior administration official].

Next, well turn it over to Kellen with the New York Times.

Q Hi, thanks very much. I was just wondering, and I know this is going to be the first meeting, but is there any sense of whether there are particular online platforms or social media sites, anything like that, that you expect to be the focus of this task force? Is there any any area in particular that youre going to be focusing on?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We are not focused on particular platforms. We are absolutely focused on the role of platforms and social media more generally, and the connections and their role. And as I said at the at the outset, there will be recommendations for the private sector and for civil society, but were not focused on any particular platform.

Q Got it. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Next, well go over to Cat with the Washington Post.

Q Hey, thanks so much for taking the time to do this. I had two questions. Kind of following up on that, what role will major social media companies play in the task force and in the development of these recommendations?

And I also just wanted to ask you if you see any connection between the work the task force is doing and the work of the January 6th Committee on social media and extremism.

Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sorry. So, you know, as I noted, preventing and addressing all forms of GBV gender-based violence including online requires engagement and, really, partnership between the public and the private sectors. And, you know, many technology companies have expressed a commitment to improving user safety and addressing abuse on their platforms.

And so, we will be looking for opportunities to engage with industry experts and leaders who share that commitment to supporting survivors and preventing abuse, including by improving the safety and the design of their products and platforms.

And I hadnt, quite frankly, thought about the connection to January 6th. This was really has been pretty laser-focused on online harassment and abuse and the connection to gender-based violence.

MODERATOR: Thanks, [senior administration official].

Next, well turn it over to Alexandra with Reuters.

Alexandra, I dont know if we cant hear you.

Okay, in the meantime, well turn it over to Ashley with Axios.

Q Hi, there. Thanks for having the call. You talked about ultimately developing best practices with civil society and the private sector, but will you will the task force be making any policy recommendations for Congress with the federal agencies?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We do anticipate making policy recommendations, as well as recommendations on additional research on the role of, as I said, private sector and civil society and programs.

And again, there will be a couple of additional announcements tomorrow. And so, that sort of forecasts, because, honestly, weve already started this work. And this task force is really the next thing in the line of working on all facets of this of this problem and the solutions to it. So, yes, I would say, in all of those categories.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Next question, well turn it over to Brendan at Politico.

Q Yeah. Hi, guys. Thanks so much for doing the call. You know, I think particularly given, you know, it sounds like the involvement of the DOJ and the National Security Council and folks like that, I wanted to ask whether the White House has given any thought to privacy or, you know, like free speech concerns around this?

You know, Im thinking specifically of sort of the backlash that occurred around DHSs disinformation board, and I can imagine some of the same voices might raise concerns with this effort, you know, regarding the White House or the governments attempt to sort of, like, control speech online that some people might see as obviously hate speech or harassment or threatening violence and others might not see that way.

Are you guys thinking about those issues at all? And is that something that has crossed the White Houses radar so far? And do you guys plan to sort of dig into those issues at all, as you as you weigh a lot of these other questions?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, we are particularly focused on online activities that are illegal conduct, such as cyber stalking or non-consensual distribution of intimate images or targeted harassment, as well as, you know, the overlap with intimate partner and sexual violence online, and online abuse linked to the distribution of child sex abuse material and trafficking.

And these are obviously harmful and illegal acts that occur online. And there has been a strong bipartisan consensus that more has to be done to hold perpetrators and platforms accountable to prevent these harms.

We are very mindful of the of the First Amendment issues. But, you know, violent and threatening speech is not protected by the First Amendment. So, while we are going to carefully navigate those issues, were also going to remain laser-focused on the non-speech aspects. So, yes, that will be part of our work.

And I realized I actually forgot to mention you raised the National Security Council again, and I did realize there was one other piece I wanted to respond to in Chriss question, which is: Why is the National Security Council involved? For all the reasons weve already discussed. And also, I should just note that another thing we are doing is that the the National Security Council and we launched a Global Partnership for Action on Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse at the Summit for Democracy back in December, and sort of officially asked for partners at the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women in March.

And so, the State Department is continuing to expand that global partnership because, obviously, this work is important in a number of different countries around the world. So, that partnership the Global Partnership brings together countries and international organizations and civil society and the private sector to understand technology-facilitated gender-based violence around the world and to prevent and address it.

MODERATOR: Thank you, [senior administration official].

And our last question, well go to Tal at the SF Chronicle.

Q Hi, I have a quick procedural question and then an actual question. The procedural question is: Will you all be distributing a copy of the report you mentioned, tying misogyny to violence?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Our goal is to have a factsheet under a 5:00 a.m. embargo tonight. So well make sure everyone on this call gets that.

Q Okay, great. Thanks. And then my question you know, and I mean this with all due respect, but if this is a campaign promise, you know, were 18 months into the administration, I believe, you know, its youre announcing a task force that in six months will give recommendations that, of course, will then need to be enacted.

Im just wondering, you know: What took so long to stand up the task force? And, you know, should we take away a sense of urgency from, you know, this coming together, kind of, over such a long time?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: What I would say about that is that this is, you know, sort of a midpoint in the work on online harassment and abuse. And I think, you know, [senior administration official] laid out the Vice Presidents long commitment to this.

You know, Im sure you know the Presidents long commitment to gender-based violence wherever it occurs. And, you know, between passing the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and taking on military sexual assault and, you know, other issues that are related, this is just part of our overall work to combat gender-based violence wherever it occurs.

And, you know, what has the way that this task force has developed and Im sort of quite proud of the fact that its, I think, a very thoughtful group of people who are involved and the issues are sort of well-defined at this point is because it grows out of interagency work, which has been ongoing.

So, as I said, this is a public acknowledgement of the work that we are doing and, sort of, you know, the moment to say, Okay, weve been doing all of this interagency work. This brings it together, and that were asking for this report back within 180 days.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much. And thanks, everyone, for joining.

Just a friendly reminder that this is under embargo until 5:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. Well be sure to share the factsheet, hopefully in the next few hours here. And please reach out with any questions.

5:25 P.M. EDT

See the original post:
Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on Presidential Action to Establish the Task Force to Address Online Harassment and Abuse -...