Mediaboss Marketing

Over at the So to Speak podcast, Nico Perrino arranged to post audio of the recent First Amendment Salons exchange between the lead trial lawyers for Dominion and Fox. A video of that exchange also appears on The First Amendment Salons website as noted below.

On April 18, Fox News agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787.5 million to settle a defamation lawsuit stemming from allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. The historic settlement came just before the trial was set to begin in a case many saw as having significant First Amendment implications. In this exclusive conversation, attorneys for Fox and Dominion join First Amendment attorney Lee Levine to reflect on what led to the case, its outcome, and the arguments they would have made had the case gone to trial.

The future of media and content will be bound up with generative AI in ways that we dont yet know. AI itself is not human and cannot have constitutional rights, writes Cass Sunstein, just as a vacuum cleaner does not have constitutional rights. But it seems pretty clear that content created by generative AI probably has free speech protections. It is speech. It is speech that is created out of the raw material of human speech. It is created from code made by humans. It certainly contributes to the marketplace of ideasit may well contribute too much. The modern Court has shown over and over that government cannot restrict speech because of its message, its subject matter, or its content. [See Police Department v. Mosley]

At the same time, it makes sense that government can restrict any AI speech that is traditionally not protected by the First Amendment: libel, criminal solicitation, false advertising, child pornography, and speech that leads to imminent lawless action. Such speech is unconstitutional, whether it is created by a human, an algorithm, or a toaster. The question is whether government can regulate AI to prevent unconstitutional speech.

Related

A judge in California has dismissed a seven-year $100 million lawsuit against Greenpeace USA that threatened the groups existence. Canadian logging giant Resolute Forest Products sued Greenpeace in the United States and Canada for defamation after the group exposed the companys irresponsible practices, part of a pattern of corporations attempting to use the burdens of the legal process to intimidate, exhaust and censor activists. Known as SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) lawsuits, they are increasingly being used by the rich and powerful to silence critics.

We are joined by Deepa Padmanabha, deputy general counsel for Greenpeace USA, to discuss the organizations legal victory, as well as the continued work of advocates to pass anti-SLAPP legislation and promote free speech. We took on this fight not just for Greenpeace, but for everyone who dares speak truth to power, and we knew we had to win this both in the courtroom and for the movement, says Padmanabha.

Related

The Empire Center for Public Policy and New Yorkers Family Research Foundation (NYFRF) have sued Attorney General Letitia James over ongoing First Amendment violations at the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) connected to confidential charitable donor records.

In 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in AFP v. Bonta that requiring charitable organizations to disclose the identities of their large donors to a state attorney generals office imposed a widespread burden on donors associational rights. On that basis, the Court found that donors First Amendment rights had been violated.

In a similar fashion, AG James is keeping donor information that her office improperly requested from charitable organizations. Specifically, the OAG has requested and received IRS Form 990, Schedule B from charitable organizations; this document contains donor names and amounts donated. This information has been the subject of at least one security breach that AG James has acknowledged. The issue first came to light in an August 2022 Politico article that revealed donor identities from a leaked filing bearing the Attorney Generals official stamp.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that a public agency did not violate the First Amendment when it prohibited an employee from speaking to coworkers on matters related to the employees alleged misconduct while an investigation was pending.

The case, Roberts v. Springfield Utility Board, arose when SUB initiated an investigation into Todd Robertss dishonest related to [his] work attendance. SUB prohibited Roberts from communicating with coworkers regarding the matter while the investigation proceeded. Roberts then sued, arguing that the restriction violated free speech.

The Ninth Circuit rejected the claim. The court ruled that SUB's restriction applied to speech that was not on a matter of public concern, and therefore Roberts didn't clear the first hurdle under Pickering v. Board of Education. The court noted that SUB's restriction permitted Roberts to communicate with coworkers on other matters, and allows his attorney to communicate with coworkers on matters related to the investigation.

Mere months after the Uvalde school district suspended its entire police force for failing to effectively respond to a deadly shooting at an elementary school, school officials banned a concerned parent from school property because he questioned the qualifications of a new police hire.

Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression demanded the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District lift its ban against Adam Martinez, a father of two students in the district. The district banned Martinez from all district property for two years, including from school board meetings. FIREs letter to UCISD threatens litigation if the district does not lift the unconstitutional ban by May 22, 2023.

My community counts on me to be their voice, but the district wants to shut me up, said Martinez. My fight has always been for the 21 people who no longer have a voice and for those who are too scared to speak up about social injustice.

Freedom of expression is a core value of the United States and other democratic countries. Yet in recent years, free speech has become a site of intense conflict when it intersects with issues of diversity and inclusion. Such clashes can be seen in discussions about safe spaces on university campuses, race and LGBTQ+ education in K-12 schools, and hate speech regulation on social media.

Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America and author of Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All, argues that we need not choose between protecting free speech and advancing diversity and inclusion. But how can these values be reconciled? What should governments, tech companies, and educational institutions do when free speech threatens feelings of inclusion among marginalized people? When does protesting cross the line into censorship? In an era of book bans and heightened political polarization, finding answers to these questions is as important as ever.

Suzanne Nossel held a wide-ranging conversation on these topics with Professor Kenji Yoshino, Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law and director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging.

This event is co-sponsored by the Birnbaum Womens Leadership Network at NYU School of Law.

In this book, Amy Lai examines the current free speech crisis in Western universities. She studies the origin, history, and importance of freedom of speech in the university setting, and addresses the relevance and pitfalls of political correctness and microaggressions on campuses, where laws on harassment, discrimination, and hate speech are already in place, along with other concepts that have gained currency in the free speech debate, including deplatforming, trigger warning, and safe space.

Looking at numerous free speech disputes in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, the book argues for the equal application of the free speech principle to all expressions to facilitate respectful debates. All in all, it affirms that the right to free expression is a natural right essential to the pursuit of truth, democratic governance, and self-development, and this right is nowhere more important than in the university.

In this Article, I maintain that in recent years a broad, but unspoken, consensus has existed on the Supreme Court for deciding free speech cases with an almost insuperable presumption of unconstitutionality and that the result has been a system of freedom of expression that indefensibly and dangerously favors speech. If the Justices were simply putting a proverbial thumb on the scales in favor of free speech, that would not be particularly noteworthy. I make the much more controversial and novel claim here, however, that, across their ideological spectrum, the Justices routinely decide free speech cases in a way that greatly overvalues the harm to speakers from regulating speech or greatly undervalues the harm to society from not regulating it, or both. A fundamental change in the Courts thinking about free speech issues is essential, and it is not the kind of change in thinking that can come about with one or two retirements on the Court.

To demonstrate the extreme nature of the Roberts Courts free speech approach, I look closely in Parts II-IV at three cases in which the Justices were in broad agreement that a free speech claim should prevail Snyder v. Phelps in 2011, United States v. Alvarez in 2012, and Mahanoy Area School District (MASD) v. B.L. in 2021. Snyder, Alvarez, and MASD are not the first cases anyone would name if asked to list the Roberts Courts most important free speech decisions, but each offers a much better view of the Courts approach at work than a high-profile case like Citizens United in which the Court divided along familiar ideological lines. The real story here is the striking breadth of agreement across the Courts usual ideological divide and the exceptionally protective approach to free speech on which the Justices are so broadly agreed. In essence, all the Justices predicate their thinking in free speech cases on a baseline of protection that is perilously and unjustifiably high.

After discussing Snyder, Alvarez, and MASD, I turn to speech on social media to illustrate the urgency of the Courts revising its free speech approach. In Part V, I underline the gravity of the dangers posed by speech on social media by focusing on two kinds of uses to which social media has all too often, and increasingly, been put: expressing and cultivating hatred and prejudice toward racial and other minorities; and deliberately misleading and confusing the public about matters of important public policy. I argue in Part VI that such dangers very likely must go unregulated unless and until the Court adopts a much more balanced free speech approach. Social media is a propagandists dream come true. Speakers have always wanted to get others to embrace and act upon their ideas. By enabling speakers to flood the marketplace, and bombard people repeatedly, with their ideas, social media gives speakers enormous power to make that happen. Properly understood, however, the First Amendment should not stop the government from standing in its way when vital state interests are at stake.

In last weeks issue of FAN, our link to Ryan Morrison was erroneous. The correct link is as set out below:

Review granted

Pending petitions

State action

Qualified immunity

Immunity under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Liability Anti-Terrorism Act

Section 230 immunity

Review denied

Previous FAN

FAN 378: Paul Clement files cert. petition in campaign ballot slogan case

This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article's author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or of Mr. Collins.

Read more:
Post-settlement First Amendment Salon: Lawyers for Dominion and ... - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

OPINION

UPDATED: MAY 16, 2023 AT 1:23 PM

St. George Mayor Michelle Randall speaks during a city council meeting that lead to her changing public comment rules and First Amendment rights. (Screenshot courtesy of St. George City)

This is an editorial piece. An editorial, like a news article, is based on fact but also shares opinions. The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and are not associated with our newsroom.

ST. GEORGE, Utah Contentious public meetings are not a new thing. Utah has seen more than its share of raucous school board meetings, especially during the pandemic.This week, the mayor of St. George, Michelle Randall, decided to close city council meetings because they had become too divisive. That prompted one citizen in attendance at the meeting to quote their First Amendment rights.

Another citizen, David Johnson of Washington City, said, The First Amendment is very clear and leaves no doubt what our rights are.

Actually, there is plenty of doubt. Open meeting laws, sometimes called sunshine laws, were not included in the Constitution. They cannot be traced back to common law or common practice during the time when the Bill of Rights was passed.

They are a relatively new development. The movement to require open government meetings began in the 1950s, and by 1976, all states and the District of Columbia had adopted sunshine laws. These laws vary from state to state, but in general require that all public meetings be open to the public, with some exceptions.

Utahs open meetings law also provides that any citizen who willfully disrupts a meeting can be removed from that meeting.

Additionally, our sunshine law only applies to the state, its agencies and political subdivisions.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals looked at this issue in Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa. There the court said that a persons speech must actually disrupt the city council meeting before the person can be removed. The Fourth Circuit also said that public officials must have the discretion to cut off speech which they reasonably perceive to be a disruption. See Steinburg v. Chester County Planning Commission.

The bottom line misunderstanding that many Americans struggle with is their belief that rights are absolute.

You may hear someone say in conversation: If I own my home, I ought to be able to do whatever I want with it.

Property law does not convey an absolute right. Your ownership is subject to restrictions, including taxes and eminent domain. Youll also hear people talk about their gun ownership rights in absolute terms, but you must be a certain age and go through a background check, among other restrictions, in order to legally buy a gun.

Likewise, your freedom of speech, in city council meetings and elsewhere, is not absolute. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater (to name the famous one), and you cant use speech to incite imminent violence. Speech rights are most protected in public forums, but the city council chamber is considered a limited public forum.

Because it is limited, the government is allowed to impose time, place and manner restrictions on the exercise of your free speech rights.

Amanda Dickson is the co-host of Utahs Morning Newsand A Womans View.

Continued here:
Dickson: No First Amendment rights to yell in city council meetings - KSL NewsRadio

As a media lawyer and fan of the WestView News, I appreciate this publications willingness to tackle contentious issues. But even the most well-intentioned publishing decisions can spark conflict. Indeed, WestView recently found itself embroiled in controversy relating to a breakaway competitor, and I contributed an opinion piece to last months issue advocating for WestView and sharing my opinions on the matter. As it turns out, my opinion piece has itself become the subject of some controversy. These recent events prompted WestView to ask me to explain the First Amendment right to hear provocative speech.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. One of the most important aspects of the First Amendment is the protection of free speech, which includes both the right to express polarizing opinions and the right to hear them. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment includes the right to hear unpopular speech, stating in First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti that the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.

The right to free speech includes the right to offend, shock, and criticize others. While it may be uncomfortable to hear opinions that differ from our own, it is important to allow dissenting voices to be heard and considered. Doing so can foster a more inclusive and diverse society where voices are valued and represented. By fostering open and honest debate, the right to hear contentious discourse about sensitive topics provides a check against tyranny and oppression. Robust public debate creates a marketplace of ideas, where the best arguments and most persuasive viewpoints rise to the top.

The right to hear unpopular speech is essential for protecting minority viewpoints. Without protection of all perspectives (including ones that may be challenging), we risk creating an echo chamber where only the dominant opinions are heard, and minority viewpoints are suppressed. But when the minority has the right to speak and be heard, it can defend its position and perhaps gain support if warranted. At the very least, the right to hear unpopular speech ensures that the public has access to a diverse range of viewpoints, and can make informed decisions based on multiple perspectives.

While the right to engage in and hear unpopular speech is essential to the functioning of our democracy, there are of course limits to speech. One such limit is defamation, which occurs when a speaker makes a false statement of fact (rather than an opinion) that harms the subject in some appreciable way, and is made with fault or malice. I practice in this area and have experience both bringing and defending lawsuits involving defamation claims. But no matter the case, one constant remains: opinion-based speechsuch as argument about whether someones conduct was appropriateis absolutely protected. This protection includes the right of readers to hear such an argument and decide for themselves whether they agree.

Ultimately, the right to hear unpopular speech is essential to the functioning of a true democracy. It allows for the free exchange of ideas, protects minority viewpoints, and guards against censorship. It is important to challenge and critique opposing views, and it is equally important to allow those views to be heard and considered. By doing so, we can foster a more open and inclusive society where all voices are valued. As Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote, If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

Justin T. Kelton is a partner and Co-Chair of the Litigation Department at Abrams Fensterman, LLP. His practice focuses on media law, First Amendment issues, and complex commercial litigation. He can be reached at 718-215-5300 or jkelton@abramslaw.com. This article represents Mr. Keltons personal opinions only, and does not constitute legal advice.

More here:
The First Amendment and the Marketplace of Ideas - WESTVIEW ... - WestView News

By James S. Kor

Re:

1) Questions about legitimacy and integrity of the Court

2) Uniformity of the Courts position on debt relief

3) Honor, Fundamental Fairness, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW

It seems obvious that most Americans dont know or have forgotten about your consistent history of favoring big business and the wealthy. But now, based on the direction some of you appear to be leaning on the issue of forgiving student loan debt, there is the opportunity to present and highlight a very telling contrast. So, with this petition, we question what seems to be your Orwellian, ANIMAL FARM-like idea of EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW; some are more equal than others?

The example that follows is merely one of many that indicate some of you are all for forgiveness and lack of accountabilityso long as it is for mega-rich corporations like Monsanto, big pharma, big oil, or corrupt prosecutors and judges who violate citizens rights in criminal cases (the root cause of the unprecedented and growing epidemic of wrongful convictions).

As a result of the EXXON VALDEZ oil tanker spill in Alaskan waters, which devastated wildlife and the environment, EXXON was appropriately saddled with billions of dollars in clean-up costs and also fines that were supposed to have served as a deterrent. Years went by without the fines being paid. Peoples memories of the disaster faded. Then, very quietly, without media fanfare and little notice to the public, YOU, the Supreme Court, acted to forgive the remainder of EXXONs debt; that of the appropriate justice of the fine. To this day it remains unclear HOW justice was supposedly served, HOW the American people were served, HOW the Constitution was served, or HOW that corporate friendly favor you did for EXXON qualifies as EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.

We think some Americans are finally becoming vigilant enough to ask questions about your integrity and legitimacy. Such as this question: If the millions of good mainstream Americans who stand to get relief from their student loan debt were all stockholders in a big corporation, like EXXON, might your postures and questions, re the issue, be different right now? Hmm.

No obsequios overly deferential bootlicking shyster lawyer would ever dare to publicly rub the Courts nose in its own self-created, albeit obscure, shame but the litigant in California Supreme Course CASE #S275842 has no qualms about doing so:

Approximately 22 short months after you granted the debt forgiveness to EXXON and its shareholders, the world witnessed yet another catastrophic oil spill. The BP Oil platform blowout in the Gulf of Mexico was caused by the exact same thing as the EXXON VALDEZ tanker spill; the relaxing of supposedly mandatory safety rules.

Regulatory standards, guidelines and Constitutional rights are in place for good reasons. When YOU create your own new history of allowing them to be broken and violated at will, and take all the teeth out of any deterrent sanctions, remove meaningful oversight, YOU are doing two things for certain:

Now? Who had the wise, centuries-long foresight to see not only that such could happen but also HOW it would come about? It would be a filthy slur on his memory were any of you to deny or attempt to downplay the great Alexander Hamiltons original intent for the courts. Important, here, is what he warned future generations about: YOUR incestuous collusion with both the Executive and Legislative branches and overt prostitution of your rulings to corporations and an increasingly extremist religious right are proving how the courts have become dangerous to liberty and the nation.

In the eyes of those of us paying attention, there is no haven of deniability for you. We see YOUR fingerprints all over the following and more:

1) Youve made political corruption easier (bribery of politicians) via CITIZENS UNITED;

2) You are responsible for the epidemic of wrongful convictions. You are directly complicit in violating citizens rights via the Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Through your supervision of the courts the most powerful and meritorious challenges to the AEDPAs habeas forms are being suffocated in their cradles by those lower courts. Why? Because you do know those reforms are unconstitutional; because you wish to maintain the tyranny wrought through them; and because you know you would be forced to strike them down were such a powerful and meritious challenge to them be allowed to land in front of youwith the public watching. We know that you, the Supreme Court, are fully aware of the following:

a) Those so-called habeas reforms had long-been a pet project of the infamous racist, segregationist, Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond;

b) They eviscerated centuries of precedent and jurisprudence pertaining to what better judges than yourselves respected and fiercely defended as The Great Writ.;

c) Most damning of all is that you know, you do see, that the AEDPAs habeas reforms are actually a diabolically camouflaged resurrection of a huge part of YOUR infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision. In Dred Scott YOU said that the Negro has no rights the white man is bound to respect. And now YOU know the reality is that the state court defendant/appellant/petitioner, most of whom are people of color, have no rights your white man-created system is bound to respect.

d) You know it is a fact that the AEDPA has facilitated the epidemic of wrongful convictions of disproportionate numbers of people of color thus qualifying as institutionalized racism;

e) And now you have at least some idea that HISTORY IS GOING TO SHOW the AEDPAs habeas reforms to have been a racist hate crime masquerading as civilized American law. You already know that good judges have long been saying the reforms are unconstitutional; i.e. the late Justice Stanley Mosk of the California Supreme Court and the NINTH CIRCUITs dissenting judges in Crater v. Galaza et al,

NOTE: See CASE NO.S275842 in the California Supreme Court for the example of a powerful,

meritorious challenge to the ongoing institutionalized racism being perpetrated through the AEDPA, WITH THE SUPREME COURTS COMPLICITY. This is also a case that shows Supreme Court approval of a forced abortion. And for true enlightenment, get and read: The Complicity of Judges in Wrongful Convictions, by Hans Sherrer.

3) YOU, the Supreme Court, are also responsible for the gutting of both the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT and the VOTING RIGHTS ACT, as part of a racist agenda.

4) As to your recent Dobbs v Jackson Womens Health Organization, YOU have preemptively sentenced countless unwanted children to miserable lives and to becoming the MOST LIKELY victims of YOUR clearly established Dred Scott EQUAL (?) JUSTICE UNDER LAW. Roe v. Wade was not merely a precedent; it was a superprecedent (see Blacks Law Dictionary) and that 1973 decision brought about the greatest drop in crime in recorded history. (see FREAKONOMICS by Levitt and Dubner) Fortunately, you have not yet felt the full wrath of 70% of women in America who feel that your Dobbs decision was/is a slap in their faces. Racist? Sexist? Preemptively crippling unborn children? Honorable? Hmmm.

Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I dont see how it is possible.

-Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor

5) The epidemic of mass shootings (44 in the first month of 2023) and WHY, out of all supposedly-civilized nations, the U.S. stands uniquely alone with so much violence an entire society has become numb to it. How are you to blame? First of all, you conduct your charade of justice in a building that advertises THE very biggest lie ever told in all the world: EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW. The brand of soap that washes out your collective mouths from that lie is called REALITY:

A just system of human government is stable. But violence resonates in the unjust system.

Who in this nation doesnt know that youre corrupt; that you lie; that you facilitate wrong being done on the biggest of all scales? Who does not know that judges in America, judges you supposedly-supervise, disregard both the facts and the law when either or both conflict with outcomes they have preemptively decided? Going to the 2+2=4 basics, YOU have too many people in this country becoming aware of these ugly realities, simultaneously. And, on the fringes of these vast numbers of people, there are those who are ACTING on what theyve construed as an invitation to get satisfact- ion, ANY WAY THEY CAN. (citing the great Justice Brandeis dissent in Olmstead).

Too many people are seeing the reality YOU have created where FORCE and MONEY win the day, not rule of law, not fundamental fairness, not justice. For decades, YOU have led the way. You have given tacit approval, implied consent for lying, cheating, violating Constitutional rights and committing criminal offenses in the justice(?) system. YOU have given this power of tyranny to the lower courts, prosecutors, and police and look at what YOUR cowardly gift has wrought, as well as what it has made inevitable; on the immediate horizon. Watch! The chickens are coming home to roost (consequences).

How many times has this entire society been witness to people being WRONGFULLY CONVICTED, BEATEN, or SHOT DEAD by police? Through the decades, how many times has this society borne witness to YOU JUDGES making up some sort of excuse for why wrong done by law enforcement was acceptable? Countless times. 13 shots! 19 shots! 23 shots! 31 shots! 42 shots! 50+! 60+! 70+! 100+ shots fired! WHO started this? Cops.

YOU are the guiltiest of all because the buck was/is supposed to have stopped in your forum. In plain language, you gave prosecutors, cops, and lower courts an inch and theyve taken a mile, and then some. It did not start with the trend of many shots being fired but with the little things you have trivialized and whitewashed thus building this momentum of far more serious injustices being inflicted. People are witness to this momentum of wrongdoing and virtual non-accountability YOU have set in motion through your expert excuse-making and acquiescence. There is no running from the responsibility; out of sheer cowardice YOU have refused to stand by the Constitution which, in reality, was originally intended to make FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS the law of the land.

With the supposedly solemn responsibility of supervision you are fully complicit in every single wrong done by prosecutors and judges in all criminal cases. If they did/do wrong, YOU did/do wrong. Thats the way leadership with integrity and honor works. And good judges from our countrys past, who were raised by good mothers and fathers, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE SUFFER TODAY, would agree. Where is our modern-day John Marshall? Benjamin Cardozo? Oliver Wendell Holmes? Or a counterpart for this great judge:

Our government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself, it invites anarchy.

-Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting in Olmstead v United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438

What about right now? What about fundamental fairness for the millions deserving relief, including those who owe on their student loan debts? Chief Justice Roberts? You said the case presents extraordinarily serious important issues about the role of Con- gressWe take very seriously the idea of separation of powers and that power should be divided to prevent its abuse Yet that purported concern is proven completely absent with respect to Congress unconstitutional encroachment into the province of the federal judiciary via the AEDPAs purported habeas reforms. The great man whose portrait YOU have in your antechamber, Chief Justice John Marshall, agrees via his opinion in Marbury v. Madison. (as cited and argued in CASE NO. S275842 Calif. Supreme Court) EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW doesnt have a soundtrack of cowardly deafening silence now: To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men!-Abraham Lincoln Who can protest an injustice but does not is an accomplice to the act -The Talmud

Read the rest here:
VANGUARD INCARCERATED PRESS: First Amendment Petition ... - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

An AI researcher developed a free speech alternative to ChatGPT and argued that the mainstream model has a liberal bias that prevents it from answering certain questions.

"ChatGPT has political motivations, and it's seen through the product," said Arvin Bhangu, who founded the AI model Superintelligence. "There's a lot of political biases. We've seen where you can ask it give me 10 things Joe Biden has done well and give me 10 things Donald Trump has done well and it refuses to give quality answers for Donald Trump."

"Superintelligence is much more in line with the freedom to ask any type of question, so it's much more in line with the First Amendment than ChatGPT," Bhangu said. "No biases, no guardrails, no censorship."

WATCH MORE FOX NEWS DIGITAL ORIGINALS HERE

ChatGPT, an AI chatbot that can write essays, code and more, has been criticized for having politically biased responses. There's been numerous instances of the model refusing to provide answers even fake ones that could put a positive spin on conservatives, but would follow suit if the same prompt were submitted about a liberal.

"Unfortunately, it is very hard to deal with this from a coding standpoint," Flavio Villanustre, the global chief information security officer for LexisNexis Risk Solutions, told Fox News in February. "It is very hard to prevent bias from happening."

But the full potential of AI will only be realized when the models can provide unbiased, authentic answers, according to Bhangu.

"Presenting an answer to the user and letting them determine what is right and wrong is a much better approach than trying to filter and trying to police the internet," he told Fox News.

Elon Musk has been open about the dangers of AI, saying it could cause civilizational threats if left unregulated. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

AI CHATBOT 'HALLUCINATIONS' PERPETUATE POLITICAL FALSEHOODS, BIASES THAT HAVE REWRITTEN AMERICAN HISTORY

OpenAI, the company that developed ChatGPT, is "training the AI to lie," Elon Musk told Fox News last month. He also hinted in a tweet that he might sue OpenAI, seeming to agree that the company defrauded him.

Additionally, George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley said ChatGPT fabricated sexual harassment claims against him and even cited a fake news article.

ChatGPT also wouldn't generate an article in the style of the New York Post, but it did write an article modeled after CNN, bringing further criticisms of the platform showing bias.

Bhangu said ChatGPT's biases hurt AI industry's credibility.

Bhangu searches "why is it important to have a competitor to ChatGPT," on his AI model Superintelligence. (Fox News Digital/Jon Michael Raasch)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"ChatGPT's biases can have a detrimental effect on the credibility of the AI industry," he said. "This could have far-reaching negative implications for certain communities or individuals who rely heavily on AI models for important decisions."

OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment.

To watch the full interview with Bhangu, click here.

Read more:
Developer creates pro-First Amendment AI to counter ChatGPT's 'political motivations' - Fox News