Mediaboss Marketing

The Texas state Senate, apparently having solved all the problems in the Lone Star State, voted the other day to require every public elementary and secondary school in Texas to display in a conspicuous place in each classroom of the school a durable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments that meets the requirements of Subsection (b).

Dont get us wrong, we love the Ten Commandments, both the biblical orders to the Hebrews delivered by Moses down from Sinai (twice) and the great Charlton Heston flick.

But the divinely-inspired rules are definitely part of religion, an essential component of Judaism and Christianity; while public schools are definitely not a part of that faith sphere. And the very first words of the First Amendment say: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and what applies to Congress also applies to the Texas state Senate. Establishing a religion, any religion, is not permitted in public schools. Even in Texas.

Subsection (b) decrees that the A poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments must: include the text of the Ten Commandments as provided by Subsection (c) in a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the classroom in which the poster or framed copy is displayed; and be at least 16 inches wide and 20 inches tall. Perhaps that was the size that Moses had?

Still, lets look carefully at what senators meant in Subsection (c), where the legislation prints the official approved version of the Ten Commandments starting with I AM the LORD thy God, (ignoring the fact that the original is in Hebrew) and follows through to not coveting. But there are 11 listed, since the Jewish, Catholic and Protestant versions are slightly different. Rather than pick one over another, the senators fudged, so its unclear which is commandment two or three and which are combined.

We are not poking fun at the faith communities, who we deeply respect. We are laughing out loud at the politicians trying to unconstitutionally masquerade as faith leaders.

Visit link:
Holy Moses: The Texas state Senate violates common sense and the First Amendment in mandating public schools display the Ten Commandments - Yahoo News

Marjorie Taylor Greene Can Add First Amendment to Long List of Things She Doesnt Understand

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

A lot of people who have cycled through the United States Congress over time have been divisive, but Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene takes it to a whole new level. Shes had issues with Jewish people, liberals, and now, doesnt really get civics.

The family values preacher who has also reportedly had multiple bouts of infidelity during her now-dissolved marriage posted the above yesterday on Twitter. For Greene, Fox News recently choosing to dismiss Tucker Carlson is the same as what happens in repressive societies. Of course, it is not (someone should remind her what the Nazis actually did to the Institut fr Sexualwissenschaft), and as one Greene critic points out, she is not really showcasing an understanding of the actual amendment.

Indeed, the text of the actual part of this section of the Bill of Rights says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This would thus exclude private entities, and over the years, the United States Supreme Court has been called on to decide just where this applies when the situation is unclear. They decided video games were a form of protected speech in 2011 and, while some agree with Greene due to the increased polarization in America which automatically makes members of one party right, others see the irony within her post.

Greene has not responded or shrieked at any of her critics as of this story being filed. There is still time, and, given how she took a trip to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to educate herself in the past, she could grow a bit and learn here as well.

Though, we will not hold our breath.

'+// ''+// '

Read the rest here:
Marjorie Taylor Greene can add First Amendment to long list of ... - We Got This Covered

Mounting concerns over young peoples mental health have prompted state legislatures across the country to propose a slew of age restrictions to protect minors online. Lawmakers say the rules should help shield young people from online pornography, predators and harmful social media posts.

The current push for age restrictions on certain online content echoes a similar legislative drive three decades ago, when the internet was in its infancy. In 1996, Congress passed a major telecommunications bill that made it illegal to knowingly send or display obscene or indecent material to people under 18.

That law had a longstanding precedent: federal rules dating back to the 1920s that prohibited radio and TV shows from broadcasting obscene language, to prevent a child wandering into a living room from overhearing it.

The anti-pornographyrules in the 1990s had strong bipartisan support. But civil liberties groups thought the prohibitions on online indecency violated the First Amendment and squelched free speech. Among other objections, they said it was too difficult and expensive for websites to verify a visitors age. That could have led sites to simply get rid of anything inappropriate for children, creating a Disneyfied internet.

To protect Americans access to information that could potentially be deemed indecent under the new law like educational material about AIDS the American Civil Liberties Union sued the government, challenging part of the law called the Communications Decency Act.

The A.C.L.U. wanted its name on the lawsuit, said Chris Hansen, a former senior lawyer for the group. But to be a plaintiff, the group needed to be directly threatened by the law and there was nothing on its website that could potentially harm children. So the A.C.L.U. uploaded a Supreme Court ruling concerning a riff by the comedian George Carlin on the seven dirtiest words in the English language, which included a transcript of Mr. Carlins monologue in all its un-bleeped glory.

The A.C.L.U. also posted a quiz asking readers to guess the seven obscenities.

After a federal court in Philadelphia temporarily halted the law, the government appealed, and the case, Reno v. A.C.L.U., named for Bill Clintons attorney general, Janet Reno, was taken up by the Supreme Court. There, the A.C.L.U. argued thatthe laws speech restrictions could curb the internets unique potential and prevent people including minors from having access to all kinds of information.

The A.C.L.U. contended that the internet, where users typed or clicked to get to a web page, was more like a book or newspaper than radio or TV, recalled Ann Beeson, a former assistant legal director for the group. Language in printed material, which individuals freely perused, was more lightly regulated than in broadcast media, where audiences had less control over what they were exposed to.

The justices at the time were not especially familiar with the internet. So court employees arranged a demonstration to show how easy it was to find pornography. Senator Ted Cruz, then a Supreme Court law clerk, later recounted how he, alongside Justice Sandra Day OConnor, had looked at hard-core, explicit image results for a search of a fruit sometimes used as a bawdy euphemism for breasts.

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the A.C.L.U., finding that the federal restrictions could chill free speech.

The judges said the blanket restrictions were unacceptable because parents would soon be able to use content-filtering software to protect their children, and because age-verification systems at the time, which had typically involved verifying a users credit card, were not yet widely available. (That has changed; today, many current online age-checking systems use credentials like a drivers licenses to verify a users age. One vendor said they were now easily integrated and cost as little as 10 cents per visitor.)

In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a longstanding principle in American law that you cant censor speech to adults in the name of protecting minors, Mr. Hansen said. If the A.C.L.U. had lost, the internet would not be what it currently is.

But that was before the current, extremely online era in which critics say powerful social media algorithms have promoted hateful, divisive comments; scaled disinformation; and recommended posts on anorexia and self-harm to young girls.

To try to bolster online safeguards for children, California last year enacted the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. The legislation would require online services that are likely to be used by young people such as social media and video game platforms to default to the highest privacy settings possible for minors.

It would also require those services to turn off by default features that could pose risks to minors, such as friend finders that might allow adult strangers to contact children.

A tech industry association, NetChoice, has now sued to block the childrens protections from taking effect next year. In a legal complaint filed in December, NetChoice said the restrictions would stifle important resources for users of all ages, echoing arguments made by the A.C.L.U. in the 1990s.

In March, the Congressional Research Service, a public policy institute that serves Congress, also weighed in, urging lawmakers to consider the possible unintended consequences of new online age restrictions such as companies collecting more user data and limiting content.

Even so, lawmakers continue to propose new online age and content rules.

Last week in the Senate, Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat, promised his new child online protection bill will help us stop the growing social media health crisis among kids by setting a minimum age.

Read more:
Echoes of History in New National Push to Shield Children Online - The New York Times

By Harriet Alexander For Dailymail.com 06:58 29 Apr 2023, updated 07:20 29 Apr 2023

Elon Musk and Bill Maher took aim at Great Britain on Friday night, with Maher criticizing British libel laws and praising instead the free speech protections under the First Amendment.

Musk, 51, was eagerly welcomed on to Maher's show, with the host tweeting that the Twitter owner was 'the guest I've wanted to have on more than any other.'

The pair discussed Musk's concept of a 'Woke Mind Virus' infecting the nation, and Maher asked for his thoughts on censorship.

'In many parts of the world - including parts of the world that people might think are relatively similar to the United States - the speech laws are draconian,' said Musk.

'England is quite different,' replied Maher.

The South African-born billionaire declined to comment, saying: 'I won't name any country but -'

Maher interjected: 'England - why we protecting them. They have no First Amendment. It's very easy to prove libel in England whereas here...'

Musk cut him off, saying: 'I love England.'

The host replied: Me too. But I wouldn't want to say the wrong thing. Or you could be sued easier.' Musk didn't refute any of Maher's comments.

England and the UK also have hate speech laws which can see people prosecuted for slurs against minority groups, while the First Amendment prevents the imposition of any such laws in America.

Maher also referenced France, where it is illegal to deny the Holocaust - a law that exists also in Spain, Switzerland, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Canada, and multiple other countries. Holocaust denial is not illegal in the UK, but a February 2019 landmark case saw a blogger prosecuted for the 'grossly offensive' concept.

Maher said he found denying the Holocaust 'abhorrent', but he thought it should be protected under the First Amendment.

'I really can't emphasize this enough,' said Musk.

'We must protect free speech - and free speech only matters, it's only relevant, when it's someone you don't like saying something you don't like.

'Because obviously free speech that you like is easy.

'So the thing about censorship is that, for those who would advocate it, just remember at some point that will return on you.'

His remarks were met with resounding applause.

'Free speech is actually extremely important and it's bizarre that we've come to this point,' he said.

'Free speech used to be a left or liberal value.

'And yet we see from, in quotes, the left, a desire to actually censor.

'And that seems crazy.'

Musk said he was deeply concerned about the 'Woke Mind Virus', describing it as a 'deeply undemocratic' herd mentality.

'You can't you can't question things,' he said.

'Even the questioning is bad.'

He said that he considered himself a moderate, noting he had 'spent a massive amount of my life energy building sustainable energy' which was 'not exactly far right'.

But he said he was troubled by the indoctrination of people, in particular young people.

'I think the parents are just generally not aware of what their kids are being told or what they're not being taught,' he said.

Musk said he had a friend whose child was at school in the Bay Area, and the parent asked the child what they knew about U.S. presidents.

'You know, who are the first few presidents of the United States,' Musk recalled him saying.

'They could name Washington but, I said what do you know about him.

'Well, he was a slave owner. What else?

'Exactly, nothing.'

Maher asked Musk, who bought Twitter in October for $44 billion, about Tucker Carlson's two-minute clip he posted on Wednesday night - which has now been viewed 76 million times, massively more than his Fox News show.

Carlson was fired by Fox on Monday:Maher joked that Musk had recently appeared on Carlson's show, and said that he hoped Musk's presence wouldn't usher in his own demise.

Musk chuckled at the concept of him being, as he said, 'the Typhoid Mary of talk shows'.

He said he only became aware of Carlson's post after it went live, and had not tweaked the algorithm to boost the video.

'We didn't do anything,' he said.

'To be clear: we did nothing special whatsoever.

'I learned about it afterwards that he had posted something on Twitter.'

He said Twitter had250 million people spending on average half an hour a day on the platform, which equated to120 to 130 million user hours per day.

Carlson's show averaged three million viewers a night - the most of any cable news host.

'So it's just that Twitter has a lot of people's attention, and it tends to be the people that read a lot, or are interested in current events.

'And generally are pretty influential.'

Read more here:
Bill Maher and Elon Musk slam ENGLAND for its anti-free speech laws - Daily Mail

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribunes daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Journalists and free speech advocates are raising alarms about a bill moving through the Texas Legislature that they worry would make news organizations and regular Texans more susceptible to frivolous lawsuits designed to squash free speech.

At issue is a proposed adjustment to the 2011 Texas Citizens Participation Act, also known as the anti-SLAPP law, which is designed to prevent litigants from weaponizing the legal system to punish people for or dissuade them from exercising their First Amendment rights. The idea is that without such a law, big companies or wealthy individuals could inflict major damage by suing people over speech they dont like. Those suits are known as SLAPP strategic lawsuits against public participation cases. Even if the suits are frivolous, their existence could cost the defendants thousands of dollars or more in court fees and legal bills. Or the threat of those suits could force people to censor themselves.

Under the 2011 law restricting SLAPP suits, a person or company that is sued in what they believe is a SLAPP case can file a motion to dismiss the suit. If the trial court judge denies the motion, the defendant may file an immediate appeal and the case is stayed while the appeals courts take it under consideration.

But Senate Bill 896 would remove that automatic stay from state law, which opponents fear could allow some cases to proceed with expensive, time-consuming demands for evidence. The measure has already passed the Senate and was debated by the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee on Wednesday.

The bill is supported by business groups such as the Texas Association of Business and Texans for Lawsuit Reform. They argue that defendants have misused the automatic stay during appeal to delay legitimate cases, sometimes in proceedings that have nothing to do with the First Amendment.

One civil litigator, Shahmeer Halepota, described a case between a developer and a contractor involving the construction of apartment towers in Houston in which the defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion three years into the case and a month before it went to trial. That automatically put the case on hold, causing his developer client to miss out on business opportunities, he said. An appeals court later found the anti-SLAPP motion frivolous, he said.

My clients have literally lost millions of dollars, Halepota said Wednesday.

SB 896 would lift the automatic stay on the case if the anti-SLAPP motion were found by the trial court judge to be frivolous or solely filed as a delay tactic. If the anti-SLAPP motion were denied and found not to have been filed in a timely manner, an automatic stay would still go into effect, but would expire in 45 days if an appeals court didnt step in. The idea, proponents say, would be to prevent what is meant to be a legal shield from being turned into a sword used aggressively to needlessly delay legitimate cases.

Opponents of the bill say it would burden an already overwhelmed court system.

The bill would create a two-tier system in which parties, in certain instances, would be forced to litigate their cases simultaneously at the trial and appellate courts, which will cause significant perils for both litigants and courts, Wallace B. Jefferson, who served as chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court from 2004-13, said in prepared testimony.

Media groups have lined up against the proposal, with leaders of the Texas Press Association and the Texas Association of Broadcasters, as well as First Amendment attorneys, speaking out against it at Wednesdays committee meeting. Advocacy groups across the political spectrum from the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas to the Tea Party group True Texas Project and numerous news outlets including The Associated Press, Axios, Fox Television Stations, The Dallas Morning News, The Houston Chronicle, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Texas Tribune have also registered their opposition.

The groups note that trial court judges often make mistakes and that libel cases are frequently overruled on appeal. They say that not having an automatic stay in cases could force media companies to litigate the same case simultaneously in two venues, trying to have a case tossed out on appeal while also going through arduous and expensive discovery at the trial court level.

Ultimately, they say, SLAPP cases are designed to be punitively expensive, even if the person who filed it knows they will lose. The proposed new law would increase the cost for news outlets to defend themselves from SLAPP cases in courts and would raise media liability insurance premiums, opponents say.

A free press and accurate news reporting depend upon journalists to identify, investigate, and report out stories without concern that the subjects in the story could sap their newsroom of resources through a meritless court case, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press wrote in a letter to state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, chair of the judiciary committee and sponsor of the bill. The letter was also signed by 44 news outlets, including the Tribune.

In a letter, editors of the four Hearst Newspapers newspapers in Texas noted a 2016 case in which one of the papers, the Houston Chronicle, was sued by a local bar over a brief article describing a shooting that occurred nearby. The newspaper filed a motion to dismiss; a judge deemed the motion untimely. It took seven months for that ruling to be corrected and another five years before the Chronicle was able to get a court to consider the merits of its motion to dismiss and find that the claims were baseless.

Weakening the anti-SLAPP law, the letter said, would put defendants in an intolerable situation of having to simultaneously pursue costly litigation at both the trial and appellate levels, or of pursuing settlements that might not go anywhere if the court finds the defendant was lawfully exercising its constitutional right. The letter was signed by Maria Reeve, the Chronicles executive editor, and by top editors in San Antonio, Laredo and Beaumont.

Media advocates also warned about the impact on small news outlets that dont have the resources to defend themselves. Donnis Baggett, executive vice president of the Texas Press Association, told the committee on Wednesday that many of the hundreds of newspapers his organization represents are small-town, family-run newspapers that just cant survive a long, drawn-out lawsuit.

Those papers provide vital information about a community, from high school sports to civic coverage to accountability work about the actions of their local governments, and many would see their survival at risk from SLAPP suits, he said.

If you bleed a small newspaper dry, that community is without a newspaper, he said.

Leach said Wednesday that he will not support any bill that weakens the First Amendment protections of free speech. But he also acknowledged some very real problems and concerns with the law as it is written and expressed a desire to address them while preserving the anti-SLAPP rules.

After hearing emotional and at times tense testimony on the measure, he encouraged advocates on both sides to go to lunch and come up with a solution that worked for all of them. But the bill did not receive a vote Wednesday morning.

Disclosure: Texans for Lawsuit Reform, Texas Association of Business and New York Times have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

We cant wait to welcome you Sept. 21-23 to the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, our multiday celebration of big, bold ideas about politics, public policy and the days news all taking place just steps away from the Texas Capitol. When tickets go on sale in May, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.

Original post:
Journalists fear Texas anti-SLAPP law could be weakened - The Texas Tribune