Mediaboss Marketing

EMILY LIU/The Sun

The Haddonfield School District Board of Education meeting on Oct. 13 was a work session to review the agenda for an action meeting Thursday.

In a response to prior discussions, board member Lynn Hoag said a new form has been released and made available for parents to opt their students out of health, sex-ed, family life and dissections courses. Assistant Superintendent Gino Priolo explained what happens when a parent wants to opt their student out of a course other than what is listed and in accordance with New Jersey law.

Sometimes parents might want to opt out of something that goes beyond the scope of whats required by statute, and the process there is to schedule a meeting with the principal and have an open dialogue about understanding the unique concerns that might be brought and talk factually about what is or isnt part of the curriculum or being presented, Priolo explained.

Once those two views are heard, the principal will follow with what options are available in that case.

The opt-out form is available on the district website under Parents and lists a Parents statement of conflict with conscious form, in addition to the districts position on the right to opt out.

Up for second reading at the next board meeting will be two policies. The first is on bias crimes or bias-related acts that had previously omitted a phrase requiring the district to notify the borough police department and the bias investigation officer for the county prosecutors office when a bias crime or bias-related act has been committed. Though there had been discussion about the ramifications of reporting minors for unintentional acts, the language has been reincluded in the update for the policy.

The resolution on the agenda list(s) reasons that the board might oppose these changes, said Hoag, though none were seen on the draft of the policy available on the district website.

Additionally, the board will vote on an update to Policy 2240 on controversial issues, which was discussed by the equity council in addition to the policy committee.

In response to community feedback, the committee removed the section that read, In the discussion of any issue, a teacher may express a personal opinion, provided the expression is characterized as personal opinion and does not attempt to persuade students to the teachers point of view from the updated policy.

Central to our research surrounds the First Amendment right of teachers, the board wrote in a statement on the matter. We consulted with the school districts solicitor and our policy consultant, Strauss Esmay Associates. Our research concluded that removing the phrase, a teacher may express a personal opinion from the policy would not violate the First Amendment rights of teachers and is supported in case law.

Up for introduction on first reading at Thursdays meeting will be an updated dress code for district and support staff members more specific than what was in place.

(This is) just cleaning up and updating, Hoag noted. We all got a little relaxed during COVID, so this is just to encourage professionalism in attire.

The new regulations deem the following items inappropriate for a staff member to wear: ripped or torn jeans; shorts, sweatpants or workout attire; T-shirts with writing, images and advertising brands; strapless shirts and dresses; beach wear; and hats or head coverings, unless approved for medical or religious reasons.

Board member David Siedell questioned whether teachers wearing shirts that support the l district or other Haddonfield-related attire would be considered advertising or branding, and Priolo suggested a grace period for teachers who might need to make adjustments to their wardrobes.

During the boards committee of the whole meeting, members discussed the purpose and aim of the equity council. While no decisions were made, the board revisited the context behind the councils creation and acknowledged the work it has done to engage the community and lead to more inclusivity and understanding.

Thursdays board meeting will begin at 7 p.m. at the high-school library.

See the rest here:
Haddonfield board of ed to vote on updated policies at next meeting - The Sun Newspapers

Quinta Jurecic discussed former President Trumps consistent pattern of attempting to stymie the Mueller investigation, the work of the House select committee to investigate Jan. 6 and the Justice Departments Mar-a-Lago investigation, and the legal implications for the ongoing investigations now that Trump is no longer president.

Hyemin Han shared the Justice Department's opening brief in the Eleventh Circuit for an appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon's Sept. 5 order appointing a special master to oversee privilege claims of documents seized during the Aug. 8 search of former President Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago residence. It asked the Eleventh Circuit to vacate Cannons order in its entirety with instructions to dismiss the case.

Han also shared the Justice Departments Oct. 11 response in opposition to former President Trumps Oct. 4 application to the Supreme Court for a partial vacatur of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuits Sept. 21 order allowing the Justice Department to resume use of materials it has been previously enjoined from using in a Sept. 5 order by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon.

William Appleton shared a livestream of the Jan. 6 Select Committees Oct. 13 hearing, announced as the final one. The Lawfare team also hosted a Twitter Spaces on the hearing at 5 p.m. ET.

Hadley Baker shared an episode of Lawfare No Bull which featured audio from the Jan. 6 committees ninth public hearing:

Benjamin Wittes sat down for a conversation with Jurecic, Alan Rozenshtein, and Molly Reynolds on Twitter Spaces to discuss the ninth Jan. 6 select committee hearing, the subpoena of Donald Trump, how this all could impact the upcoming midterm elections, and the performance of the committee given the constraints it faced:

Katherine Pompilio shared former President Donald Trumps letter in response to the House select committees decision to issue him a subpoena seeking information about his involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Han also shared the Biden-Harris administrations first National Security Strategy which details the administrations enduring vision for the U.S. in the coming decade, its views on investment priorities, the administrations global priorities, and a breakdown of the administration's national security strategy by region.

Stewart Baker, Nick Weaver, Matthew Heiman, and Brian Fleming sat down to discuss the White House Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, the criminal conviction of Ubers CSO Joe Sullivan, new export restrictions on U.S. technology and its implications for U.S.-China trade relations, a Russian hack and leak operation, and more:

Henry Farrell and Bruce Schneier discussed the U.S. Treasurys Office of Foreign Assets Controls sanctions of Tornado Cash, a cryptocurrency and money-laundering platform, and the implications for cryptocurrency regulation if decentralized autonomous organizations like Tornado Cash are afforded First Amendment protections.Jordan Schneider sat down for a conversation with Kevin Wolf, partner at Akin Gump, to discuss the U.S. Commerce Department's new export control regulations, what the regulations mean for the global semiconductor industry, and if the regulations are even enforceable:

Chenny Zhang discussed the possibility of the American drug industry experiencing a similar manufacturing crisis as the semiconductor industry due to the increasing likelihood of industry consolidation, the difficulties of the regulatory approval process and its impacts on innovation, and the importance of the U.S. bioeconomy for national security.

Russell Buchan and Joe Devanny responded to a recent Lawfare article on the U.K.s cyber strategy and emphasized the need for a nuanced and incremental development of that strategy to achieve the responsible and democratic use of cyber power.

Han sat down for a conversation with Alexander Downes, professor of political science and international affairs at The George Washington University, to discuss the history of foreign-imposed regime change, what lessons can be learned from past foreign-imposed regime changes, and why, when it actually works, its success doesnt last very long:

Tyler McBrien sat down with Beln Carrasco Rodrguez and Tom Southern of the Center for Information Resilience to discuss their research into how Russia establishes and strengthens occupational rule, the Russian playbook for control, and the ways that forced assimilation may or may not be working:

Benjamin Wittes sat down for a conversation with Svitlana Khytrenko, a Ukrainian student who escaped Kyiv in March, to talk about her experiences as a refugee, her life in Poland, and her feelings about the Russian invasion:

Jordan Schneider sat down for a conversation with Kamil Galeev to discuss the prospects of nuclear war, the stability of the Russian state, Moscows grip on annexed regions, Putins future viability, and more:

Katherine Yon Ebright discussed an obscure counterterrorism authority used to create and control proxy forces across Africa and Asia, its intersection with the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), and argued that the executive branchs current interpretation may have gone beyond its previous representations to Congress and the public.

Caleb Johnson and Yang Liu provided a summary of President Joe Bidens Oct. 7 executive order which laid out a framework in which the government can conduct signals intelligence activities; establishes a three-layer redress mechanism to address potential violations of privacy, civil liberties, or law; and also fulfills prior commitments to provide higher privacy protections and a more durable basis for future trans-Atlantic data flows.

Renee DiResta and John Perrino discussed the new history of U.S. military information campaigns, how it illustrates the challenges of reaching and influencing online audiences, and argued for a U.S. policy of radical transparency in the information ecosystem in contrast to the opaque policies and disinformation campaigns of authoritarian adversaries such as Russia.

David Priess sat down for a chat with Jordan Taylor, historian and author of Misinformation Nation: Foreign News and the Politics of Truth in Revolutionary America. They discussed the persistence of misinformation, the origins and limits of newspapers in colonial America, the Illuminati scare of 1798-99, and more:

McBrien also reviewed Sierra Pettengills documentary Riotsville, U.S.A. (2022) which illustrates the history of police militarization in the United States, the legacies of the Kerner Commission, and the importance of investigating the origins of repressive social forces.

Wittes also sat down with Jurecic, Rozenshtein, and Scott R. Anderson to discuss the current state of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the two cases recently taken up by the Supreme Court relating to Section 230, and what the correct interpretation of 230if there is onemight look like:

Rozenshtein, Jurecic, and Anderson also sat down with Ashley Deeks, professor of law at the University of Virginia Law School, to discuss some of the weeks big national security news including: developments in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Saudi Arabias decision to cut oil production, and the Supreme Court's decision to take up two cases related to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act:

And that was the week that was.

Visit link:
The Week That Was - Lawfare

The deadline to register to vote is Oct. 18. Early voting runs from Oct. 26 to Nov. 5. Heres what you need to know.

West Virginians will go to the polls to elect two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, state delegates, state senators, and in many places, new county and city officials. Plus, there are four proposed changes to the West Virginia Constitution. If voters approve them, the amendments will let churches incorporate and give more power to the state Legislature to modify property taxes, set education policy, and conduct impeachment trials without state court interference.

To register to vote in West Virginia, you must:

You can search for your voter registration information on the Secretary of States website by entering your name and date of birth.

The deadline to register to vote is Oct. 18, 2022. You can register online, by mail or in person. You will need a valid ID in order to vote; heres a list of acceptable IDs. Note that first-time voters may be asked to provide additional identification with their current name and address.

You can search for your polling place on the Secretary of States website by entering your name and date of birth.

Deadline to register: Oct. 18, 2022

Early voting starts Oct. 26 and goes through Nov. 5. Heres a list of early voting locations and times.

Election Day: Tuesday, November 8, 2022

Yes, but unlike in recent elections, you have to meet certain requirements before youre allowed to vote absentee in West Virginia. Eligibility requires two basic criteria: (1) confinement or not being present in the county during in-person voting, and (2) a permitted reason/excuse.

Read more on the Secretary of States website.

If approved by voters, this amendment would bar all state courts from interfering with impeachment trials conducted by the West Virginia Legislature.

Background: In 2018, a panel of five circuit judges ruled in a case that halted impeachment proceedings in the West Virginia Legislature against several state Supreme Court justices. Lawmakers who support the amendment have said it is necessary and the legislative branch needs this check on the power of the judicial branch. Opponents argue it would remove some of the existing checks and balances built into the system.

If approved by voters, this amendment would allow the state Legislature to adjust property taxes paid on business inventory; business machinery and equipment; and personal vehicles.

Background: Republicans in the Legislature have wanted for years to eliminate these taxes, which provide hundreds of millions of dollars each year for local services like schools, libraries and emergency services. Theres still no plan to replace the money that local governments get from this tax, although state senators passed a non-binding resolution saying they were committed to [replace] revenue in perpetuity that is above and beyond the personal property taxes to be eliminated.

Almost all local governments have urged people to reject this amendment, which would replace a consistent source of annual funding with one that would be controlled by the state Legislature every year. Gov. Jim Justice has also campaigned against the amendment; he wants to reduce personal income taxes rather than property taxes.

If approved by voters, churches would be allowed to incorporate in West Virginia, which is the only state in the nation that does not allow the practice in its constitution.

Background: This proposed amendment comes after a federal judges ruling in neighboring Virginia that prohibiting a church from incorporating violated its First Amendment rights. The language in the West Virginia Constitution comes from the Virginia Constitution.

If approved by voters, state lawmakers would have the final say over policies and rules created by the West Virginia Board of Education.

Background: The state Board of Education operates independently from the Legislature, with the boards nine voting members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. The board sets policies about what students are taught in K-12 schools, teacher requirements, discipline policy and many other areas of school administration. Currently the board does not have to submit school policies and rules to lawmakers for approval. In 2017, the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled that legislative action that impedes school board policy would be unconstitutional. But this constitutional amendment would usurp that ruling.

You can read the full text of all four amendments here.

Read more frequently asked questions here.

Other West Virginia elected offices including governor, attorney general, secretary of state wont beup for election until 2024. The U.S. Senate seat held by Joe Manchin will also be up in 2024; the states other U.S. Senate seat, held by Shelley Moore Capito, wont be up until 2026.

Also note that West Virginia lawmakers completely re-drew the states legislative maps in 2021. Because of that, your U.S. congressional district, state delegate district and state senate district may have changed.

See the original post here:
West Virginia 2022 elections voter guide: What you need to know - Mountain State Spotlight

Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan newsroom powered by The Philadelphia Inquirer in partnership with PennLive/The Patriot-News, TribLIVE/Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and WITF Public Media. Sign up for our free newsletters.

YORK Information on criminal cases will be available faster and with fewer redactions under a settlement agreement between the York County Clerk of Courts and five newsrooms including Spotlight PA that had sued alleging First Amendment violations.

The settlement will bring York County in line with First Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution requirements when granting access to criminal court records, said Sasha Dudding, a legal fellow for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Thats important for both members of the media who are reporting on criminal cases in York County and also members of the public who are entitled to know whats happening in their community, said Dudding, whose organization provides free legal resources to journalists.

Earlier this year, Spotlight PA joined four other state newsrooms to sue York County Clerk of Courts Daniel J. Byrnes after he shut down free, easy access to criminal court records and instituted practices and policies that slowed the release of documents, according to the federal lawsuit filed in March.

Byrnes office also improperly withheld documents and redacted nonconfidential information, obscuring public access that is critical to reporting on the details of a case, the lawsuit alleged.

Dudding and attorney Paula Knudsen Burke both represented Spotlight PA, the York Daily Record, The York Dispatch, LNP Media Group, and public media organization WITF in the lawsuit. Byrnes, an elected Republican who took office in 2020, was the sole defendant.

Byrnes initially called the lawsuit frivolous and said his office has actually expanded free public access to the public, especially to those facing a financial barrier to information.

The Plaintiffs are essentially disgruntled by not having unfettered and immediate access to all records within the Clerk of Courts Office, an attorney for Byrnes wrote in a March 2022 court filing.

In an email Tuesday, Byrnes said his office will continue to reflect our adherence to professional practices that serve the media and general public as accorded by law.

Attorneys for the news organizations pointed to numerous instances where they say the office delayed access to, improperly restricted, and overcharged for judicial records.

During a three-week period in September 2021, journalists from the five news organizations requested access to 42 judicial records. The office provided six the same day, denied access to another six, and redacted information in 32, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit said the office improperly redacted details in several cases, including the name of an adult victim of an alleged property crime and the address of a shooting.

In court filings, attorneys for Byrnes wrote that the office complied with the requirements of the statewide court system and Pennsylvania law, but acknowledged a few isolated errors.

As part of the settlement, Byrnes agreed to provide the news organizations with a copy of a policy notifying the public how to access judicial records, and a fee schedule that aligns with statewide court policies.

The agreement also addresses the timeline for obtaining records. Byrnes office will make all reasonable attempts to respond to requests on the same business day on which the request is made, and when not practicable, on the next business day, excepting inconsequential deviations and extraordinary circumstances which may delay access.

The office must also adopt a written policy outlining how it will respond to requests for judicial records made in person and by email.

Byrnes also agreed to pay $6,796.52 for costs and expenses incurred by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Both sides agreed that the clerks office will provide redacted versions of documents in order to protect the identities of victims of human trafficking and minor victims of physical or sexual abuse. But the office agreed to not withhold those documents entirely.

Byrnes on Tuesday said his office is pleased that the lawsuit has been resolved with all parties supporting and acknowledging that the Clerk of Courts has a legal and ethical duty to protect the identity of crime victims, particularly minors as specified in the laws of the Commonwealth of PA.

Byrnes office and the newsrooms agreed to have employees who make or fulfill requests for court records participate in training within 30 days.

Hopefully that will sort of bring everybody to the same understanding, Dudding said.

WHILE YOURE HERE… If you learned something from this story, pay it forward and become a member of Spotlight PA so someone else can in the future at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results.

See the rest here:
York County agrees to improve public access to criminal court records in response to suit by Spotlight PA, others Spotlight PA - Spotlight PA

In Texas, large social media platforms may soon lose the right to moderate their own content.

It does make exceptions for harassment, for violence, censorship that is permitted under federal law Section 230 which is its own thing," law professor Alan Rozenshtein says.

"But even reading those broadly ... Do we want to have platforms in which Neo-Nazis are always permitted, by law, to say their stuff?

Today, On Point: NetChoice v. Paxton and how a Texas law could impact First Amendment rights and content moderation online.

Alan Rozenshtein, associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School. Senior editor at Lawfare. Co-host of the Rational Security podcast. (@ARozenshtein)

Julie Owono, executive director at Internet Sans Frontires (Internet Without Borders) and the Content Policy and Society Lab at Stanford. Inaugural member of the Facebook Oversight Board. Affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. (@JulieOwono)

Give us an overview of HB 20. What does this law in Texas actually do?

Alan Rozenshtein: "What the law purports to do, and that may be different than what the law actually does, but what the law purports to do is to limit the ability of the biggest social media platforms from, we can call it censoring, we could call it moderating. There's kind of no value neutral description, from removing content posted by users based on, quote-unquote, their viewpoint.

"That's the core of what the law does. In addition, the law imposes some transparency requirements on platforms so that they publicly disclose how they're moderating. It requires platforms to set up processes for users to appeal content removals. Those are a little less controversial. But the core and what's gotten the most attention, and rightfully so, is this restriction on the moderation based on quote-unquote viewpoint."

I want to talk about the practicality of this. This is not the usual purview of a state law to try to regulate just within a state how these worldwide platforms work.

Alan Rozenshtein: "That's right. And it's not clear how you could have a patchwork system of state regulations on these big platforms, which are not just national, but global. If Texas has its requirements, and Florida, which passed a similar law, has its requirements, but then California or Massachusetts has opposite requirements, there's no obvious way for platforms to run different moderation systems for different users without potentially breaking up the platforms into state-based versions, or possibly even having the platforms just withdraw from some jurisdictions.

"If this law fully goes into effect, it's a possibility that the platforms decide that, Well, we just can't operate in Texas. And so they have to block Texas users. This is one reason why some legal observers, myself included, think that behind this law is lurking some real constitutional issues, beyond just potential First Amendment problems. And that has to do with the ability of states to regulate companies that do business across state lines, because of the potential disruptive effects that could have on the national economy."

Who enforces this law? How would it work?

Alan Rozenshtein: "The statute provides that either a user who believes that they or their content has been removed unlawfully, or the attorney general of Texas could bring a lawsuit against the companies. There's no provision for damages. So you can't sue for money, though you can sue for attorney's fees. But the real main remedy is that a user, or the state of Texas, can ask a court to require the companies to reinstate a user or reinstate content."

Is there evidence of an anti-conservative bias on the part of these companies?

Alan Rozenshtein: "With respect to the kind of question of, Is there conservative anti-conservative bias? It's very hard to know. There's no question that plenty of conservatives are censored, if you want to put it that way, on the big tech companies. But plenty of liberals are censored as well, and plenty of conservatives have done awfully well on social media. In fact, a large reason why we've seen, you know, the growth of a lot of kind of conservative media is because of their ability to leverage social media.

"And of course, social media has incentives not to censor the views that millions of Americans find interesting. At the end of the day, these are for-profit companies that run on user engagement, as they say, and advertisement. So it's just not even in their interest to systematically censor one side of the political spectrum or another.

"Now, there have, again, been some high profile incidents. And I do think Twitter and Facebook taking Trump off their platforms in the wake of the January 6th attack on the Capitol, was quite controversial, frankly, among all sorts of folks, not just conservatives. And in addition, I think there is a perception, and I think this is true, that at least culturally, the companies themselves, their employees, they are certainly to the left of the median American, certainly to the left of the median Texan. Again, though, I'm not sure that translates into systematic censorship of conservatives.

"But I do think you can probably say ... that the technology companies are trying to build platforms that appeal to a wide swath of Americans. And therefore, they are probably erring on the side of censoring when you get to the extreme of public opinion. And here I do think that to the extent that conservatives have polarized in the last decade, more so than liberals, political scientists call this asymmetric polarization. Perhaps maybe there's more censorship of conservative views.

"But again, just to emphasize, the empirical premise of a lot of these laws, that there's some anti-conservative censorship on a broad scale, relative to anti liberal censorship, that very much remains to be proven."

Is there a case to be made that better regulation is needed, particularly for these big tech companies?

Alan Rozenshtein: "I certainly think so. I am not someone who reflexively opposes government efforts to regulate, put some guardrails around what these large tech companies can do. Because the state of Texas is right when it says that these companies control the digital public square, that these are some of the most important forums for communication in modern society.

"And I think that it is, at the very least, questionable to leave these monumentally important decisions to large private companies that operate according to the imperatives of the free market. Now, I'm not saying that there should be total regulation. The devil is in the details, as it is with so many issues of tech policy and law. So I certainly think there's some room. I don't think the Texas law does a very good job, though."

Who should be making these rules? Should we leave it to the companies themselves?

Alan Rozenshtein: "If the companies can come up with good rules, I think that's fine. Often the way to get companies to do something is to threaten regulation. If at the end of the day, the regulation, quote-unquote, comes from the companies themselves, rather than the law, kind of who cares?

"But at the very least, I think the relevant party here should be Congress, not the states. Again, because you cannot have a patchwork of state laws. I don't support state laws trying to limit what companies can moderate. I also don't support state laws on the other side trying to force companies to remove electoral misinformation or vaccine information. I just think this is not an issue for states to do."

Lawfare: "The Fifth Circuits Social Media Decision: A Dangerous Example of First Amendment Absolutism" "On Sept. 16, the Fifth Circuit issued its opinion in NetChoice v. Paxton, upholding the controversial Texas law that limits the ability of large social media platforms to moderate content and also imposes disclosure and appeal requirements on them."

Read the original here:
How a Texas law could impact First Amendment rights and content moderation online - WBUR News