Mediaboss Marketing

When Twitter decided briefly last fall to block users from posting links to an article about Joseph R. Biden Jr.s son Hunter, it prompted a conservative outcry that Big Tech was improperly aiding Mr. Bidens presidential campaign.

So terrible, President Donald J. Trump said of the move to limit the visibility of a New York Post article. Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, said Twitter and Facebook were censoring core political speech. The Republican National Committee filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing Twitter of using its corporate resources to benefit the Biden campaign.

Now the commission, which oversees election laws, has dismissed those allegations, according to a document obtained by The New York Times, ruling in Twitters favor in a decision that is likely to set a precedent for future cases involving social media sites and federal campaigns.

The election commission determined that Twitters actions regarding the Hunter Biden article had been undertaken for a valid commercial reason, not a political purpose, and were thus allowable.

And in a second case involving a social media platform, the commission used the same reasoning to side with Snapchat and reject a complaint from the Trump campaign. The campaign had argued that the company provided an improper gift to Mr. Biden by rejecting Mr. Trump from its Discover platform in the summer of 2020, according to another commission document.

The election commissions twin rulings, which were made last month behind closed doors and are set to become public soon, protect the flexibility of social media and tech giants like Twitter, Facebook, Google and Snapchat to control what is shared on their platforms regarding federal elections.

Republicans have increasingly been at odds with the nations biggest technology and social media companies, accusing them of giving Democrats an undue advantage on their platforms. Mr. Trump, who was ousted from Twitter and Facebook early this year, has been among the loudest critics of the two companies and even announced a lawsuit against them and Google.

The suppression of the article about Hunter Biden at the height of the presidential race last year was a particular flashpoint for Republicans and Big Tech. But there were other episodes, including Snapchats decision to stop featuring Mr. Trump on one of its platforms.

The Federal Election Commission said in both cases that the companies had acted in their own commercial interests, according to the factual and legal analysis provided to the parties involved. The commission also said that Twitter had followed existing policies related to hacked materials.

The rulings appear to provide social media companies additional protections for making decisions on moderating content related to elections as long as such choices are in service of a companys commercial interests. Federal election law is decades old and is broadly outdated, so decisions by the election commission serve as influential guideposts.

Campaign finance law does not account for the post-broadcast world and puts few restrictions on the behavior of social media firms, said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a law professor at Stetson University. There is a real mismatch between our federal campaign finance laws and how campaigns are run.

Still, the Republican National Committees complaint stretched the boundaries of campaign finance law, she added. The choice to delete or suppress certain content on the platform is ultimately going to be viewed through the lens of the First Amendment, Ms. Torres-Spelliscy said. I dont think that type of content moderation by the big platforms is going to raise a campaign finance issue.

Some Republicans are seeking to take a broader cudgel to the big internet companies, aiming to repeal a provision of communications law that shields them from liability for what users post.

In the case of the Hunter Biden article, Twitter reversed course within a day of its decision to block distribution of the piece, and its chief executive, Jack Dorsey, has called the initial move a mistake.

The Federal Election Commissions official vote on the case the commission is split equally between three Democratic-aligned commissioners and three Republicans is not yet public, nor are any additional statements written by commissioners. Such statements often accompany the closure of cases and can provide further insight into the commissions reasoning.

In addition to rejecting the R.N.C. complaint, the commission dismissed other allegations that Twitter had violated election laws by shadow banning Republican users (or appearing to limit the visibility of their posts without providing an explanation); suppressing other anti-Biden content; and labeling Mr. Trumps tweets with warnings about their accuracy. The commission rejected those accusations, writing that they were vague, speculative and unsupported by the available information.

Twitter and Snapchat declined to comment.

Emma Vaughn, an R.N.C. spokeswoman, said the committee was weighing its options for appealing this disappointing decision from the F.E.C. Liz Harrington, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, said on Tuesday that Big Tech is corrupt and accused it of interfering in the 2020 election to protect Mr. Biden.

Twitter would go on to permanently bar Mr. Trump from its platform entirely in January, citing the risk of further incitement of violence after the attack on the Capitol by his supporters as Congress voted to certify the 2020 election.

Out of office, Mr. Trump has sued Facebook, Twitter and Google, arguing that a provision of the Communications Decency Act known as Section 230, which limits internet companies liability for what is posted on their networks, is unconstitutional.

Legal experts have given little credence to Mr. Trumps suit, the news of which the former president immediately used as a fund-raising tactic.

Section 230 has been a regular target of lawmakers who want to crack down on Silicon Valley companies. While in office, Mr. Trump signed an executive order intended to chip away at the protections offered by Section 230, and Democratic and Republican lawmakers have proposed repealing or modifying the provision.

But technology companies and free speech advocates have vocally defended it, arguing that Section 230 has been crucial for the growth of the internet. If the measure were repealed, it would stifle free speech and bury social media companies in legal bills, the companies have said.

Twitter initially said that it had prevented linking to the Hunter Biden article because of its existing policies against distributing hacked materials and private information. The article, which focused on the Bidens Ukrainian ties, involved correspondence that The Post suggested had been found on Hunter Bidens laptop.

But Mr. Dorsey, Twitters chief executive, acknowledged in October that blocking links with zero context as to why had been unacceptable.

Soon after, Twitter said that it was changing its policy on hacked materials and would allow similar content to be posted, including a label to provide context about the source of the information.

Republicans said the damage was done and set a poor precedent.

This censorship manifestly will influence the presidential election, Senator Hawley wrote in a letter to the F.E.C. last year after Twitter blocked the article and Facebook said it was reducing its distribution of the piece.

The commission documents reveal one reason that Twitter had been especially suspicious of the Hunter Biden article. The companys head of site integrity, according to the commission, said Twitter had received official warnings throughout 2020 from federal law enforcement that malign state actors might hack and release materials associated with political campaigns and that Hunter Biden might be a target of one such operation.

The election commission said it found no information that Twitter coordinated its decisions with the Biden campaign. In a sworn declaration, Twitters head of U.S. public policy said she was unaware of any contacts with the Biden team before the company made its decisions, according to the commission document.

Adav Noti, a senior director at the Campaign Legal Center, said that he supported the rulings but that he had concerns about the election commissions use of what he called the commercial rationale, because it was overbroad.

It encompasses almost everything for-profit corporations do, Mr. Noti said.

Read the original post:
Under G.O.P. Pressure, Tech Giants Are Empowered by Election Agency - The New York Times

A steady stream of Orange residents and college students filed into Argyros Forum at Chapman University Tuesday to cast their ballots on the last day of voting for the gubernatorial recall election, one of dozens of sites in Orange County to which voters flocked.

Editors Note: This dispatch is part of the Voice of OC Youth Media program, working with student journalists to cover public policy issues across Orange County. If you would like to submit your own student media project related to Orange County civics or if you have any response to this work, contact Digital Editor Sonya Quick atsquick@voiceofoc.org.

The fate of Gov. Gavin Newsom, the 40th governor of California, is in the hands of the Golden State residents. Fred Smoller, a Chapman political science professor, attributed Newsoms response to the pandemic as the catalyst behind this recall election. Newsom is only the second governor in California to face a recall.

Some people are upset about the overreach of Newsoms aggressive shutdowns, Smoller said.

While some who voted at Chapman on Election Day were not enthused about Newsoms actions as governor, opinions on whether he needs to be replaced were divided.

I voted for Newsom to stay. I dont love the way that he has handled COVID-19, but more restrictions are better than none, said Chapman junior Audrey Fish.

Others said that Newsom had his chance to better California and failed.

Newsom hasnt been doing a good job with COVID-19, and the homelessness issue is out of control. He has had time to fix this, but he has not, said Orange resident Casey Crosby.

Some who voted in person said they felt it was a more accessible, secure way to cast their ballot. Nearly 825,000 Orange County residents opted to vote by mail, according to data provided by the OC Registrar of Voters.

I was actually expecting more people to be here, said Orange resident Chanel Martinez, I voted in person so that way I know my vote will be counted, for security reasons.

Professor Smoller said he feels confident that Newsom will hold on to his position despite what he believes will be a high Republican turnout for in-person voting.

Republicans will dominate in-person voting, but there just arent enough of them to undermine Democrats mail-in ballots, Smoller said. The state is 2-1 Democrats.

The polls closed at 8 p.m.

Continue reading here:
Chapman University Vote Center Sees Steady Turnout on Election Day With Voters Divided on The Governors Fate - Voice of OC

Progressives want Justice Stephen Breyer to step down while Democrats still narrowly control the Senate and before the 2022 midterms, when control of the chamber is at stake. Elizabeth Gillis/NPR hide caption

Progressives want Justice Stephen Breyer to step down while Democrats still narrowly control the Senate and before the 2022 midterms, when control of the chamber is at stake.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has said he will retire on his own terms amid calls from progressives for him to step down from the court so President Biden can name a younger liberal to take his place.

"I'm only going to say that I'm not going to go beyond what I previously said on the subject, and that is that I do not believe I should stay on the Supreme Court, or want to stay on the Supreme Court, until I die," he told NPR's legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg in an interview in Boston to promote his book, The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics. "And when exactly I should retire, or will retire, has many complex parts to it. I think I'm aware of most of them, and I am, and will consider them."

Breyer's remarks, while not a surprise he hired four clerks in July for the court's next term are likely to anger progressive activists who believe that the 83-year-old justice should make way for a younger nominee who holds his and their values and views. They want him to step down while Democrats still narrowly control the Senate and before the 2022 midterms, when control of the chamber is at stake.

Progressives fear a replay of the situation following the death in September 2020 of 87-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which allowed President Donald Trump to nominate and for the Republican-controlled Senate to quickly confirm Amy Coney Barrett, giving conservatives a 6-3 supermajority on the Supreme Court. Ginsburg didn't step down in 2014 when both the presidency and the Senate were in the hands of Democrats.

But Breyer said being in the court's minority didn't deter him because "about half of our opinions, almost half, are almost always unanimous."

"I see it as trying to decide this case and trying to decide the next case," he said. "And we might be the greatest of friends ... and allies beyond belief on Case 1, and Case 2, we might be on absolute opposite sides."

But an NPR analysis of the court's last term found that the justices swerved to the right, even by the standards of the traditionally conservative Roberts court. While there was unanimity on statutory matters, the justices split along ideological lines in the high-profile politically charged cases such as voting rights.

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, but a justice can decide to retire at any time. Progressives had hoped to push Breyer in that direction. One group, Demand Justice, even sent a billboard truck driving around the Supreme Court building in April with the message: "Breyer, retire. It's time for a Black woman Supreme Court justice," a reference to the president's vow to nominate a Black woman to the court.

The campaign to push for Breyer's retirement has not gained momentum in the Senate, which votes on judicial nominations. Only a handful of Democrats have suggested they would like to see Breyer, who was nominated to the court in 1994 by President Bill Clinton, retire of his own accord.

The White House has said that Biden's view is that retirement decisions are up to justices themselves.

Link:
Justice Breyer Says He Will Retire When He Thinks The Time Is Right - NPR

Sept 14 (Reuters) - Three former U.S. presidents - Republican George W. Bush and Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama - have banded together behind a new group aimed at supporting refugees from Afghanistan settling in the United States following the recent American withdrawal ending 20 years of war.

The former leaders and their wives will serve as part of Welcome.US, a coalition of advocacy groups, U.S. businesses and other leaders.

It launched on Tuesday with a website that will be "a single point of entry," to make it easier for Americans to donate, host a refugee family through the home rental app Airbnb Inc (ABNB.O) or find other ways to help, John Bridgeland, an official in former President George W. Bush's administration and co-chair of the effort, said at a media event.

Tens of thousands of Afghans have already arrived in the United States as part of a U.S. evacuation. Many of them would have been at risk had they remained under the Taliban after their work with U.S. and allied troops or with American and international agencies.

"Thousands of Afghans stood with us on the front lines to push for a safer world, and now they need our help," Bush and his wife Laura said in a statement.

Organizers said there has been a bipartisan outpouring of support for Afghan refugees, including Republican and Democratic governors who have signed onto the effort.

A number of U.S. state and local leaders have said they would welcome refugees into their communities, although immigration remains a divisive issue in parts of the country.

Under former President Donald Trump, a Republican, refugee admissions from around the world were slashed to their lowest levels in decades, a policy President Joe Biden, a Democrat, has pledged to reverse.

Welcome.US also draws support from more than 280 people and entities, including U.S. businesses such as Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O), Starbucks Corp (SBUX.O)and Walmart Inc (WMT.N), as well as numerous nonprofit organizations, veterans' groups and resettlement agencies.

Biden's administration is working to accommodate as many as 50,000 refugees on military bases in the United States. Others remain in processing centers near U.S. airports where they landed, and more evacuees are in U.S. installations or stuck in third countries abroad.

Some refugee organizations have been pushing for the United States to adopt a program of private or community sponsorship for individual refugees, similar to a model used in Canada, and see this coordinated national volunteer effort as one way to jump-start that process.

"We want to take advantage of this moment and the great need to access all the capacity out there in the United States to support Afghan evacuees," Nazanin Ash of the International Rescue Committee said at Tuesday's launch.

(This story corrects to remove reference to CVS Health Corp and replace it with Walmart Inc in paragraph 9)

Reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York and Susan Heavey in Washington; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Ross Colvin

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read the original:
U.S. Ex-presidents Bush, Clinton, Obama band together to aid Afghan refugees - Reuters

I think a big part of it is that Obama does represent something that, in a boring and literal way, is undeniably true: this country had never had a black president. This is the root of the argument about representation: if there is somebody who is powerful and respected in the country, although everyone hates politicians, its the president and Obama looked good in these photos. He and his family looked very cool. They always looked like they were having fun, even when they were serious. The reason I recalled JFK in the piece is that thats who he most looked like. He looks like hes in Camelot. He looks good in a tux. He looks good in a suit.

And youve heard, for a long time, from white liberals and black conservatives and black liberals, that whats necessary is for black people to see themselves in positions of power. Thats what I wrote about in the section about the little kid that everybody finds very moving, where hes rubbing Barack Obamas head because he wants to see if his hair is just like his. This is one method of creating a post-racial utopia: its basically trickle-down liberation. If a black person, so the argument goes, can achieve the highest office in the land and look this good, then the belief is that it will trickle down. Which, to me, as much as people say that this is about uplift for black people and our understanding of ourselves and what we can achieve, has always really been addressed to white people. Because, if white people see that a black person can, in fact, occupy the office and that things dont go to hell when a black person is in charge, then perhaps some of their antipathies will lessen.

I do happen to think things went to hell under Obama, but I think theres a way you can read things otherwise mainly if youre silent about cities being on fire. Theres another potential way to read it, which is that youll gain liberation through seeing these photos and from seeing this image of the black elite projected every day. There was a black elite under Obama in a way that there had never really been before. Jay-Z and Beyonc were elite before Barack Obama, but theres a different game being played when theyre frequently visiting the White House and Jay-Z is rapping about having Obamas cell phone number. At that point, youre making a national argument that the black elite is the elite.

The problem with that is that its very hard to connect it to any real sense of redress for whats happening for most black people. Im quite deeply wary of this when Im in certain rooms, and people expect me to have something to say that represents all black people. I mean, I make movies and went to a private school, and I have nothing to tell them about whats going on other than what I know from talking to people and reading.

Theres two ways you can address whats happening now to black people. One is expressed in the belief that there is something about seeing black people that causes X, Y, or Z to happen and if thats true, then the representation argument is correct. You need to see black people in the White House, you need to see them in tuxes, you need to see them on billboards, and on Wall Street, or whatever. But if what youre actually talking about is capital, land, and premature death, then youre getting at the heart of whether or not black people can be folded into the national project. Im not so certain they can be, and I dont really think they should be.

When it comes to how you get to a post-racial society, there are to be a bit vulgar about it two paths you can walk. One is the Paul Gilroy route, which involves the premise that racism precedes race. That being the case, in order to find liberation, you have to go through a winding struggle, and on the other side, perhaps there isnt race in any way thats recognizable to us now. But between here and there is a revolution. The other route, which I think Obama is perhaps the best proponent of, is that through the achievements of a handful of black elites and some massive shift in everybodys psyche, you wind up in a place where America can reconcile all of these antagonisms.

I think Obama came probably as close as you can come to demonstrating whether that will work, and there probably are lots of people whose minds were changed. I also think the tail end of his presidency was marked by white nationalists marching in the streets and black people setting cities on fire. Part of why I was very interested in the visual representation of his presidency is that I think thats where he was at his best. He was very good in front of the camera. But also because this ultimately shows the failure and limits of this kind of representation, whether it winds up being on-screen or in his books or whatever. It cant really change the fact that were talking about violence. Were not really talking about how certain images make every individual in the country feel.

The implication of that sort of black excellence thing is that, if we see Obama in the White House, then we can rise out of the ghetto something that depends on a belief that people are in the ghetto by choice, as opposed to somebody keeping them there. So, by the end of his presidency (even before it became clear who was succeeding him), nobody had really come to terms with the fact that a black elite couldnt seem to do anything to stop working-class black people from marching and rioting. I think he got what he wanted, and what a lot of people wanted, which was a black elite that became the elite. But that being the case, theres not much they can say back to the people who are in the streets.

See original here:
Barack Obama, the Hollow Icon - Jacobin magazine