Mediaboss Marketing

A major Senate report regarding the January 6 attack on the Capitol has found that neither the FBI nor the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) gave sufficient warning of any potential violence that day, having dismissed online threats as "First Amendment-protected speech."

The bipartisan report revealed there had been a number of failures from law enforcement and government agencies in the run-up to the insurrection, which saw hundreds of Donald Trump supporters and far-right extremists storm the building in Washington, D.C. Five people died during the violence.

One of the main criticisms in the report was that neither the FBI nor the DHS deemed posts on social media and message board sites calling for violence at the Capitol as credible.

Representatives from both agencies testified that they believed much of the rhetoric expressed online prior to January 6 was "First Amendment-protected speech" of limited credibility.

Neither the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) nor the FBI issued intelligence specific to January 6, despite being aware of the threat of extremist violence emanating from social media and online posts.

Late on January 5, the FBI's Norfolk Field Office did circulate a Situational Information Report that warned people were traveling to Washington, D.C. for "war" at the Capitol the following day, but did not provide any formal intelligence assessment.

"When asked how I&A did not identify any of the social media posts calling for attacking the Capitol prior to January 6, one DHS I&A official cautioned that social media is 'nuanced' and that it can be difficult to distinguish between mere rhetoric and overt threats," the report states.

During previous testimony, Jill Sanborn, then-assistant director of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, said she did not believe that the FBI was aware of specific conversations on social media calling for violence in the lead-up to January 6.

"Under our authorities, because being mindful of the First Amendment and our dual-headed mission to uphold the Constitution, we cannot collect First Amendment-protected activities without sort of the next step, which is the intent," Sanborn said.

The report is also critical of the United States Capitol Police department (USCP) for not fully conveying the potential scope of the violence being planned that day, despite its Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division (IICD) being aware of calls for violence at the Capitol on January 6.

These threats included a "plot to breach the Capitol, the online sharing of maps of the Capitol Complex's tunnel systems, and other specific threats of violence," the report states.

"Yet, IICD did not convey the full scope of known information to USCP leadership, rank-and-file officers, or law enforcement partners."

Officers on the day were also let down by poor management and planning, including USCP's Incident Command System breaking during the attack, leaving frontline officers "without key information or instructions as events unfolded."

Some senior officers were also found engaging and fighting with those trying to storm the Capitol instead of giving orders.

"USCP leadership never took control of the radio system to communicate orders to frontline officers," the report found.

The report was initiated by Senators Gary Peters (D-MI) and Rob Portman (R-OH), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Roy Blunt (R-MO), Chairwoman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules and Administration.

"The events of January 6 were horrific, and our bipartisan investigation identified many unacceptable, widespread breakdowns in security preparations and emergency response related to this attack," Peters said in a statement.

"Our report offers critical recommendations to address these failures and strengthen security for the Capitol to prevent an attack of this nature from ever happening again."

See the article here:
FBI Thought Threats to Capitol Before 1/6 Were 'First Amendment-Protected' - Newsweek

HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) It is a yearly tradition at the State Capitol. Gun-toting Second Amendment supporters rally for their right to carry firearms. However, just above them on the Capitol balcony, the First Amendment right of the lieutenant governor was all but ignored.

They brought their flags. They brought their firearms.

Now is the time for the states to rise up and defend the Second Amendment, Rep. Stephanie Borowicz (R), Clinton/Centre Counties, said. They continuously try to shove down our throats gun control.

They brought their feistiness.

30 years ago there were more pro-gun democrats in this building than there were republicans. The whole party has swung into the nutball realm, Kim Stolfer, of Firearms Owners Against Crime, said.

But, the states second ranking democrat is also armed with flags and feistiness.

Theyre making their statement today and Im making mine and I just wish it didnt have to be this way, Lt. Governor John Fetterman (D), said.

Lt. Governor Fetterman is flying the gay pride flag on his balcony.

All were advocating for is equal protection under the law regardless of who you choose to love or how you identify, Fetterman said.

Gays, who can be fired for their sexual orientation, do not receive equal protection in PA. Neither do Fettermans flags. Republican lawmakers inserted language into last ears budget that no flags can fly from that balcony. The GOP points out that Governor Wolf did sign off on it.

Thats specious reasoning they know, well they attach it as a rider to the budget and not gonna jam up the entire budget over something like this, Fetterman said.

Fettermans flag was up at 9 a.m. By 1 p.m. a state employee has come to take it away. Fetterman says hes lost more than ten flags in the same manner. But where do they go?

Theyre confiscated and I dont know the enchanted land of missing flags, I dont know, I dont know where, Fetterman said.

Perhaps there is irony that heavily armed ralliers worry about guns being taken away, which has never happened, while right above them flags are seized whenever theyre flown.

They have the constitutionally protected rights and Im saying great, give that to members of this community, too, Fetterman said.

A bill to let firearm owners carry concealed weapons without a license is expected to move this week.

See more here:
Gun Advocates Rally for 2nd Amendment Rights; LT Governor Says His 1st Amendment Rights Ignored - ABC27

Jun 07, 2021

Columbus, OH Robert Alt, president and chief executive officer of The Buckeye Institute, issued the following statement after the Supreme Court of the United States announced it had denied cert in Thompson v. Marietta Education Association, which called for an immediate end to laws that force public-sector employees to accept a unions exclusive representation.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court passed on the opportunity to hear Mrs. Thompsons case and resolve the conflict noted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which stated that Ohios take-it-or-leave-it system of exclusive representation directly conflicts with the principles announced in Janus v. AFSCME. Despite todays decision, the high court will have other opportunities to rule on the important question of forced union exclusive representation and recognize the First Amendment Rights of public employees across the country.

The Buckeye Institute was the first organization to file lawsuits calling on courts to end compelled exclusive representation following the Janus decision, and was representing Mrs. Thompson. The Buckeye Institute is also representing Professor Kathy Uradnik of Minnesota whose case is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

A public high school Spanish teacher in Marietta, Ohio, Mrs. Thompsons case was initially filed on June 27, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, with its motion for preliminary injunction filed on July 23, 2018. The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on February 18, 2020. The Buckeye Institute filed its petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on January 22, 2021. Cert was denied on June 7, 2021.

Mrs. Thompsons Piece in The Columbus Dispatch: Marietta teacher tells her union No ms!

# # #

Link:
U.S. Supreme Court Will Have Another Opportunity to Recognize First Amendment Rights of Public Employees - Buckeye Institute

Law360 (June 9, 2021, 6:55 PM EDT) -- Lawyers from Jenner & Block LLP and Columbia University on Wednesday sought $918,000 in fees for successfully challenging the constitutionality of then-President Donald Trump's move to block critics from his personal Twitter account, saying the government's defense of the conduct was unreasonable.

In a 2018 ruling upheld by the Second Circuit and rejected for U.S. Supreme Court review as moot given Trump's 2020 election loss, U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that Trump's conduct amounted to unconstitutional "viewpoint discrimination" under the First Amendment.

Now the lawyers for the plaintiffs Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute and seven Twitter users...

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know whats happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

See more here:
Blocked Twitter Users' Attys Seek Fees After Win Over Trump - Law360

President Biden on Wednesday rescinded former President Donald Trump's actions targeting Chinese-owned apps TikTok and WeChat. Kiichiro Sato/AP hide caption

President Biden on Wednesday rescinded former President Donald Trump's actions targeting Chinese-owned apps TikTok and WeChat.

Former President Donald Trump's TikTok and WeChat bans were officially dropped on Wednesday, but scrutiny of the China-owned apps will continue under the Biden administration.

To replace the Trump-era actions, President Biden signed new orders calling for the Commerce Department to launch national security reviews of apps with links to foreign adversaries, including China.

The move represents a reset in relations between Washington and TikTok, the hit video-sharing app owned by Beijing-based ByteDance, and WeChat, the popular messaging app run by Shenzhen-based Tencent. But the apps are "not out of the woods yet," said James Lewis, who heads technology policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and has been in discussions with White House officials in both administrations about the future of the apps.

"I wouldn't be surprised if you saw a ban reinstated but on more rational grounds," Lewis said. "If I was TikTok, I would be thinking about what do I do to ward off another ban."

Biden's executive order mandates accountability measures that TikTok does not currently have, including "reliable third-party auditing" of the app for possible security risk.

Because of the ties to China, U.S. officials remain concerned about how the apps treat Americans' data, Lewis said.

"You can be as pure as the driven snow, but any time Xi Jinping wants to lean on you, he can do it, and you have no appeal," he said.

Under Biden's new order, the Commerce Department will launch an "evidence-based" evaluation of apps with Chinese connections that may pose a security risk and "take action, as appropriate" based on those reviews.

The American Civil Liberties Union applauded Biden's move but warned against any future punitive measures against the apps that could violate the rights of users.

"President Biden is right to revoke these Trump administration executive orders, which blatantly violated the First Amendment rights of TikTok and WeChat users in the United States," said Ashley Gorski, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU. "The Commerce Department's review of these and other apps must not take us down the same misguided path, by serving as a smokescreen for future bans or other unlawful actions."

The measured tone from the Biden administration is a stark contrast with Trump, who tried to outright ban the apps last year. His aggressive push against TikTok and WeChat confused and panicked people in the U.S. who use the apps. While millions turned to TikTok for distraction and fun during the pandemic, many American businesses rely on WeChat for sales, marketing and other transactions with customers in China. Trump's actions also led to lawsuits, leading to federal courts' pausing enforcement of his directives.

To appease Trump, TikTok also explored potential sales to American firms, including Microsoft, Oracle and Walmart. No agreement was ever hammered out, however.

The owners of TikTok, the most popular app in the world, were reluctant to sell off the first China-based app that has reached global success. State media in China called Trump's tactics against TikTok "nothing short of broad daylight robbery."

Biden's move to drop Trump's executive actions had been expected since at least February when the administration put the Trump-era orders on ice.

Months before Trump tried to shut down TikTok, the company had been in talks with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency panel that reviews companies that have overseas ownership.

ByteDance, TikTok's corporate owner, is still involved in those negotiations over a deal to ensure Americans' data is not in jeopardy of being accessed by Chinese authorities.

TikTok has long maintained there is a firewall between it and its corporate owner in China. TikTok executives say no data on Americans users is housed on Chinese servers; that data can only be obtained with the permission of TikTok's U.S.-based security team.

Under TikTok's terms of service, user data can be shared with ByteDance. Yet TikTok says Chinese government officials have never asked it for information on U.S. users. If Beijing did ever make such a request, TikTok's lawyers say it would be denied.

The amount of data TikTok mines from its mobile phone users is on par with what other apps collect, including ones owned by Facebook and Google.

See more here:
Biden Drops Trump's Ban on TikTok And WeChat But Will Continue The Scrutiny - NPR