Mediaboss Marketing

Recently, we've witnessed the introduction of the Equality Act with its stated purpose of affording LGBTQ citizens equal protection under the law. Ostensibly, this is a laudable goal.

The threat that it poses to religious freedom, however, is disconcerting.

To understand this, its necessary to recall the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act during the Clinton administration. It passed in Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

The essence of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is to protect the citizenry from encroachment by government on First Amendment freedoms including conscience. If the Equality Act were to pass, the restoration act would essentially be gutted, and LGBTQ rights would trump the First Amendments free exercise clause. The subsequent trampling of religious liberty would be unconscionable.

Given this scenario, Thomas Jeffersons trenchant declaration remains so ennobling: I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. Whenever ones conscience is overridden by an ideological imperative its time to seek accommodation for ones God given right and wrong.

Ron Domel

Texas City

Here is the original post:
Equality Act is a threat to First Amendment - Galveston County Daily News

The good news, according to the Florida First Amendment Foundation, is that the Legislature this year repealed a state law that allows state agencies to sue people making public-records demands.

New legislation (SB 400), which still requires Gov. Ron DeSantis signature, would end the practice by agencies of seeking declaratory judgements concerning public-records requests that is, asking a court to decide whether the information sought is confidential or exempt from release.

This practice drags out requests and makes access to government information more expensive, the foundation wrote in in a report summarizing the recently concluded regular session.

The press and individuals seeking records may be left with costly legal fees even if a court finds that the records are subject to disclosure. Declaratory actions restrict access to public records to only those with the time and money to defend their public records request, the report says.

The foundation is an organ of the Florida Press Association, the Florida Society of News Editors, and the Florida Association of Broadcasters intended to ensure that public commitment and progress in the areas of free speech, free press, and open government do not become checked and diluted during Floridas changing times.

By the foundations count, the Legislature approved 14 new exemptions and renewed eight.

Among exemptions the foundation decried areHouse Bill 1311, which closes Public Service Commission meetings in which confidential business information is discussed in the interest of allowing companies to fairly compete within the marketplace. However, the foundation notes: Utilities in Florida are regulated monopolies there is no competitive marketplace. This argument is meritless.

Another,House Bill 1055, removes a requirement that companies contracting with state agencies formally request trade-secrets protection regarding the money they are paid and their pricing, thereby imposing automatic shields. The bill undermines confidence in government spending and transparency, the foundation said.

Still: One of the biggest threats to transparency this legislative session was not an overbroad public records or Sunshine Law exemption but the limited participation at committee meetings and restricted access to legislators, the report says.

That was because of protocols intended to restrict COVID transmission.

Spirited protests and debates were absent. Lawmakers did not have to face constituents at the Capitol. All while the rest of the state was open for business. The Capitol eventually reopened to the public the week immediately following the end of session.

The foundation highlighted other restrictions on First-Amendment rights, includingHouse Bill 1, the DeSantis-led initiative to criminalize participation in protests that turn violent, even if a participant had no hand in that violence. The governorhas already signedit into law.

The overbroad definition of riot and increased penalties may deter protestors and journalists from exercising their First Amendment rights, fearing criminal sanctions for mere presence at a peaceful protest that involves violence or a public disturbance, as determined by law enforcement officers at the scene of the protest, the report says.

It also citedSenate Bill 7072, the social media crackdown legislation that thegovernor signedon Monday.

The bill prohibits companies from removing (deplatforming) candidates for office and censoring journalistic enterprises, the foundation noted.

The bill is likely preempted by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996. In addition, by forcing social media websites to carry speech that violates companies terms of use policies, the bill runs afoul of the First Amendment freedom of speech.

A related exemption classifies information gathered during attorney general investigations into tech companies confidential, even after these investigations are concluded, the foundation said.

Michael Moline, Florida Phoenix

Link:
A Mostly Bleak Legislative Session for Open Government and the First Amendment in Florida - FlaglerLive.com

Florida governor Ron DeSantis has signed into law a restriction on social media companies ability to ban candidates for state offices and news outlets, and in doing so offered a direct challenge to those companies perceived free speech rights. The law is almost certain to be challenged in court as both unconstitutional and in direct conflict with federal rules.

The law, Florida Senate Bill 7072, provides several new checks on tech and social media companies. Among other things:

The law establishes rules affecting these companies moderation practices; that much is clear. But whether doing so amounts to censorship actual government censorship, not the general concept of limitation frequently associated with the word is an open question, if a somewhat obvious one, that will likely be forced by legal action against SB 7072.

While there is a great deal of circumstantial precedent and analysis, the problem of are moderation practices of social media companies protected by the First Amendment is as yet unsettled. Legal scholars and existing cases fall strongly on the side of yes, but there is no single definitive precedent that Facebook or Twitter can point to.

The First Amendment argument starts with the idea that although social media are very unlike newspapers or book publishers, they are protected in much the same way by the Constitution from government interference. Free speech is a term that is interpreted extremely liberally, but if a company spending money is considered a protected expression of ideas, its not a stretch to suggest that same company applying a policy of hosting or not hosting content should be as well. If it is, then the government is prohibited from interfering with it beyond very narrow definitions of unprotected speech (think shouting fire in a crowded theater). That would sink Floridas law on constitutional grounds.

The other conflict is with federal law, specifically the much-discussed Section 230, which protects companies from being liable for content they publish (i.e. the creator is responsible instead), and also for the choice to take down content via rules of their own choice. As the laws co-author Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has put it, this gives those companies both a shield and a sword with which to do battle against risky speech on their platforms.

But SB 7072 removes both sword and shield: It would limit who can be moderated, and also creates a novel cause for legal action against the companies for their remaining moderation practices.

Federal and state law are often in disagreement, and there is no handbook for how to reconcile them. On one hand, witness raids of state-legalized marijuana shops and farms by federal authorities. On the other, observe how strong consumer protection laws at the state level arent preempted by weaker federal ones because to do so would put people at risk.

On the matter of Section 230 its not straightforward who is protecting whom. Floridas current state government claims that it is protecting real Floridians against the Silicon Valley elites. But no doubt those elites (and let us be candid that is exactly what they are) will point out that in fact this is a clear-cut case of government overreach, censorship in the literal sense.

These strong legal objections will inform the inevitable lawsuits by the companies affected, which will probably be filed ahead of the law taking effect and aim to have it overturned.

Interestingly, two companies that will not be affected by the law are two of the biggest, most uncompromising corporations in the world: Disney and Comcast. Why, you ask? Because the law has a special exemption for any company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex of a certain size.

Thats right, theres a Mouse-shaped hole in this law and Comcast, which owns Universal Studios, just happens to fit through as well. Notably this was added in an amendment, suggesting two of the largest employers in the state were unhappy at the idea of new liabilities for any of their digital properties.

This naked pandering to local corporate donors puts proponents of this law at something of an ethical disadvantage in their righteous battle against the elites, but favor may be moot in a few months time when the legal challenges, probably being drafted at this moment, call for an injunction against SB 7072.

More:
Floridas ban on bans will test First Amendment rights of social media companies - TechCrunch

In response to the commentary by Ali Khalili ("This is a defining moment in US human rights values," The Daily News, May 26): Ali Khalili, where do you live? The tagline in your commentary says Webster. We have trouble enough in our country that you dont need to go on creating anti-Jewish feelings here.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom to petition the government. If the American Israel Public Affairs Committee cant lobby the government, neither can any group claiming to represent Palestinian Arabs.

By the way, Ive not seen any stories about American Jews and supporters of Israel beating up or harassing Palestinian supporters anywhere, unlike what the supporters of Palestinians in New York and Los Angeles have been doing to American Jews and supporters of Israel.

Erna Pelto

La Marque

Read the original here:
First Amendment protects even the Israel lobby | Letters to the Editor | The Daily News - Galveston County Daily News

WINK NEWS

It may not occur to you before you write an online review that you can be sued for what you say or be fired for it. After all, the First Amendment gives you freedom of speech, right?

But if anyone can say anything and amplify it on social media, wheres your right to privacy? And when can you get some serious trouble for just hitting Send?

Mandy Wells said the Fort Myers roofing company she hired, Marlin Construction Group, never got started on the job. She has been living under a tarp for close to a year, she said.

There was never any materials ordered so nothing was ever done.

When she told them to get lost, they sent her a bill, she said.

They want me to pay $6,084.

When she posted about the problem online, they sued her for defamation.

Well, theyre suing me because they didnt like it.

But Marlin claims Wells damaged them with her online reviews.

I dont think anything I wrote here is unreasonable, she said.

Bob Goodman, Wells attorney, said, You can just sue anybody for anything, and hes confident theyll win.

Theyll file a lawsuit for defamation, and a lot of people will simply just remove the comment, which is what what usually the purpose of the lawsuit is.

But why would anyone have to defend themselves in an expensive lawsuit for leaving a review or speaking their mind? Doesnt the First Amendment guarantee free speech?

Are you allowed to say anything you want to at any time? Kind of? Yes, you are. But there are consequences for what you say, said attorney Pam Seay.

She isnt involved in the case, but said your First Amendment rights are largely captured in its first five words: Congress shall pass no law.

Beyond the government, private citizens and companies can react to what you say however they want, including firing you, or if they feel you damaged them with something that isnt true, suing you.

At some point, its going to happen, Seay said. It will come to a head and the companies will say thats enough, weve had it, we put our lifeblood into this company and one little person with a computer is trying to ruin me.

Attorney Scott Hertz represents Marlin Construction Group in their case against Wells.

Certainly, people have the right to make complaints, but nobody has the right to make false complaints, he said.

Hertz said Wells is the one who broke the contract.

Clearly its her intent to create the impression that Marlin refused to do the work, not that she refused to allow them to do the work.

What the word work means is one of the reasons this is going to court.I didnt say anything disparaging about them, Wells said.

She said she only posted the facts: She hired Marlin Construction Group to deal with her insurance company and get her a new roof after wind damage. She said they never did the work but wouldnt release the claim on her insurance company so she could hire someone else.

But that how its misleading, Hertz said. Marlin did go out and do physical work. Marlin went on her roof. Marlin made measurements. Marlin prepared an estimate; preparing an estimate is work.

Therefore, Marlin said, Wells online review that they did no work was wrong and damaging to the company.

You need to make sure what youre saying is accurate, that it is true, Seay said.

In this case, a judge and jury may have to decide whats true and who has been damaged.

So, what can you safely post? Almost anything, including your opinion as long as its based on truth.

But keep in mind that truth means factually true, not just something you believe, so choose your words carefully.

Yeah, I dont care what they say, Wells said. It doesnt matter the things that they make up or the words they want to twist because theres none of that anywhere in anything that I wrote.

The bottom line is its headed to a judge and maybe a trial. While we cant predict how the case will come out, we want you to know we uncovered several complaints against Marlin Construction Group. The Better Business Bureau (BBB) gives them an F rating because of a pattern of complaints, many of which reference people being approached and encouraged to file an insurance claim and issues related to that claim.

State Attorney General Ashley Moodys office sent us 14 complaints about Marlin, which theyre looking into. Some of those also relate to working with insurance companies.

Marlins attorney said those are largely related to a problem with an employee that has been fixed.

Do your research before you hire any contractor.

More:
First Amendment rights at heart of lawsuit against woman who left 'damaging' online review - Wink News