Congress
Politico: Split on the right: Breitbart joins Facebook and Google in opposing news media bill
By Emily Birnbaum
[The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act] has also attracted major GOP critics such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and House Judiciary ranking member Jim Jordan of Ohio, all of whom have done interviews with Breitbart opposing the legislation. McCarthy told Breitbart that the bill poses “a tremendous threat to free speech and a free press,” alleging that it would harm start-up publications competing with established media companies…
“The JCPA would create a media cartel that would censor conservatives,” said James Arnold, press secretary for Sen. Tom Cotton. “Senator Cotton believes the bill is flawed and is opposed to it.”
Free Expression
Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Academic Freedom Alliance Letter to Georgetown University Law Center
By Keith E. Whittington
The Academic Freedom Alliance has released a public letter to the Georgetown University Law Center objecting to its treatment of a senior lecturer. Ilya Shapiro was director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute…
From the letter:
“Private speech on controversial social and political topics can sometimes be heated, ill-tempered, ill-considered, and broadly offensive. We do not hold such extramural speech to the standards that we would properly expect from speech in the classroom or from scholarly research. Going down the road of punishing faculty for their political speech on social media that some members of the university community find insensitive or hurtful will leave all members of the faculty vulnerable to denunciations, investigations, and threats of termination. It would erode the protections for free expression that the university purports to provide to all members of the campus community, including the members of the faculty.”
Online Speech Platforms
Wall Street Journal: Spotify and Rogan, the Real Adults
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
Utopians might wish it were otherwise, but there is no way to censor lies without censoring the truth. You do only damage by trying. This is a thing that civil libertarians once understood.
Progressives trust themselves to distinguish truth from lies, even though they demonstrably fail when the lie serves their interests. They live by the judgment: “I am a thinking person. You are not. You are an algorithm programmed by society. I, as a superior person, must make sure you are programmed with the correct thoughts.” …
Audiences seek controversy not just to open their minds, not just to annoy their betters, but because to hear impertinent, unapproved talk feels like freedom.
Washington Post: White House wades into Spotify controversy as India.Arie, David Crosby, Stephen Stills and more artists pull music
By Eugene Scott and Adela Suliman
Press secretary Jen Psaki called it a “positive step” that Spotify had decided to add disclaimers about covid misinformation in response to criticism from medical professionals and musicians that some content, in particular from provocative podcaster Joe Rogan, spreads false information about the coronavirus and vaccines.
“Our hope is that all major tech platforms and all major news sources, for that matter, be responsible and be vigilant to ensure the American people have access to accurate information on something as significant as covid-19,” Psaki said Tuesday. “That certainly includes Spotify.”
“So this disclaimer, it’s a positive step, but we want every platform to continue doing more to call out misinformation and disinformation while also uplifting accurate information,” she added.
The States
Crosscut: How punishing people for ‘doxxing’ could prove tricky for WA lawmakers
By Melissa Santos
As written, Lovick’s bill would make it a gross misdemeanor to post people’s personally identifiable information online without their consent, if there’s reason to believe doing so would cause them to experience harassment or physical injury.
To constitute doxxing, the online posting would also have to cause victims at least some “substantial life disruption” — but this is defined somewhat broadly. Under the version of the bill Lovick introduced last week, a “substantial life disruption” could include deleting a social media account or significantly decreasing one’s use of the internet. Sharing personal information, meanwhile, could include simply posting a person’s name.
Michele Earl-Hubbard, a Seattle-based lawyer who frequently represents media organizations, said the measure as written risks criminalizing speech that is protected under the First Amendment. That could include the work of journalists, as well as others trying to hold public officials accountable, she said.
Earl-Hubbard said she is “worried it would result in a lot of self-censorship,” as people try to avoid breaking the law, but don’t understand exactly what would constitute a violation.
