Ed. note: The Update will return to its standard Monday-Friday schedule beginning Monday, September 27.
In the News
Casper Star-Tribune: Judge issues first rulings in case involving gun rights group versus secretary of state, AG
By Victoria Eavis
A court issued two rulings in the case of a prominent gun rights group versus some of Wyoming’s top elected officials.
Wyoming Gun Owners Association filed a federal lawsuit earlier this summer against Wyoming Secretary of State Ed Buchanan and Attorney General Bridget Hill claiming that Wyoming’s electioneering communications law is “unconstitutionally vague” under the First Amendment.
The lawyers representing Wyoming Gun Owners filed a preliminary injunction earlier this summer in the hope of fast tracking the case, but a U.S. District Judge denied that request. Their request was denied because the judge ruled that they are not currently being limited in their ability to electioneer because it is not currently an election year and it is not currently the time frame where those electioneering laws apply…
But the judge offered a sliver of hope for the gun group’s case.
The defendants…also had their request to have the case dismissed denied.
These two rulings mean that the case won’t be fast tracked, but it will also remain open. Major next steps for the two parties are unclear.
“At this point were still evaluating our options,” said Del Kolde, a senior attorney from the Institute on Free Speech who is co-representing Wyoming Gun Owners.
That being said, the plaintiff has started to make some informal moves in the meantime.
Lawyers for Wyoming Gun Owners “Reached out to the [attorney general] and asked them whether the state intends to enforce the part of the law that is unconstitutional,” Kolde said.
Now, the hope and expectation is that the judge issues a ruling on the case before campaigning goes into full swing leading up to the 2022 primaries, Kolde added.
Wall Street Journal (LTE): Don’t Ban Targeted Ads
By Alex Baiocco
Before seeking to “ban targeted advertising,” Mr. Masters should consider the effect on citizens’ ability to organize and challenge entrenched power. Thanks to online targeting tools, grass-roots movements and upstart political campaigns can reach like-minded citizens and potential supporters on a scale that was previously unattainable to them.
Incumbents, public figures and well-established institutions already have large followings and the attention of the media. Access to cost-effective advertising techniques is most essential to unknown newcomers and those who challenge the status quo. A ban would not only prevent tech companies from selling the ads, but also take a means of civic engagement and association away from U.S. citizens. As with any restriction on speech, those who already have power stand to benefit the most from a ban on targeted advertising.
ICYMI
Cancel Culture Is a Threat to Everyone
By Alec Greven
Our political debate has become supercharged with polarization and vitriol. A symptom of this dangerous discourse is the acceleration of what’s now known as “cancel culture,” where people are punished, sometimes viciously, for violating social norms and increasingly fear expressing themselves.
One of the best definitions of “cancel culture” is offered by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who explains that “cancellation, properly understood, refers to an attack on someone’s employment and reputation by a determined collective of critics, based on an opinion or an action that is alleged to be disgraceful and disqualifying.” Recent cancellations have shown the threat cancel culture poses to free expression and highlight the importance of shoring up a more tolerant society that can ward off the dangerous excesses of cancel culture.
Events
Knight First Amendment Institute: Lies and Democracy
Friday, September 24, 2021
“No one has ever doubted that truth and politics are on rather bad terms with each other, and no one, as far as I know, has ever counted truthfulness among the political virtues,” wrote Hannah Arendt in 1967. Today, concerns run especially high over the fraught relationship between truth and politics, as majorities of Republican voters in some polls reportedly believe the “Big Lie” peddled by Donald Trump and many other political and media elites that the election was stolen from Trump through widespread fraud. Much of the discussion of the Big Lie has been ahistorical: It has focused on the strange and disturbing particularities of the present moment. But how unique is this kind of political lie in the United States? What does it reveal about American democracy? And how much of a threat do lies pose to the democratic order?
The Courts
Texas Tribune: Texas sued over bill stopping social media companies from banning users for political views
By James Pollard
Texas is being sued over its new law barring social media platforms from banning users over their political views by two trade associations that represent some of the industry’s biggest online companies.
NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, which represent Google and Twitter, among other companies in the e-commerce and social media industries, filed a lawsuit Wednesday asking a federal judge to block the law.
Under the law, which was passed by the Legislature as House Bill 20, and signed by Gov. Greg Abbott on Sept. 9, social media platforms with over 50 million monthly users in the U.S. — a threshold that includes Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube — must publicly report details about content removal and account suspensions biannually. The platforms are also required to establish an easily accessible complaint system, where users could flag violations of the law.
Supporters of the bill said it was a necessary step to ensure users’ viewpoints aren’t censored and people who are blocked have a path for recourse.
The state cannot force platforms to host content they wouldn’t otherwise host, the presidents of NetChoice and CCIA said in a Tuesday meeting with reporters. The law threatens the safety of users, creators and businesses that use platforms to reach their audiences, said NetChoice President and CEO Steve DelBianco.
Wall Street Journal: Facebook Ordered to Release Records on Closed Myanmar Accounts
By Aruna Viswanatha
A federal judge ordered Facebook Inc. on Wednesday to hand over records related to accounts it shut down in 2018 that were linked to government-backed violence against the Muslim Rohingya minority in Myanmar, as the social-media giant grapples with the effects content on its platform has in the real world.
The ruling, by a magistrate judge in Washington, criticized Facebook for refusing to provide the records to countries pursuing a case against Myanmar in international court, saying allowing it to withhold them “would compound the tragedy that has befallen the Rohingya.”
Facebook had resisted the request for information related to the closed accounts, arguing that providing such documents in response to a civil subpoena would violate U.S. privacy law.
But the judge ruled that the deleted posts don’t fall under legal protections for personal communications. “Locking away the requested content would be throwing away the opportunity to understand how disinformation begat genocide,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui wrote, saying that Facebook “taking up the mantle of privacy rights is rich with irony.”
The Media
Glenn Greenwald: New Proof Emerges of the Biden Family Emails: a Definitive Account of the CIA/Media/BigTech Fraud
On October 14 and then October 15, 2020, The New York Post…published two news reports on Joe Biden’s activities in Ukraine and China that raised serious questions about his integrity and ethics…
In sum, as someone who has reported on numerous large archives similar to this one and was faced with the heavy burden of ensuring the documents were genuine before risking one’s career and reputation by reporting them, it was clear early on that all the key metrics demonstrated that these documents were real.
Despite all that, former intelligence officials such as Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan and his Director of National Intelligence James Clapper led a group of dozens of former spooks in issuing a public statement that disseminated an outright lie: namely, that the laptop was “Russian disinformation.”…
A young reporter for Politico, Ben Schreckinger, has published a new book entitled “The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power.” To his great credit, he spent months investigating the key documents published by The New York Post and found definitive proof that these emails and related documents are indisputably authentic…
Given what I regard as the unparalleled gravity of what was done here — widespread media deceit toward millions of American voters in the weeks before a presidential election based on a CIA lie, along with brute censorship of the story by Big Tech — and given that so much of what was done here took place on television, we produced this morning what I regard as the definitive video report of this scandal.
Online Speech Platforms
The Hill: Big Tech won’t change; the tech sector can
By David Webb
The act of political censorship, is inherently partisan and divisive — traditionally, the important and difficult task of separating fact from fiction was reserved for the public square, and for good reason. Political arguments are notoriously nuanced and complex — and often evolve with the discovery of new information that comes through open dialogue. It’s laughable to think that a group of woke college graduates in the Silicon Valley believe they can do a better job adjudicating public discourse on the issues impacting our lives, our society and country than the whole of society.
While supporters of online censorship frequently claim that it’s easier to spread disinformation in the digital age, this assertion is fundamentally misguided. The internet provides unprecedented access to factual information and academic literature that was once only available to wealthy elites, or the shelves of public libraries.
Today, the average American voter has access to more high-quality research than at any other time in our country’s history. Voters must be able to hear all sides, debate the issues and make up their own minds without Big Tech interference.
The States
Washington Post: A new Texas law fights Big Tech censorship. Last week showed why we need it.
By Greg Abbott
This month, I signed a law that prohibits large social media companies with more than 50 million active users in the United States from banning or censoring a Texan, or the content he or she shares or receives, based on that person’s political or religious viewpoints…
Opponents of the law argue that, because these platforms are private companies, any government action forcing them to convey messaging against their will is compelled speech, and thus a violation of the First Amendment. Moreover, opponents add, these social media platforms should be able to discriminate in which customers they allow onto their platforms, as any private firm has the right to do…
But Twitter, Facebook and other massive platforms aren’t just any private companies. They are our modern-day public square, and effectively control the channels we use for discourse…
Nor should these platforms enjoy the First Amendment protections that newspapers and other news outlets enjoy — because they don’t shoulder the accompanying responsibilities. Newspapers cannot be censored, but they can be sued for libel. The social media platforms, by contrast, have received special legal status from the federal government in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects them from liability for the content they publish by declaring that they are not publishers or speakers. Having won market dominance thanks to Section 230’s immunity handout, these social media giants cannot claim to be speakers again now that it’s convenient.
California Globe: LA City Council Passes Ordinance Banning Protests From Happening Within 300 Feet of Targeted Residences
By Evan Symon
In a 13-2 vote, the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance Tuesday that bans protests from taking place within 300 feet of the targeted person’s residence.
The ordinance specifically targets groups and organizations who use violent or abusive tactics, as well as those that can be considered a public nuisance. The ordinance also states that those aggrieved by violators can sue them for damages, with protest violators facing a fine of up to $1,000 per violation. Protests in other areas, such as outside of government buildings, are not covered by the new ordinance…
A lawsuit against the ordinance is likely to be filed soon after it’s passage on Tuesday, as many organizations, such as the People’s City Council, have said that they would do so as they believed that it is a First Amendment violation.
The Center Square: YouTube yanks school board meeting from site over COVID-19 comments, later restores it
By Greg Bishop
An Illinois school district said YouTube is removing videos of school board meetings because of public comments about COVID-19 policies, a problem one state lawmaker wants to fix with a bill that he said would reduce social media censorship…
House Bill 4145 would make social media companies liable with punitive damages for censoring someone’s religious or political speech.
“YouTube censuring the school districts and the responses to the school board meetings, this would be an example of where they could have a vehicle to push back against the censorship of their thoughts,” [State Rep. Chris Miller, R-Oakland, who filed the bill,] said.
Miller’s bill would allow a minimum of $75,000 in damages per purposeful deletion or censorship of the social media user’s speech, with the exception of, among other things, calls for immediate acts of violence, messages from a fake user or bullying of minors.
The measure has yet to be assigned to a committee.
News Herald: Oregon School Board Flag Censors Flunk Patriotism Test
By Corey Friedman
When Oregon school officials tried to banish political symbols from the classroom, English teacher Gail Grobey delivered a masterful lesson in malicious compliance.
The Newberg School Board singled out the Black Lives Matter and LGBT pride flags for removal and commissioned a blacklist for political paraphernalia. Grobey countered by taking down the American flag, telling local newspaper The Newberg Graphic that the Stars and Stripes is “the most political symbol there is.”…
Though a second vote is required to enact the policies, the school board’s preliminary approval touched off a swift backlash. The Oregon State Board of Education called on the Newberg board to rescind the measures, and the state American Civil Liberties Union affiliate threatened a lawsuit if the forced flag removal takes effect…
School districts can’t lawfully implement wholesale bans on political speech, and even if they could, targeting Black Lives Matter symbols and rainbow flags as the first things to go is blatant viewpoint-based discrimination — a cardinal constitutional sin…
If local officials had such sweeping powers (rest assured that they don’t), courts might, at minimum, require consistency. No BLM flag, no Old Glory. Government agencies don’t get to play favorites.
Salt Lake Tribune: Utah lawmakers use tax threats to force social media companies to the negotiating table
By Bryan Schott
When a controversial social media regulation bill passed by Utah lawmakers was vetoed by Gov. Spencer Cox earlier this year, it was with an understanding that those social media companies would engage in good faith discussions on their moderation and user ban practices.
That hasn’t happened and lawmakers are clearly frustrated by a lack of communication…
[Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo] decided it was time to exchange carrots for legislative sticks…
“The state has the authority to tax various business models differently. And if that tax were something nominal, maybe 130% of their gross revenue derived from the state, I think that would get their attention,” Bramble said during last week’s hearing. “We could make it 150%.”
That threat had the desired effect, according to Bramble.
“Since that meeting, I’ve had every lobbyist for all of these companies reach out to me to ask to sit down and discuss this issue,” Bramble said with a chuckle.
The question remains what, if anything, lawmakers can do about online content.
