In the News
ConservativeHQ: Kamala Harris Is Hillary Clinton Without The Charm
By George Rasley
As Attorney General of California, Ms. Harris in large measure made her reputation with the activist Far Left by persecuting pro-life conservatives...and cultural and economic conservative non-profit organizations...
Harris' contempt for the Constitution, in particular the First and Fourth Amendments' free speech and privacy protections, earned her lawsuits from several conservative organizations, including Americans for Prosperity and the Institute for Free Speech.
In its lawsuit, the AFP Foundation said it had been filing its IRS form 990 with the state every year since 2001. But when Harris became California Attorney General the office rejected the report as incomplete because it didn't include the donor lists - lists the Supreme Court held could remain confidential in the landmark case of NAACP v. Alabama.
"The First Amendment grants individuals who donate to private advocacy organizations the right to remain anonymous lest public disfavor and harassment chill their speech," according to the lawsuit. Yet the group said Harris gave it an ultimatum: disclose donors and threaten such speech, or refuse and be put out of business in California observed Steven Greenhut in a column for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
District court judge Manuel Real later ruled that attorney general Kamala Harris' office did not demonstrate a sufficient need for that information when it sought to bar the conservative Americans for Prosperity Foundation from raising money in the state unless it turned over that list.
Judge Real's decision was particularly useful in giving conservatives a preview of what a Kamala Harris presidency might look like - the Lois Lerner IRS scandal on steroids.
Free Speech
Business Insider: If wanting to fire people for supporting Trump or Biden isn't cancel culture, then nothing is
By Anthony L. Fisher
According to a July poll by YouGov and the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, nearly one-third (32%) of Americans fear that their political opinions - if publicly known - could cost them their job or otherwise hinder their careers. The fear is spread roughly equally among broad political ideologies, with about one-third each of liberal, conservative, and moderate respondents worried about making their politics known...
The same poll shows an alarming percentage of Americans think an executive donating to the political campaigns of either the Republican or Democratic nominee should be a fireable offense...
I generally try to be optimistic about America's culture of free speech, in all its messy and unpredictable forms, but this poll is chilling...
Supporting a presidential candidate is the basic form of political expression. It's considered a dereliction of civic duty to not participate in the electoral process. And in our system of government, like it or not, political donations are a constitutionally protected form of expression...
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, and executives shouldn't be exempt from speech (or even outrage) criticizing their actions. But it's important to resist taking such an extreme stance as to take someone's job over their participation in the legal political processes of a two-party system.
If such limitations on speech were normalized against the executive class, it wouldn't take very long for the cancelers to come for the working class' political participation.
Wall Street Journal: Law Alone Can't Protect Free Speech
By Greg Lukianoff and Adam Goldstein
Cancel culture notwithstanding, legal commentator Ken White argues that "this is a golden age for free speech in America." For decades, he notes, the Supreme Court has protected all manner of objectionable speech, from burning the American flag to homophobic protests outside servicemen's funerals. That's true-but those victories rest on a broad cultural consensus. If campus norms continue to displace free speech culture, judges and lawyers will eventually start to ignore the First Amendment or, worse, chip away at it until it is meaningless.
Free-speech culture gave us the First Amendment to begin with. It kept free speech alive in the tumultuous 19th century. It reinvigorated the First Amendment in the 20th century. It informs interpretations of the First Amendment today-and it will determine whether free-speech protections will survive.
The Courts
Law360: Ill. Republicans Urge 7th Circ. To Revive Bid For Large Groups
By Lauraann Wood
A Seventh Circuit Judge pushed back Tuesday on Illinois Republicans' claim that they should be exempted from group-size limits like religious gatherings are under Gov. J.B. Pritzker's latest COVID-19 safety order, saying the party isn't comparing apples to apples under the First Amendment.
Counsel for the Illinois Republican Party urged a three-judge panel during oral argument to revive its bid to hold gatherings larger than the 50-person limit set in the latest coronavirus safety order, arguing the exemption for religious gatherings should apply to all protected First Amendment expression. But U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett said the party seems to be comparing its asserted speech rights to a group that has "an additional interest" under the amendment, which is the right to freely exercise religion.
Judge Barrett said she'd be "very concerned" if, for example, the governor's group-size limits exempted movements such as the Black Lives Matter protests that have been conducted while his executive order has been in place, "because then you're talking apples to apples, you're talking political speech to political speech, and it's the same right at issue."
"But here, the exception that's been carved out for churches isn't just speech to speech, it's not apples to apples," she said. "It's speech plus free exercise, against speech."
Reuters: Exclusive: Trump administration asks court to dismiss Big Tech's challenge to social media executive order
By Nandita Bose
The Trump administration has filed a motion asking a court to dismiss a lawsuit against the president's executive order targeting social media companies, calling it a "profound misunderstanding," according to a copy of the motion seen by Reuters.
The lawsuit was brought in June by the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), a Washington-based tech group funded by Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc's Google and Twitter Inc. It marked the first major legal test of President Donald Trump's directive.
Trump issued an executive order in May against social media companies in an attempt to regulate platforms where he has been criticized, just days after Twitter took the rare step of fact-checking one of his tweets about mail-in voting. Trump threatened to scrap or weaken a law known as Section 230, which protects internet companies from litigation over content posted by users.
The lawsuit by CDT argued Trump's social media executive order violates the First Amendment rights of social media companies, will chill future online speech and reduce the ability of Americans to speak freely online.
The administration argues that the executive order only directs government agencies, and not private companies, to act.
Nonprofits
Lawfare: The Attempt to Dissolve the NRA Threatens Democratic Norms
By Alan Z. Rozenshtein
While there's a strong case for removing the NRA's leadership and fundamentally reforming the organization itself, [New York Attorney General Letitia] James's attempt to dissolve the NRA in its entirety is a violation of key democratic and rule-of-law norms and should be troubling to people who value these norms no matter one's place on the political spectrum.
There are two distinct norms that the lawsuit threatens. The first is that the state should preserve, to the extent possible, the free exchange of ideas and an open political arena. That doesn't, of course, mean that the NRA, or any other political group, is above the law simply because it's engaged in politics. But it does mean that a lawsuit threatening to destroy any major political group should be held to a high standard. In particular, the government should bend over backwards, even while it enforces the law, to preserve the institution if at all possible. If the allegations in the complaint are true (and they have been supported by years of investigative reporting), James is absolutely right to hold the NRA and its leadership accountable. But the priority should be reform, not dissolution. To seek dissolution, especially out of the gate, is to ignore the millions of Americans for whom the NRA is a vital avenue for political participation...
The second norm that the NRA lawsuit threatens is that of impartial justice: officials should not use their powers to go after targets simply because they disagree with their politics.
Right to Protest
Washington Post: Protesters have camped for months at Tennessee's capital. So lawmakers made it a felony.
By Tim Elfrink
For 61 straight days, protesters have camped outside the Tennessee Capitol in Nashville, demanding a meeting with the governor to discuss racial inequality and police brutality.
On Wednesday, the GOP-dominated legislature responded - by passing a bill making camping on state property, including the capitol grounds, a felony.
The bill's backers described the legislation, which also stiffens penalties for protesters who spit on police, block streets, and disrupt meetings, as a necessary tool to battle violent demonstrations.
"It is to prevent what has happened in other cities like Portland and Washington, D.C.," Lt. Gov. Randy McNally (R) said Wednesday after the measure passed. "If people ... knowingly thumb their nose at authority and don't do what authorities have requested they do, they should be charged with a serious crime." ...
Under the new camping laws passed Wednesday, protesters would first be issued a warning. Anywho refuse to leave would then be charged with a Class E felony, which could carry up to 6 years in prison, the Nashville Tennessean reported; those convicted also lose their right to vote.
In the capitol this week, some GOP legislators pointed to protesters who have heckled lawmakers to justify the harsh new punishments in the bill, which would also mandate that protesters charged with a variety of offenses must be held without bond for at least 12 hours. Protesters recently blocked the garage used by legislators and surrounded one senator's car, waving signs, until police intervened.
FCC
Multichannel News: Vimeo Asks FCC to Ignore Sec. 230 Rulemaking Petition
By John Eggerton
Online video streaming site Vimeo has asked the FCC to "summarily and promptly" dismiss a petition by the Trump Administration asking the FCC to come up with a regime for regulating online speech.
It said the Administration does not have the authority to ask the FCC for the framework and the FCC does not have the authority to comply.
In its request, Vimeo called the petition "retaliation by the highest government official in the country [President Trump] against a private speaker's unquestionable exercise of free speech."
The President issued his executive order on regulating social media following Twitter's flagging of one of his tweets about mail-in voting being a fraud.
The FCC sought input on the petition Aug. 3, but Vimeo suggests it should not even dignify it with a comment period.
Online Speech Platforms
Axios: Facebook cracks down on political content disguised as local news
By Sara Fischer
Facebook is rolling out a new policy that will prevent U.S. news publishers with "direct, meaningful ties" to political groups from claiming the news exemption within its political ads authorization process, executives tell Axios.
Since the 2016 election, reporters and researchers have uncovered over 1,200 instances in which political groups use websites disguised as local news outlets to push their point of view to Americans.
Now, Facebook is ensuring that Pages connected to those groups are held to the same standard as political entities when it comes to advertising on the platform.
The "news exemption" means that promoted content about social issues, elections, or politics from news publishers is not labeled as political within Facebook's political archive.
With the new policy, Pages on Facebook belonging to news outlets that are backed by political groups or people will still be allowed to register as a news Page and advertise on Facebook, but they will no longer be eligible for inclusion in the Facebook News tab, and they won't have access to news messaging on the Messenger Business Platform or the WhatsApp business API...
The move comes days after Google confirmed to Axios that come September, it will ban politically-motivated advertisers that disguise themselves as local news websites to promote their political point of view.
Politico: Silicon Valley game-plans for a messy election night
By Nancy Scola
Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other major social media companies are working together to scenario-plan for the last three months before Election Day in the United States - including gaming out what to do if there's no quickly declared the winner in the contest between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden on election night.
The close collaboration between Silicon Valley companies in the run-up to election day is detailed in an unusual cross-industry statement put out Wednesday. Pinterest, LinkedIn-owner Microsoft, and Reddit is also among its signatories.
"We discussed preparations for the upcoming conventions and scenario planning related to election results. We will continue to stay vigilant on these issues and meet regularly ahead of the November election," reads the statement.
Among dozens of scenarios being contemplated by the companies for election night, in particular, are a "hack and leak" operation where stolen materials are quickly spread through online networks and addressing the distribution of manipulated videos, according to a person involved in the planning who spoke anonymously so as to not speak on behalf of the full industry coalition. The scenario planning is "candidate agnostic," they said.
Wall Street Journal: Facebook and Other Tech Giants Gird for Chaotic Election
By Dustin Volz and Emily Glazer
Facebook Inc., Alphabet Inc.'s Google and Twitter Inc. have discussed with federal officials how the social media platforms can prevent the spread of misinformation in the days before and after the election after the U.S. intelligence community warned of foreign interference and President Trump called the vote's integrity into question...
Among the possibilities being discussed at Facebook and other tech, platforms are putting in place procedures to act more quickly on misinformation, because false posts can sometimes exist online for hours before platforms take them down...
Facebook, for instance, is looking at updating policies related to the time between voting and when results are announced, one of the people said. It is also examining potential product updates through its Voting Information Center and additional labels added to posts from politicians, the person said.
Washington Post: The Technology 202: Trump's TikTok order sparks questions about future of online expression
By Cat Zakrzewski
President Trump's executive order targeting TikTok is already sparking thinly veiled threats of legal action, as the company and civil liberties advocates warn it could have a chilling effect on free expression.
Critics scrambling to respond to the unexpected executive order, which would effectively shutter the U.S. operation of the viral video-sharing app in 45 days unless it's sold, see it as a potential violation of the First Amendment. They say it could significantly curtail Americans' abilities to access media and share their own videos online.
"We should be careful about giving the president the unfettered power to shut down a foreign communications platform," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. "That kind of shutdown has a real effect on Americans' First Amendment rights." ...
NPR reports that TikTok is planning to sue the administration in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, where the company's American operations are located. TikTok declined to comment on that report...
The American Civil Liberties Union is "exploring all options in response," said spokesman Abdullah Hasan.
Candidates and Campaigns
Townhall: David Daleiden Explains Why Harris Is the 'Greatest Threat to Civil Rights' in US History
By Leah Barkoukis
The Center for Medical Progress's David Daleiden, who helped expose Planned Parenthood's harvesting and sale of fetal body parts in 2015, spoke out Tuesday night after Joe Biden announced California Sen. Kamala Harris would be his running mate.
"Lots of people are asking me what I think of the news tonight," he said on Twitter. "[Kamala Harris] is the greatest threat to First Amendment civil rights our country has ever seen. I know because she had my home raided for speaking the truth about her political patrons at Planned Parenthood."
In 2016, as Attorney General of California, Harris was behind the raid of his apartment, in which authorities seized a laptop and several hard drives that contained the videos he filmed as part of his expose of Planned Parenthood. Some of the confiscated drives contained "some very damning footage that has yet to be released to the public," he said at the time.
Salon: Trump campaign appears to be hiding massive Facebook spending - but why?
By Roger Sollenberger
The Trump campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars on Facebook ads, but has not reported any of that spending to the Federal Election Commission, records show.
Along with a number of affiliated committees, the campaign appears to be funneling payments to Facebook through shell companies. Official committees affiliated with presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden have also apparently used shell companies to foot Facebook ads, but those committees have reported a much larger proportion of their spending...
"It is not terribly uncommon for campaigns to not report direct payments to Facebook or Google," [Campaign Legal Center's Brendan] Fischer told Salon in an email. "Usually, what's happening is that the campaign is reporting payments to a digital consulting firm, and the firm creates the ads and also pays the platform as part of their contract. That's the kind of situation where the FEC has said that sub-vendor reporting is not required."
"With the Trump campaign, the Facebook payments are probably buried under a few layers: the campaign is reporting payments to American Made, and American Made is then paying the digital firm, and the digital firm is then paying Facebook and Google," he added.
Fischer said, however, that he could not explain the situation with Digital Consulting Group.
The Institute for Free Speech is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that promotes and defends the First Amendment rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org.
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment