Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s Post

This week marks a significant moment at the United States Supreme Court as it hears arguments in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, cases that revisit the critical and contentious Section 230 of the 1996 Communication Decency Act. At the heart of these cases are laws from Florida and Texas that challenge the current framework of internet speech, platform immunity, and the bounds of censorship versus editorial discretion. As professionals in the legal, tech, and policy sectors, these proceedings underscore the ongoing debate over digital speech, platform accountability, and the extent of First Amendment protections. With last year's SCOTUS rulings on similar themes still fresh, the court's approach to these new challenges could significantly impact not only how social media platforms operate but also the broader landscape of internet regulation ahead of the presidential elections. Let's engage in a thoughtful discussion on what these cases mean for the future of digital expression, platform responsibility, and the balance between protecting free speech while combating harmful content online. How do you see the potential rulings affecting your industry, and what implications could this have for future regulation and the digital public square? https://lnkd.in/ezKKxm83 #SCOTUS #Section230 #DigitalLaw #FreeSpeech #TechPolicy #SocialMediaRegulation

At some point in the Spring of 2024 the Supreme Court will hear argument in NetChoice v. Paxton (5th Cir.) (holding that Texas can limit a social media company's ability to remove posts) and NetChoice v. Florida. (11th Cir.) (Florida's law restricting the right of social media companies to remove posts violates the First Amendment) to determine the constitutionality of statutes that regulate content moderation on social media sites. This is a link to an article that discusses the conflict in the circuits. These are important cases to watch. https://lnkd.in/dVF8Knvc

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐦 𝐈 𝐢𝐧? Per Jeff Dornik: "The FEC recent public statement regarding CNN’s presidential debate makes it clear that CNN will violate federal law if they exclude Robert Kennedy Jr from participating. Kennedy has filed an FEC complaint alleging that CNN, along with Biden and Trump, has flagrantly violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. This Act mandates that media broadcasters use “pre-established” and “objective” criteria to determine candidate participation. Failure to adhere to these criteria renders the debate a campaign contribution, subject to strict donation limits. CNN’s published debate criteria state that “a candidate's name must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold.” While CNN is holding Kennedy to this requirement, they are not applying the same standard to Presidents @JoeBiden and @realDonaldTrump, who are deemed the “presumptive nominee” of their respective parties. The FEC has clarified that the term “presumptive nominee” does not appear in its debate regulations and thus does not exempt CNN from the prohibition on excessive campaign contributions. As the Commission on Presidential Debates explains, “Until the conventions take place, we don’t know who the official nominees will be.” This means that CNN, and every member of its staff involved in planning and holding the debate, is at risk of prosecution for violating campaign finance laws. This risk is now acute, given that any further violation would be knowing and willful, potentially carrying serious jail time. CNN and its staff have been put on clear notice, especially given evidence that the Biden campaign has openly demanded Kennedy's exclusion from the debates and that Trump received assurances from CNN about Kennedy's exclusion. With the FEC’s recent statement, it appears beyond doubt that the debate, absent Kennedy’s participation, will violate campaign finance laws. As explained in the FEC complaint, “By demanding our campaign meet different criteria to participate in the debate than Presidents Biden and Trump, CNN’s debate violates FEC law and constitutes a large prohibited corporate contribution to both the Biden and Trump campaigns. This is why Kennedy has asked the FEC to “enjoin the Parties from holding the presidential debate scheduled for June 27, 2024, until the Parties have come into compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act. To come into compliance, CNN must apply its criteria objectively. Presidents Biden and Trump have not yet been nominated by their parties and their names are not certified to appear on any state ballots. In contrast, Kennedy has been certified to appear on the ballot of numerous states, including California, Delaware, Hawaii, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah. Objectively applying CNN’s criteria requires, at a minimum, that Kennedy be admitted to the debate as he is the candidate that is furthest along in complying with CNN’s debate criteria."

Hello Everybody! #TrustTuesday is here! The U.S. Supreme Court has the power to make pivotal decisions about what Americans can see on social media. These two cases being heard by the U.S. Justices is the most important first amendment cases to be seen since the start of the internet era. After four hours of argument yesterday, Florida & Texas are on the side of not censoring political views on social media platforms and protecting our first amendment rights of free speech. The definition of "content moderation" and the nuances of ownership of what is moderated and allowed to be seen on platforms takes center stage. For those in #TrustandSafety this is likely a hot topic with your teams about the path forward. With a multitude of global elections, the need to curb #misinformation is critical. While also ensuring conservative viewpoints aren't being gated. For companies to scale moderation well, it might be advantageous to leverage 3rd parties to enforce content moderation because of the nuances between censorship verse editorial discretion. If your company needs the highest quality #contentmoderation and #policychangemanagement look to Vaco to protect your brand. #digitalcontentservices #incubationworkflows #riskmanagement #socialmedia #regulatorycompliance https://lnkd.in/gbR7_X-b

MINISTRY OF TRUTH 2023 Headline: Democrats are building an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’ Article excerpts: "In announcing that a staffer would be hired for the specific purpose of censoring inconvenient negative information, the Biden campaign has revealed a concerning truism about the current state of free expression in the United States: that the First Amendment, a once universally revered cornerstone of the American system, is under attack in a way never before seen in American history." "While hardball tactics have always been a feature of political campaigns, the partnership between the campaign of the sitting President of the United States and the most powerful technology companies in human history should alarm us all. In China, we have seen what a system of government looks like when “private” technology companies are co-opted by a ruling party to control the flow of information. A question we all must ask ourselves is whether or not we will allow the current trend to continue and whether we are doing what we must to secure freedom."

Cynical Scot: If only there was such passion and participation in our democracy on a daily and consistent basis-to include investing time and attention to understanding the issues and candidates — and voting accordingly. Optimistic Scot: Well, here is another reason why we all must participate in our democracy-daily and consistently- including voting for/against those that advocate for/against our issues and needs. Maybe more people are registered to vote today than yesterday.

In the radical autocratic minority rule ethos of today's Republican political and judicial philosophy, voting is a privilege to be granted to those who will help keep minority rule in power. Some reasonable measure of free, inclusive and expansive voting has been the benchmark of expanding American democracy. Reducing and imposing a form of privilege on the right to vote serves to take America back to days when the select few determined the power to rule. The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that voting is not a fundamental right. What's next for voters? #Kansas #Votingrights #Statesupremecourt The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that voting is not a fundamental right. What's next for voters? https://lnkd.in/eFu_bAD2

THE FORMIDABLE WEAPON TO SECURE THE ELECTION : THE REVERSE CATAPULT USING THE FORCE OF PROJECTION 1) Example: Trump is not above the law and duly judged for felony" It did not take long Mike Johnson for Justice to strike the judge and the jury in the name of justice. “I do believe the Supreme Court should step in,” Johnson said in an appearance on Fox News the day. “This is totally unprecedented. And it’s dangerous to our system,” Johnson said....“This is diminishing the American people’s faith in our system of justice itself. And to maintain a republic, you have to have that. People have to believe that justice is fair, that there’s equal justice under law.” Johnson said he thought at least some of the court’s justices were worried by the case. “The justices on the court — I know many of them personally — I think they’re deeply concerned about that, as we are,” he said. 2) Infuriating! yes..... but it works. It has worked non stop since Donald Trump learned it in the school yard, perfected with the master Roy Cohn (PROJECTION AS A POLITICAL WEAPON by Chris Bell and Gary Senecal  https://lnkd.in/eKxqXhwT 3) Gross! Primitive ! Yes Dr. Dodes contends that Trump’s predilection for the defense mechanism of projection is “primitive,” since it bypasses engaging with his opponents at the level of logical argumentation, which would involve at a minimum the cultivation of some sort of background knowledge on a topic and engaging in the necessary preparation in order to make a reasoned or rhetorically persuasive case about his favored positions and/or why he is being treated unfairly." 3) But " While Dodes is right to emphasize that Trump’s use of psychological projection may not be a particularly mature defensive style, it is nevertheless surprisingly effective at discrediting his opponents and bringing them down to his level. As such, there is a distinct danger in writing off Trump’s projections as simply “primitive,” infantile, or unrefined, since in fact they operate as an effective political weapon."  4) We better watch again the January 2020 attempted coup : a group of "patriots" were attacking the congress which they accuse to a be illegal and destroy the nation.  It did not work but Joe Biden became the infamous "symbolic general fighting the last war" It was a "coup" but he treated it as a 'normal" bickering between two parties. Today is the mega repeat featuring Trump as the great protector of democracy and justice. Like Bill Maher I have been watching with despair how Trump kept on winning this on going coup with an army of Russian trolls. Watch his predictions for 2024. https://lnkd.in/et_kcSMa https://lnkd.in/eghs9Hpn

What on Earth is Happening in Poland? "The new government is aggressively undoing years of illiberal rule. The upshot is a constitutional mess. In the run-up to Poland’s election in October 2023 Donald Tusk, the leader of the country’s centre-right bloc, said that if he regained power he would need just 24 hours to begin restoring democracy. After the vote Mr Tusk, who was prime minister from 2007 to 2014, formed a coalition that drove the populist incumbents, the Law and Justice party (PiS), from power. On December 13th Mr Tusk was inaugurated and his government got straight to work. But in doing so it has picked fights with the courts and the president, Andrzej Duda, an ally of the ousted government. PiS accuses Mr Tusk of trampling the constitution. Legal experts have also questioned the new prime minister’s tactics. Rival interpretations of the law have divided public institutions. This fight is a test of how easily a centrist government can restore norms that have been bulldozed by a populist one. How is it going? It began with the state media. On December 20th Poland’s state television channel, little more than a propaganda outfit for PiS, was abruptly taken off the air. PiS politicians and journalists at the broadcaster started a sit-in protest. Mr Duda claimed the government was acting illegally and refused to sign a bill extending funding for public media. In response Mr Tusk’s government put the state press-agency, TV and radio companies into insolvency. The process allowed it to dismiss their PiS-appointed managers, bypassing the National Media Council—a regulator created by PiS in 2016, which it stacked in its favour. Mr Tusk’s government argues that the creation of the council was illegal. But a court later refused to register the liquidations of the state broadcasters; officials are expected to appeal. More clashes with the country’s justices followed. On January 15th Adam Bodnar, the new justice minister, replaced the national prosecutor, arguing that his appointment in 2022 had breached regulations. The constitutional court, stacked with PiS loyalists, ordered the new appointment to be paused while it ruled on its legality. Mr Bodnar insists that the justices’ order was 'defective'. The split between the executive and the highest court creates worrying legal ambiguity. The new administration is confronting Mr Duda directly, too. On January 9th police marched into the presidential palace to arrest two former PiS ministers, Mariusz Kaminski and Maciej Wasik, who had taken refuge there. In 2015, while the pair were leading Poland’s anti-corruption efforts, they were convicted of abusing power. Mr Duda said he pardoned them years ago—but Polish justices said he had jumped the gun by acting before a final ruling on the ministers’ case, rendering the pardons invalid. After their recent arrest Mr Kaminski and Mr Wasik went on hunger strike in jail before the president eventually pardoned them again." #poland #law #legalissues

#politics #technology #unitedstates #nobelprizesummit Social media companies are technology platforms which provide the hardware and software infrastructure for the people to voluntarily become active content creators and publishers using their own editorial judgment in compliance with the first amendment. People who create content on social media platforms, as long as they do not violate their first amendment constitutional right to “peaceably assemble” in the exercise of their free speech either as individuals or in voluntary groups, such as do not provoke a violent insurrection against the government as on January 06, 2021, but use the platforms to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” providing legitimate evidence or call out government misinformation and disinformation with evidence, should not be subject to censorship by either the private social media platforms or the government because these virtual platforms enable the exercise of responsible citizenship to hold the government accountable, which formally reports to the citizenry in the American political hierarchy, without fear of either private or government persecution. Two factors, therefore, could determine the outcome of this case: 1. Is the government intending to restrict peaceful free speech because it is counter to government policies? 2. Is the government acting in concert with social media companies through political partisanship or coercion of private businesses using government power to engage in censorship of peaceful free speech it disagrees with or that is counter to the private interests of the platforms which are lobbying the government to protect them from potential competition? American government and corporations are hierarchical but the society is not and is under equal protection of the law for all US persons including the unborn with some much needed exceptions for women in alignment with the values in the Declaration of Independence of July 04, 1776. It is, therefore, advised that government also freely participate to counter peaceful free speech on social media with its own peaceful speech to persuade the American people to consent to its policies, and so should corporations, rather than use power to curtail peaceful free speech interest groups disagree with in violation of the Constitution of the United States.