Tag: 1st amendment

Colorado Amendment Addresses Concerns On Banning Social Media Marijuana Posts, But Questions On Psychedelics And Other Drugs Remain

Colorado lawmakers advanced an amended social media bill on Thursday that, as introduced, would have forced platforms to ban users for talking positively about marijuana online. But while the sponsor says the issue has now been “worked out” with recent changes, critics contend the revised legislation still fails to address concerns around statements regarding other substances, including state-legal psychedelics, certain hemp products and even some over-the-counter cough syrups.

The bill, SB24-158—a broad proposal concerning internet age verification and content policies—would require social media platforms to immediately remove any user “who promotes, sells, or advertises an illicit substance.”

Initially that provision would have applied to all controlled substances under state law, but an amendment from the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Chris Hansen (D), includes language saying that “a social media platform may allow a user to promote, sell, or advertise medical marijuana or retail marijuana to users who are at least twenty-one years of age” so long as the content complies with state cannabis laws.

Members of the Senate Committee on Business, Labor and Technology at Thursday’s hearing unanimously approved the amended bill, advancing it to the Appropriations Committee with a favorable report.

“We have worked out adjustment language with the MJ industry,” Hansen told Marijuana Moment in an email about the amendment last week, in response to questions about the potential consequences of the bill. “Those amendments will be distributed later today in preparation for the bill being voted on in committee on Thursday.”

But even before the amendment landed in committee this week, a fellow at the center-right think tank R Street Institute, said the changes leave major issues unaddressed.

“The updated version would still prevent users from from promoting NyQuil or anti-anxiety medications among many others, even though it exempts marijuana,” Shoshana Weismann, who first called out the potential problems in the bill’s drug-related language, told Marijuana Moment in an email. “And if you promote those medications, you will be reported to law enforcement. That is asinine.”

The amended bill also still specifies that its restrictions apply to certain hemp products with more than 1.25 milligrams THC or a CBD-to-THC ratio of less than 20 to 1, as well as most other hemp-containing products intended for human consumption that are not “a dietary supplement, a food, a food additive, or an herb.”

Keep reading

FBI Agent Says He Hassles People ‘Every Day, All Day Long’ Over Facebook Posts

The FBI spends “every day, all day long” interrogating people over their Facebook posts. At least, that’s what agents told Stillwater, Oklahoma, resident Rolla Abdeljawad when they showed up at her house to ask her about her social media activity. 

Three FBI agents came to Abdeljawad’s house and said that they had been given “screenshots” of her posts by Facebook. Her lawyer Hassan Shibly posted a video of the incident online on Wednesday.

Abdeljawad told agents that she didn’t want to talk and asked them to show their badges on camera, which the agents refused to do. She wrote on Facebook that she later confirmed with local police that the FBI agents really were FBI agents.

“Facebook gave us a couple of screenshots of your account,” one agent in a gray shirt said in the video.

“So we no longer live in a free country and we can’t say what we want?” replied Abdeljawad.

“No, we totally do. That’s why we’re not here to arrest you or anything,” a second agent in a red shirt added. “We do this every day, all day long. It’s just an effort to keep everybody safe and make sure nobody has any ill will.”

Keep reading

Porn industry asks Supreme Court to block Texas law requiring age verification before accessing sites

The adult entertainment industry will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to block a Texas law that requires porn websites to verify the age of users. The case presents the justices with a chance to opine on the legal protections afforded to pornography, particularly in the context of the internet.

The nation’s most conservative appeals court — the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — ruled on March 7 to overturn a district court injunction that blocked Texas H.B. 1181. The law requires internet companies whose content consists of more than one-third “sexual material harmful to minors” to “use reasonable age verification methods” to limit their distribution to adults, and to display a health warning before showing any such materials. Embattled Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton began enforcing the law in February, and shortly thereafter began a $1.6 million civil action against PornHub for noncompliance. The Free Speech Coalition, an association of the adult film industry, sued to block the Texas law, claiming that it both violated the First Amendment and conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 is the federal statute that protects internet platforms from liability based on third-party content that violates the law.

Keep reading

Florida bans social media for kids under 14. Will the bill hold up?

Florida has passed a bill to ban minors under 14 from having social media accounts, and online platforms will be forced to delete any accounts already owned by those under the legal age.

For people between ages 14 and 15, parental consent will be needed to register a social media account.

The bill, HB 3, is considered one of the most restrictive social media bans for minors in the U.S. and will take effect on Jan. 1, 2025. But some critics believe the law won’t stand up to a constitutional challenge, and argue it infringes on the First Amendment rights of young people in the state.

Proponents of the law, however, say it will protect children from online harm and risks to their mental health.

The bill was championed by Republican Speaker Paul Renner, who warned of social media’s “addictive technologies” at the bill-signing ceremony held at a Jacksonville school.

“A child in their brain development doesn’t have the ability to know that they’re being sucked into these addictive technologies and to see the harm and step away from it, and because of that we have to step in for them,” Renner said.

“Social media harms children in a variety of ways,” Gov. Ron DeSantis stated in a news release after signing the bill into law. “HB 3 gives parents a greater ability to protect their children.”

Meanwhile, Democrat Anna Eskamani, of the Florida House of Representatives, argues the law will do the opposite for parents.

“Though I agree more needs to be done in protecting our youth on social media, this bill goes too far in taking away parents’ rights and banning social media usage — and thus First Amendment Rights — for young Floridians,” Eskamani said in a news release.

Keep reading

‘Hamstringing the Government’: A Viral Narrative Distorts Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Understanding of Free Speech

“My biggest concern,” said Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Monday, “is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”

That comment came during oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, the case that asks if President Joe Biden’s administration violated the First Amendment when it sought to pressure social media apps to remove information it deemed harmful. It took almost no time for Jackson’s tidbit to set off the viral narrative that she doesn’t grasp basic constitutional principles, particularly when considering the point of the First Amendment is indeed to hamstring what the government can do in response to speech it may not like.

“Jackson raises eyebrows with comment that First Amendment ‘hamstrings’ government,” wrote Fox News. “Leftists want unlimited government — which is why they hate the Constitution,” lamented The Federalist. It was “literally one of the craziest things I’ve ever seen,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio).

But like so many viral narratives, Jackson’s comments were fairly benign in context, and were actually echoed by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Perhaps most ironically, her remark spoke fundamentally to the crux of the case: The government, of course, does not have the right to punish someone criminally for the vast majority of speech. But does it have the right to persuade?

Jackson may think it does. Her “hamstringing” comment came attached to a hypothetical scenario she posed to Benjamin Aguiñaga, Louisiana’s solicitor general, who argued the Biden administration had overstepped when it contacted social media platforms and attempted to pressure them to remove posts it found objectionable. Suppose a challenge circulated on social media concerning “teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations,” Jackson said. Could the government try to persuade those platforms to remove that content?

No, Aguiñaga said, because that’s still protected speech, no matter how dangerous.

That might very well be the correct interpretation. But Jackson’s take—that such a view could place too much restraint on the government—is one that’s held by many, including, it appears, some of her more conservative colleagues. Kavanaugh, for example, invoked his experience working with government press staff, who regularly call reporters to criticize them and try to influence their coverage. Would it be illegal for the feds to prosecute those journalists for pieces that cast them in a negative light? Absolutely. Is it beyond the pale for the government to express what it believes to be true in seeking better coverage? Not necessarily, Kavanaugh said.

That doesn’t mean they’re correct. But the great irony of the viral Jackson pile-on is that, based on oral arguments, her view may very well prevail.

Keep reading

Make Speech Free Again

Winston Churchill said, “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.”

What has made America great are our basic tenets of individual rights which cannot be taken away by the state, and foremost among these is freedom of speech. Authoritarian regimes always try to control speech. This was true in the Soviet Union, and it is true today in Russia, China and Venezuela.

Mr. Scott Kalb, an elected Democrat on the BET, the town’s finance board, has been circulating a letter in support of the newly proposed Greenwich Speech Police, known by the rather malaprop name of The Greenwich Antisemitism and Anti-Hate Task Force (GAATF?). Presumably they mean the Greenwich Task Force to Combat Hate and Antisemitism. Of course, to deal with actual hate crime we already have the Greenwich Police Department, the State Police and the FBI, so the GAATF is not about crime, it’s about speech, and in this case, it’s about speech Mr. Kalb, Mr. Camillo and members of GAATF don’t like, sometimes found in these pages.

Speech suppression involves deciding what is hateful, and then banning it either directly or surreptitiously with indirect political pressure, “shadow bans” and online “blocking,” as we see in the case before the Supreme Court.

Mr. Kalb in his letter misleadingly cites the rise in antisemitic acts since the October 7th massacre of Israelis as a reason for instituting what amounts to a Speech Tribunal whose role must be to decide what is hate speech and what is antisemitism. Mr. Kalb and the DTC have been at it before, trying to stifle dissent by claiming that identifying Mr. Kalb as a “globalist” was antisemitic, though even the ADL acknowledges that “In some cases, its use [“globalist”] is more or less mainstream.”

Such accusations are invariably attempts to silence opposition.

GAATF is a continuation of Mr. Kalb and the DTC’s ongoing attempts to cover and deflect the actual hate and antisemitism coming from of the left, the evidence of which is incontrovertible and has led to the resignation of college presidents. But the hate from the left is also palpable, and unlike the occasional, laughable Nazi march, the hate from the left is massive and spreading.

Keep reading

23 States and District of Columbia File Amicus Briefs in Favor of Joe Biden and Government Censorship and Regulation of Speech in America – via the MO v. Biden Case

Twenty-three Democrat run states and the District of Columbia, the home of our nation’s capital, filed amicus briefs in support of government censorship and banning of free speech in the United States.

These 23 states and the District of Columbia filed amicus briefs in support of the Biden administration in the SCOTUS case is Murthy, et al v. Missouri, et al, 23-411 (Missouri v. Biden) case.

The states essentially argue that they have an interest in collaborating with tech companies to “encourage” the public to behave themselves and “discourage” the public from believing alleged “disinformation” or engaging in online predatory behavior. The clear message is that they believe that the government has the right to shut down and censor speech.

The list of un-American states that support government censorship include:

New York
Colorado
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Vermont,
Washington,
Washington, D.C.
Wisconsin
New Jersey
New Mexico,
Oregon
Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island,
Delaware,
Hawaii,
Illinois,
Maine,
Maryland,
Massachusetts,
Michigan,
Minnesota,
Nevada

HOWEVER, a number of courageous states filed an Amicus Curiae brief in SUPPORT of Gateway Pundit and the Free Speech Respondents. These (16) heroic states include:

Montana,
Alabama,
Alaska,
Florida,
Georgia,
Iowa,
Idaho,
Tennessee,
Kansas,
Nebraska,
Ohio,
South Carolina,
South Dakota,
Utah,
Virginia,
West Virginia,
and the Arizona Legislature

The “most important free speech case in a generation” Missouri v. Biden (Murthy v. Missouri), is set to be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday, March 18th.

Keep reading

There Is A War On Free Speech, And They Won’t Ever Be Satisfied Until It Is Completely Eradicated

The freedom to say whatever we want is one of the most fundamental rights in a free society.  If we are not free to speak up, it is is just a matter of time before all of our other rights are taken away as well.  So it should deeply alarm all of us that free speech is under attack like never before.  Much of the population has become convinced that “hate speech” is a special class of speech that does not deserve protection.  Of course in practice “hate speech” ends up being whatever forms of expression that the leftist elite hate.  That is why “hate speech” laws are always written so vaguely.  That way they can be used to go after whoever the leftist elite feel like going after at the time.

It is not always easy to have a society where people are allowed to say whatever they want.  People say things all the time that deeply, deeply offend me.  And there are some that have said things about me that are tremendously hateful and untrue.

But if we are going to have a free society, people have got to be free to say whatever they want.  So we should never support freedom of speech being taken away from anyone, because once we start going down that slippery slope it is just a matter of time before they come after our freedom to say what we want.

That is why what is happening in the state of Washington is so alarming.  A new law would allow private individuals to collect up to $2,000 every time they report someone to the new “hate crimes and bias incidents hotline”…

Keep reading

There Is A War On Free Speech, And They Won’t Ever Be Satisfied Until It Is Completely Eradicated

The freedom to say whatever we want is one of the most fundamental rights in a free society.  If we are not free to speak up, it is is just a matter of time before all of our other rights are taken away as well.  So it should deeply alarm all of us that free speech is under attack like never before.  Much of the population has become convinced that “hate speech” is a special class of speech that does not deserve protection.  Of course in practice “hate speech” ends up being whatever forms of expression that the leftist elite hate.  That is why “hate speech” laws are always written so vaguely.  That way they can be used to go after whoever the leftist elite feel like going after at the time.

It is not always easy to have a society where people are allowed to say whatever they want.  People say things all the time that deeply, deeply offend me.  And there are some that have said things about me that are tremendously hateful and untrue.

But if we are going to have a free society, people have got to be free to say whatever they want.  So we should never support freedom of speech being taken away from anyone, because once we start going down that slippery slope it is just a matter of time before they come after our freedom to say what we want.

That is why what is happening in the state of Washington is so alarming.  A new law would allow private individuals to collect up to $2,000 every time they report someone to the new “hate crimes and bias incidents hotline”…

Senate Bill 5427, after it is signed into law, would allow private individuals (note: this is not limited to American citizens) to report “bias incidents*” (see definition below) to the State Attorney General’s Office, with the possibility of receiving up to $2,000 of taxpayers money for this noncriminal incident. The bill was very clear: this is a non-crime which they will then forward to local law enforcement to investigate. What’s to investigate? No crime, no investigation.

The Progressives & Marxists who sponsored this bill say it is intended to help “victims of hate crimes” before a crime even happens. Say what? In reality, SB 5427 would create a “tattletale hotline,” undermine legitimate criminal investigations, and freeze, not just chill, speech & the press in Washington State. People will stop talking to others and writing to others except very close friends & relatives, for fear a greedy “Karen” will report them to Washington’s version of the Gestapo.

This is crazy.

Do we live in East Germany now?

Keep reading

MSNBC Legal Analyst Argues for ‘Common Sense’ Speech Restrictions Live on Air

A legal analyst at MSNBC argued earlier this week that there is a need for “common sense” restrictions to the First Amendment to prevent “disinformation” online.

The comments from University of Michigan law professor Barbara McQuade underscore how many on the far left now view basic American Constitutional rights.

During an interview with network host Rachel Maddow that The New York Post flagged on Thursday, McQuade argued that current restrictions on free speech might not go far enough.

McQuade said previous arguments from the U.S. Supreme Court had set a precedent — that there are some limitations to what people can say if it is intended to create harm — but she added those might not be far-reaching enough.

One such case is 1919’s Schenck v. United States, in which it was ruled that a person could not shout “fire” while in a crowded theater if that person’s rationale for speaking was only to cause public harm.

In the context of American political discourse in the age of social media, McQuade said that the country’s “deep commitment to free speech,” a cornerstone of society, is leaving people vulnerable to being misled.

While hawking a new book she has authored called “Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America,” McQuade told MSNBC she hoped to initiate a “national conversation about truth and our commitment to [free speech].”

After Maddow asked if Americans are vulnerable to being misled more than citizens of other countries without First Amendment protections, McQuade agreed.

Keep reading