Tag: 1st amendment

Oklahoma State Senator authors bill to limit freedom of the press

If the Oklahoma legislature passes it, the Common Sense Freedom of Press Control Act would place more monitoring requirements and financial obligations on journalists and media outlets.

State Sen. Nathan Dahm (R – Broken Arrow) authored Senate Bill 1837, which seeks to “avoid potential abuse of the freedom of the press.”

Under the proposed requirements, anyone who works for a media outlet would need to submit to criminal background checks and quarterly drug tests.

The bill would also require them to file for a license from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, obtain $1 million in liability insurance, and attend an eight-hour “propaganda-free” safety training developed by PragerU.

The license for individual journalists would cost $290 every five years. Media outlets would also need to pay $250,000 for a license every year and obtain $50 million in liability insurance. That applies to national and local outlets alike.

Those outlets would also be required to provide the following disclaimer before each story, or throughout any video: “WARNING: THIS ENTITY IS KNOWN TO PROVIDE PROPAGANDA. CONSUMING PROPAGANDA MAY BE DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR HEALTH AND HEALTH OF THE REPUBLIC.”

Keep reading

Feds Will Try Backpage Co-Founder Michael Lacey for a Third Time

Third time’s a charm? Let’s hope not. More than five and a half years after journalist and Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey was arrested, federal prosecutors have indicated that they will try him for a third time on the same charges.

It’s a frightening reminder of how far authorities will go to get their way—and to warn tech companies and publishers against platforming speech the government doesn’t like.

When you zoom out a bit, it’s clear Lacey’s case could have implications for anyone who posts or consumes content online.

Doesn’t the Constitution bar being tried twice on the same criminal charges? Generally, yes—in cases involving an acquittal or conviction, that is. But Lacey’s two previous trials resulted in mistrials, meaning the government can take another shot if it likes. And in a motion filed yesterday, prosecutors announced that indeed they would like a do over, again.

The first trial, back in 2021, was declared a mistrial after prosecutors and their witnesses couldn’t stop suggesting that Lacey and his co-defendants were charged with child sex trafficking. They were not, and efforts to suggest as much could have seriously prejudiced a jury.

In actuality, Lacey, his longtime (and now deceased) publishing partner James Larkin, and several other former Backpage staffers and executives were charged with violating the federal Travel Act by facilitating prostitution. They were also accused of conspiracy to facilitate prostitution and money laundering in service of this.

The second trial, held last fall, saw a jury totally acquit two of the defendants while two others—Scott Spear and John “Jed” Brunst—were acquitted on multiple charges and found guilty on multiple charges.

Lacey’s outcome was also mixed but with far fewer guilty or not guilty verdicts. He was ultimately found guilty on just one count and not guilty on just one count; the jury was hung on the remaining 84 counts. So, federal judge Diane Humetewa declared a mistrial with respect to these 84 counts, allowing (but not requiring) the government to try again.

Keep reading

US Supreme Court Defends Free Speech on Palestine

Free-speech defenders welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to take up a lawsuit that outlandishly claimed a civil society group provided “material support” for terrorism by advocating for Palestinian human rights.

The Supreme Court’s punting of Jewish National Fund v. U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR)— which comes over three months into Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip — marks the third consecutive time a federal court has dismissed the case, which USCPR said casts “collective activism and expression of solidarity as unlawful.”

In the case’s first dismissal in March 2021, a federal judge said that the plaintiffs’ argument was “to say the least, not persuasive.”  

USCPR Executive Director Ahmad Abuznaid hailed Monday’s move by the nation’s highest court, reiterating the group stands for “justice for all and an end to funding genocide.”

“There’s no lawsuit in the world that can stop us from pushing our demands for human rights,” he said. “We will remain focused on opposing Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people and pursuing justice and freedom for the Palestinian people.”

According to USCPR: 

“At issue were USCPR’s fiscal sponsorship of the Boycott National Committee and expressions of support for the rights and demands of Palestinians participating in the Great Return March [2108-19], when Palestinians protested to demand respect for their right to return to the villages from which Israeli settlers expelled them in 1948.”

Keep reading

X CEO Linda Yaccarino Says “Free Speech” Ends at “Hate Speech”

X continues to sit on two chairs and send mixed signals regarding the company’s stance on free speech.

A new blog post penned this week by X Corp CEO Linda Yaccarino goes into this, at once claiming that society must “empower people to express its thoughts” – but also, that the line must be drawn at “hate” and “hate speech.”

Considering the platform’s long and difficult history with suppressing free speech, well documented in the Twitter Files, and the fact terms like “hate speech” not to mention “misinformation” are so often used simply to cover up straight-up censorship, Yaccarino’s intent here can be seen as confusing.

All the more so since the blog post is entitled, “Safeguarding Information Independence and Combating Hate Speech” only to be followed by the subtitle, “Building an Indispensable Global Town Square.”

This is particularly interesting since it’s an admission of sorts that X is indeed a (digital) town square. The argument that this is the case with all major social sites has been used for a long time to prove that speech there should be protected under the US Constitution’s First Amendment, regardless of the companies being privately-owned.

The term “modern public square” as it pertains to social networks is found in the 2017 US Supreme Court opinion in Packingham v. North Carolina.

Keep reading

Oklahoma proposal would make watching porn a felony, ban sexting outside marriage

An Oklahoma state senator has proposed a law that would make watching pornography a felony and ban sexting among people who are not married.

The bill, set to be introduced next month by state Sen. Dusty Deevers (R-Elgin), would prohibit consuming or producing sexual content that “lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value” in any medium.

The measure defines “obscene material” as the depiction or description of any “acts of sexual intercourse,” including those that are “normal or perverted, actual or simulated.”

Content depicting sodomy and masturbation would also be off the table, in addition to videos, movies, video games and text messages that involve “sadomasochistic abuse” and “acts of excretion in a sexual context.”

Under the measure, pictures of human genitals or women’s breasts would also be banned as well as “lewd exhibition” of the “buttocks.”

It would carry prison sentences of up to a year and $2,000 fines.

Keep reading

Advocates Outraged That Feds Asked Banks To Search Customers’ ‘Religious Texts’ Purchases

Faith leaders and religious liberty advocates are up in arms over news that the federal government encouraged banks and other financial institutions to search customers’ private accounts using the search term “religious texts.”

The “religious texts” search term was among those federal officials asked financial institutions to use following the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, a congressional source with direct knowledge confirmed to The Epoch Times on Jan. 18.

Other terms that banks, credit card companies, and financial firms were asked to use in the searches included “MAGA” and “Trump,” according to the House Judiciary Committee. Federal officials at the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department sought the data from such searches as part of their investigation of the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

Religious liberty advocates interviewed by The Epoch Times were unanimous in condemning the searches, which were conducted without judicially authorized search warrants.

“This is beyond alarming,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told The Epoch Times. “If we did a word search in history of the type of activities the Biden administration is engaged in, it would return words like ‘KGB,’ ’totalitarian,‘ ’repressive,’ ‘anti-democratic,’ and ‘grave threat to freedom.’”

Family Research Council is a Washington-based nonprofit advocacy group that works on behalf of traditional values, including and especially defense of the family and religious freedom.

“The last place you would anticipate this kind of government intrusion into freedom of speech is America and yet it is rife with this administration and with the ‘deep state,’” Liberty Counsel founder and Chairman Mat Staver told The Epoch Times.

“It is a very serious concern and it should be a serious concern, no matter your political beliefs because if this is permitted, then it just depends on who is in power. This is what despotic governments do to suppress people that they don’t agree with,” he said.

Mr. Staver’s organization, Liberty Counsel, is an Orlando, Florida-based nonprofit religious liberty defense foundation.

Keep reading

AI Fraud Act Could Outlaw Parodies, Political Cartoons, and More

Mixing new technology and new laws is always a fraught business, especially if the tech in question relates to communication. Lawmakers routinely propose bills that would sweep up all sorts of First Amendment-protected speech. We’ve seen a lot of this with social media, and we’re starting to see it with artificial intelligence. Case in point: the No Artificial Intelligence Fake Replicas And Unauthorized Duplications (No AI FRAUD) Act. Under the auspices of protecting “Americans’ individual right to their likeness and voice,” the bill would restrict a range of content wide enough to ensnare parody videos, comedic impressions, political cartoons, and much more.

The bill’s sponsors, Reps. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) and Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.), say they’re concerned about “AI-generated fakes and forgeries,” per a press release. They aim to protect people from unauthorized use of their own images and voices by defining these things as the intellectual property of each individual.

The No AI Fraud Act cites several instances of AI being used to make it appear that celebrities created ads or art that they did not actually create. For instance, “AI technology was used to create the song titled ‘Heart on My Sleeve,’ emulating the voices of recording artists Drake and The Weeknd,” states the bill’s text. AI technology was also used “to create a false endorsement featuring Tom Hanks’ face in an advertisement for a dental plan.”

But while the examples in the bill are directly related to AI, the bill’s actual reach is much more expansive, targeting a wide swath of “digital depictions” or “digital voice replicas.”

Salazar and Dean say the bill balances people’s “right to control the use of their identifying characteristics” with “First Amendment protections to safeguard speech and innovation.” But while the measure does nod to free speech rights, it also expands the types of speech deemed legally acceptable to restrict. It could mean way more legal hassles for creators and platforms interested in exercising their First Amendment rights, and result in a chilling effect on certain sorts of comedy, commentary, and artistic expression.

Keep reading

Reddit must share IP addresses of piracy-discussing users, film studios say

For the third time in less than a year, film studios with copyright infringement complaints against a cable Internet provider are trying to force Reddit to share information about users who have discussed piracy on the site.

In 2023, film companies lost two attempts to have Reddit unmask its users. In the first instance, US Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ruled in the US District Court for the Northern District of California that the First Amendment right to anonymous speech meant Reddit didn’t have to disclose the names, email addresses, and other account registration information for nine Reddit users. Film companies, including Bodyguard Productions and Millennium Media, had subpoenaed Reddit in relation to a copyright infringement lawsuit against Astound Broadband-owned RCN about subscribers allegedly pirating 34 movie titles, including Hellboy (2019), Rambo V: Last Blood, and Tesla.

In the second instance, the same companies sued Astound Broadband-owned ISP Grande, again for alleged copyright infringement occurring over the ISP’s network. The studios subpoenaed Reddit for user account information, including “IP address registration and logs from 1/1/2016 to present, name, email address, and other account registration information” for six Reddit users, per a July 2023 court filing.

In August, a federal court again quashed that subpoena, citing First Amendment rights. In her ruling, Beeler noted that while the First Amendment right to anonymous speech is not absolute, the film producers had already received the names of 118 Grande subscribers. She also said the film producers had failed to prove that “the identifying information is directly or materially relevant or unavailable from another source.”

Keep reading

AI Watermarking Is Advocated by Biden’s Advisory Committee Member, Raising Concerns for Parody and Memes

The Biden administration doesn’t seem quite certain how to do it – but it would clearly like to see AI watermarking implemented as soon as possible, despite the idea being marred by many misgivings.

And, even despite what some reports admit is a lack of consensus on “what digital watermark is.” Standards and enforcement regulation are also missing. As has become customary, where the government is constrained or insufficiently competent, it effectively enlists private companies.

With the standards problem, these seem to none other than tech dinosaur Adobe, and China’s TikTok.

It’s hardly a conspiracy theory to think the push mostly has to do with the US presidential election later this year, as watermarking of this kind can be “converted” from its original stated purpose – into a speech-suppression tool.

The publicly presented argument in favor is obviously not quite that, although one can read between the lines. Namely – AI watermarking is promoted as a “key component” in combating misinformation, deepfakes included.

And this is where perfectly legal and legitimate genres like parody and memes could suffer from AI watermarking-facilitated censorship.

Spearheading the drive, such as it is, is Biden’s National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee and now one of its members, Carnegie Mellon University’s Ramayya Krishnan, admits there are “enforcement issues” – but is still enthusiastic about the possibility of using technology that “labels how content was made.”

From the Committee’s point of view, a companion AI tool would be a cherry on top.

However, there’s still no actual cake. Different companies are developing watermarking which can be put in three categories: visible, invisible (i.e., visible only to algorithms), and based on cryptographic metadata.

Keep reading

Biden Is Overseeing the Silent Death of the First Amendment

In early 2024, a new, grim chapter may be written in the annals of journalistic history. Julian Assange, the publisher of Wikileaks, could board a plane for extradition to the United States, where he faces up to 175 years in prison on espionage charges for the crime of publishing newsworthy information.

The persecution of Assange is clear evidence that the Biden administration is overseeing the silent death of the First Amendment—with global consequences.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s exposé during the Watergate scandal is seen as a triumph of truth over power. Their investigative reporting led to the downfall of President Nixon, cementing their status as champions of press freedom. However, what if this tale had taken a dark turn, with the journalists prosecuted for espionage and silenced under the guise of national security? While this is mere fiction, Assange’s plight is all too real.

Assange, the standard-bearer of our era’s investigative journalism, awaits extradition in a British cell in Belmarsh Prison, a fate that could stifle the beacon of transparency he represents. At a time when the world grapples with the erosion of press freedom, with journalists imprisoned and killed, Assange’s case raises profound questions about the consequences of challenging power and unveiling uncomfortable realities.

The legacy of WikiLeaks goes beyond exposing government misconduct; it pierces the veil of secrecy shrouding global affairs. The release of Collateral Murder, the haunting camera footage from a 2007 Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad showing the murder of several civilians, including two Reuters journalists, shocked the world. As we’ve seen in the past two months, the killing of civilians and journalists in war continues. In the last two months, Israel’s bombardment of Gaza has killed dozens of journalists, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. On Thursday, human rights groups determined that Israel had deliberately fired on a Reuters journalist in southern Lebanon—a blatant war crime.

The aim of targeting journalists is to keep information where governments want it—under lock and key. That is why Wikileaks is such a threat—because, since its founding, it has fearlessly worked to wrest that information out of the hands of the powerful and put it in the hands of the people.

Keep reading