Tag: 1st amendment

Twitter’s new CEO Parag Agrawal previously rejected free speech in favor of “healthy public conversation”

In a far-reaching November 2020 interview, Twitter’s new CEO Parag Agrawal, who was the company’s Chief Technology Officer (CTO) at the time, rejected free speech protections that are enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, wished the company had censored QAnon sooner, and touted the company’s approach of censoring content based on “potential for harm.”

“Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation,” Agrawal said in response to a question about protecting free speech as a core value and the role of the First Amendment.

He added that the company now focuses “less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.” In this context, Agrawal said the role of Twitter is increasingly moving toward recommendations and “how we direct people’s attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory.”

Keep reading

Kyle Rittenhouse, Project Veritas, and the Inability to Think in Terms of Principles

On Monday night, we produced an in-depth video report examining the FBI’s targeting of O’Keefe and Project Veritas and the dangers it presents (as we do for all of our Rumble videos, the transcript will soon be made available to subscribers here; for now, you can watch the video at the Rumble link or on the player below). One of the primary topics of our report was the authoritarian tactic that is typically used to justify governmental attacks on those who report news and disseminate information: namely, to decree that the target is not a real journalist and therefore has no entitlement to claim the First Amendment guarantee of a free press.

This not-a-real-journalist tactic was and remains the primary theory used by those who justify the ongoing attempt to imprison Julian Assange. In demanding Assange’s prosecution under the Espionage Act, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wrote in The Wall Street Journal that “Mr. Assange claims to be a journalist and would no doubt rely on the First Amendment to defend his actions.” Yet the five-term Senator insisted: “but he is no journalist: He is an agitator intent on damaging our government, whose policies he happens to disagree with, regardless of who gets hurt.”

This not-a-real-journalist slogan was also the one used by both the CIA and the corporate media against myself and my colleagues in both the Snowden reporting we did in 2013, as well as the failed attempt to criminally prosecute me in 2020 for the year-long Brazil exposés we did: punishing them is not an attack on press freedom because they are not journalists and what they did is not journalism.

What is most striking about this weapon is that — like the campaign to agitate for more censorship — it is led by journalists. It is the corporate media that most aggressively insists that those who are independent, those who are outsiders, those who do not submit to their institutional structures are not real journalists the way they are, and thus are not entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. In order to create a framework to deny Project Veritas’s status as journalists, The New York Times claimed last week that anyone who uses undercover investigations (as Veritas does) is automatically a non-journalist because that entails lying — even though, just two years earlier, the same paper heralded numerous news outlets such as Al Jazeera and Mother Jones for using undercover investigations to accomplish what they called “compelling” reporting.

Keep reading

Colorado Web Designer Petitions Supreme Court After Being Compelled To Celebrate What She Believes Is Wrong

Lawyers representing a Colorado web designer who was slapped with a gag order in July that forced her to celebrate causes she believes are wrong filed a petition to appeal the case in the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.

Lorie Smith, the founder of 303 Creative, lost a 2-1 ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit which mandated that she create custom graphics and websites for LGBT customers despite messages that contradict her religious convictions.

“This case involves quintessential free speech and artistic freedom, which the 10th Circuit astonishingly and dangerously cast aside here,” Kristen Waggoner, the general counsel for the First Amendment legal foundation Alliance Defending Freedom, which has taken on Smith’s case, said in a press call with reporters. “The government shouldn’t weaponize the law to force a web designer to speak messages that violate her beliefs.”

The initial case was launched as a pre-enforcement challenge to Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), the same law weaponized to go after a Denver-area cake artist for refusal to design a custom cake for a same-sex wedding and, more recently, a gender transition. The law prohibits any business that offers public services from discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Smith challenged the law after she received an inquiry for a website for a same-sex wedding but did not respond to the order to avoid violating CADA.

The 10th Circuit rejected Smith’s case against CADA, writing that the law “permissibly compels [Lorie Smith’s] speech,” and concluded, “a faith that enriches society in one way might also damage society in [an]other.” Smith was also reprimanded with a gag order that keeps her from placing a note on her page about what sites would be consistent with her convictions.

“I have clients ranging from individuals to small business owners to nonprofit agencies. I have served and continue to serve all people, including those who identify LGBT,” Smith explained to reporters on Friday. “I simply object to being forced to pour my heart, my imagination, and talents into messages that violate my conscience.”

Waggoner said the legal team was optimistic that the Supreme Court would take up Smith’s case, arguing that the 10th Circuit’s decision was broad.

“I would be surprised if not all nine justice are deeply concerned about it,” said Waggoner, who went on to highlight the court’s prior rulings in defense of Masterpiece Cake Shop owner Jack Phillips.

Keep reading

‘Action could be taken’ against students using wrong pronouns at PPU

On September 13, the Office of Equity and Inclusion notified the student body of Point Park University (PPU) that “action could be taken” against individuals who do not use their classmates’ preferred pronouns. 

Campus Reform obtained a copy of the email.

The university’s Misgendering, Pronoun Misuse, and Deadnaming Policy states that “any individual who has been informed of another person’s gender identity, pronouns, or chosen name is expected to respect that individual.” If a complaint is filed regarding this policy, “action could be taken,” the email reads. 

“While the University recognizes the aspect of intent versus impact, we must recognize that regardless of the intent, if an individual is impacted in a harmful way, action could be taken if a complaint is filed,” the email states.

The email served to notify students on the university’s anti-discrimination policy for the 2021-2022 academic year. 

“The Office of Equity and Inclusion would like to welcome in the 2021-2022 academic year with information on current policies that exist through our office and information regarding the Preferred Name Policy, instances of misgendering, pronoun misuse, and deadnaming (the use of a person’s legal “dead” name instead of using the person’s chosen or preferred name), as well as resources on microaggressions and additional training,” the opening of the email reads. 

Keep reading

State retaliates against private investigator for criticizing police shooting

A state has retaliated against a private investigator for criticizing a police shooting that left two people dead by denying him a license, and now he’s taking his protest to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Institute for Justice explained it is Joshua Gray, of Massachusetts, whose comments about a fatal police action drew the reaction from state officials in the Maine Department of Public Safety, who admitted the rejected his application for a license because of his criticism of the department’s employees.

“When the government retaliates against people because of their speech, it violates the First Amendment. That’s true whether the government is imposing a fine, withholding a parade permit, or denying an occupational license,” explained IJ Senior Attorney Paul Sherman.

The IJ explained, “Gray’s problems with the department began after he criticized the conduct of Maine police in the fatal shooting of 25-year-old Kadhar Bailey and 18-year-old Amber Fagre in February of 2017. Believing that the shooting could have been avoided had it not been for police recklessness, Gray expressed his criticisms on his Facebook page. But when Gray later applied for a license as a professional investigator in Maine, the Department denied Gray’s application on the ground that his online criticism contained factual errors, and therefore he lacked the ‘good moral character’ required for licensure.”

Keep reading

Los Angeles bars protests at homes after anti-vaccine rally supporters show up at officials’ residences

Los Angeles city leaders approved an ordinance Tuesday that would bar protests within 300 feet of the residence belonging to the person being targeted, a move that came following months of demonstrations outside the homes of public and elected officials. 

The City Council voted 12 to 2 to approve the measure, with council members Mike Bonin and Nithya Raman dissenting. A second reading — usually a formality — will be held Sept. 21 for the ordinance to go into effect. 

The ordinance was requested by Council President Nury Martinez and Councilman Mitch O’Farrell, who were the targets of anti-vaccine protesters last month. On Aug. 29, a protester at a Santa Monica rally shared their home addresses and encouraged people to show up at the residences if they voted to approve an ordinance requiring partial proof of vaccination before being able to enter most indoor spaces. 

“We have one week to stop the (vaccination) passports … if it’s unanimous, we’ve lost,” a protester said. “Sharpen your knives, get your guns, get your food now. We find out who voted yes and you show up at their house. We need to intimidate these people.”

“No staffers, no family members of ours should be subjected to this kind of treatment. My address and my home is not a public place for you to come and protest,” she added.

Keep reading

Dr. Shiva Discovers Existence of the Secretive Long Fuse Report — Exposes Twitter-Government Collusion — As Momentous Discovery as Pentagon Papers

Previously we reported on Dr. Shiva Ayyarurai was able to uncover Twitter’s “partner support portal.”

Dr. Shiva discovered that Twitter built a special portal offered to certain governmental entities so that government officials can flag and delete content they dislike for any reason, as part of what they call their “Twitter Partner Status.”

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, the man who invented email, ran for US Senate in Massachusetts as a Republican and made allegations of voter fraud on Twitter. These tweets were then deleted by the far-left tech giant.  Later it was discovered that they were deleted at the direction of government employees of the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office. 

Discovering this, Dr. Ayyadurai filed a federal lawsuit by himself, alleging that his federal civil rights were violated when the government silenced his political speech in order to affect an election.

Keep reading

‘Alarmed And Suspicious’: Senators Tell Biden To Explain Crackdown On ‘Misinformation’

Members of the Senate warned President Biden that his policy of coordinating with social media companies to flag “misinformation” violates Americans’ First Amendment rights.

As The Daily Wire previously reported, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki recently said that users “shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others” if they post “misinformation online.” She also revealed that the Biden administration is “flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”

Last week, President Biden alleged that Facebook is “killing people” by allowing a particular subset of users to spread their views about COVID-19.

“These twelve people are out there giving misinformation. Anyone listening to it is getting hurt by it. It’s killing people. It’s bad information,” Biden said. “My hope is that Facebook, instead of taking it personally, that somehow I’m saying Facebook is killing people, that they would do something about the misinformation, the outrageous misinformation about the vaccine.”

In response, a letter sent to the Commander-in-Chief on Monday by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) — joined by Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Braun (R-IN), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Rick Scott (R-FL), James Lankford (R-OK), and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) — cited Psaki’s statements and expressed concern that the Biden administration’s policy toward “misinformation” is unavoidably partisan.

Keep reading

Facebook Censorship Board Member: Free Speech Is Not A Human Right

Free speech is not a human right, according to prominent Facebook censorship board member Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

“What we’re trying to find, of course, I think many of us engaging in this conversation, is that middle road. How do you moderate content and how do you find that balance between human rights and free speech, which is a human right, but also other human rights because free speech is not an absolute human right,” the Facebook Oversight Board co-chair said during a live stream of Politico’s Tech 28 spotlight.

“It has to be balanced with all the human rights and that is what the oversight is there to do,” she added.

Keep reading