•   
  •   
  •   

Politics Is banning Trump from Facebook a First Amendment issue? Clarence Thomas, other conservatives say it is

14:41  20 june  2021
14:41  20 june  2021 Source:   usatoday.com

Biden's pick for appeals court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, clears Senate hurdle despite GOP opposition

  Biden's pick for appeals court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, clears Senate hurdle despite GOP opposition One of President Biden's first judicial nominees for an appeals court is being closely watched for the possibility of a future Supreme Court nomination.Despite opposition from some Republicans, the Senate agreed 52-46 to cut off debate on the appeals court nomination of U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, meaning her confirmation for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is all but assured.

The Facebook oversight board's decision to extend the suspension of former President Donald Trump's account earlier this month raised the ire of some on the right. Trump's account has been frozen since Jan. 7, after he praised supporters who launched a deadly attack on the Capitol, but Facebook said it would consult experts to determine when "the risk to public safety has receded."

a man wearing a suit and tie: Is banning Trump from Facebook a First Amendment issue? Clarence Thomas, other conservatives say it is © Colin Smith/USA TODAY Network, and AP Is banning Trump from Facebook a First Amendment issue? Clarence Thomas, other conservatives say it is

"If Big Tech can ban a former President, what’s to stop them from silencing the American people next?" said Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel.

Manchin Says He Will Continue to Support Hyde Amendment

  Manchin Says He Will Continue to Support Hyde Amendment The senator could use his position on the Appropriations Committee to ensure that any spending bill would have the ban on taxpayer funding for abortions.“I’m going to support Hyde in every way possible,” Manchin said. The West Virginia senator is one of only a few congressional Democrats who have expressed support for the measure, which bans almost all federal funding of abortions.

Conservatives' reactions reflect a new push to expand First Amendment free speech protections to privately owned forums. Dozens of states — many run by Republicans — have proposed legislation targeting private companies' policies. And conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently questioned the constitutionality of private company control over user content.

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

However, the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech,"   applies to government entities, not private domains.

"The First Amendment only restrains government; it does not restrain a private company. In fact, those companies have their own First Amendment right to determine, as would a newspaper, for example, what will appear on their sites," said Gene Policinski, senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum.

Missouri attorneys: Funding Medicaid expansion under Amendment 2 unconstitutional

  Missouri attorneys: Funding Medicaid expansion under Amendment 2 unconstitutional Not only are lawmakers not obligated to fund Medicaid expansion under Amendment 2, but doing so would violate the Missouri Constitution, state attorneys argued in their response to a lawsuit challenging the Legislature’s decision not to fund expansion. © Provided by Washington Examiner “The legislative branch has exclusive authority over appropriations under the Missouri Constitution,” state attorney John Sauer wrote, maintaining any order issued by a judge requiring the state to provide medical coverage to those eligible under Amendment 2 would violate the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branc

A discrepancy persists between what some politicians want from big tech and companies' rights under the First Amendment, according to Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University and former editor in chief of USA TODAY.

"The bottom line remains that Facebook is a private company, and it has its own First Amendment rights to decide what it wants to put on its service,"  Paulson said.

Some conservative Republicans have long criticized tech companies' ability to regulate speech on their platforms, claiming infringement of free speech when someone is banned or suspended for violating usage policies.

"There are a host of people who, for example, find that when they make a statement that Facebook or Twitter or someone deems to be threatening... and they're banned or suspended, that it somehow is a violation of free speech rights," said Policinski. "Terms of service are a contract between me and the company, and they lay those out, and they have a right to enforce those. It is not a free speech matter."

Clarence Thomas Fast Facts

  Clarence Thomas Fast Facts View CNN's Fast Facts about Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. © POOL Clarence Thomas at his 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearing. PersonalBirth date: June 23, 1948 Birth place: Pin Point, GeorgiaBirth name: Clarence ThomasFather: M.C. Thomas, a farm worker Mother: Leola (Anderson) ThomasMarriages: Virginia (Lamp) Thomas (May 30, 1987-present); Kathy (Ambush) Thomas (1971-1984, divorced) Children: with Kathy (Ambush) Thomas: Jamal, 1973Education: Holy Cross College, A.B., 1971; Yale Law School, J.D.

Twitter and Snapchat permanently banned Trump after the Jan. 6 attacks on Capitol, while YouTube, a Google service, suspended his accounts.

What is a public forum?

Jennifer Lambe, a University of Delaware communication professor who specializes in First Amendment rights, says an argument that social media platforms have become public forums meriting congressional oversight is picking up steam.

a close up of a person: Trump's allies within the Republican Party blasted Facebook's May 5 decision to maintain the ban on Trump, repeatedly invoking the phrase © Colin Smith/USA TODAY Network, and AP Trump's allies within the Republican Party blasted Facebook's May 5 decision to maintain the ban on Trump, repeatedly invoking the phrase "free speech."

The Congressional Research Service states that "state action doctrine provides that constitutional free speech protections generally apply only when a person is harmed by an action of the government, rather than a private party." In other words, government cannot limit free speech, but private industry can.

Lambe said colleagues have presented the idea of expanding the state action doctrine "so that the First Amendment applies to private companies in particular circumstances, like the ones that social media have today."

Biden poised to double the number of Black women appeals court judges

  Biden poised to double the number of Black women appeals court judges Biden is on course to increase the number of Black women appellate judges to eight. Advocates say the added diversity builds trust in the federal bench.While advocates for greater diversity say the share is still too small, Biden is on track to grow the number of Black female appellate judges to eight from four, ensuring that at least one Black woman is serving on more than half the nation's circuit courts.

Some legal experts say the Supreme Court has expanded the doctrine before. In Marsh v. Alabama (1946) the court ruled that a town privately owned by a company was subject to First Amendment principles.

Paul Domer in the Notre Dame Law Review argued social media companies fall under the special expansion established in the Marsh case.

"Therefore, those companies, though private, could be subject to First and Fourteenth Amendment claims of violating the right of free speech," Domer wrote.

Lambe said a push to expand the doctrine to include big tech companies would come under legal scrutiny. But due to the makeup of the judiciary, which leans conservative, she thinks some Republicans might try.

"I suspect that this or something like this will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court in the next few years, and I suspect that the Supreme Court will be amenable to maybe making this extension of the state action doctrine," Lambe said.

Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion

Weeks before Facebook's oversight board extended Trump's ban, conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas advanced arguments for big tech oversight in an opinion when Twitter users blocked by Trump's public account sued the president.

Thomas questioned the constitutionality of private firms' control over speech on their platforms, as outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The act allows social media platforms to regulate their own content and grants legal immunity for removing posts that violate company policies.

Progressives Earned a Qualified Supreme Court Win From Clarence Thomas

  Progressives Earned a Qualified Supreme Court Win From Clarence Thomas By fighting all the way to the Supreme Court, they gave other victims of human rights abuses a renewed and unexpected hope for justice.

"Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors," Thomas wrote. "Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms."

"Right now there are legislators who are interested in rewriting section 230 so that it gives Facebook and Twitter and other social media less latitude and particularly, less protection from libel suits," Paulson told USA TODAY.

Legislative efforts to reign in big tech

Members of the Florida legislature explicitly targeted tech companies when Republicans introduced Senate Bill 7072, a punitive bill against social media platforms, after  Trump was banned from Twitter.

SUBSCRIBE: Help support quality journalism like this.

Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Trump ally, signed S.B. 7072 into law last month. Under the new law, big tech companies have to establish a method of identifying a person running for office.  A platform would also face fines of $250,000 a day for suspending politicians' accounts for 60 days or longer. Similar legislation has been proposed in state legislatures around the country, Paulson says.

"There are a disquieting number of pieces of legislation that are being passed around state to state right now that can potentially infringe on First Amendment rights," Paulson said.

Supreme Court turns back Obamacare challenge, allowing individual coverage mandate to stand

  Supreme Court turns back Obamacare challenge, allowing individual coverage mandate to stand The Affordable Care Act case is among the most consequential the Supreme Court considered this term. It follows years of fiery debate over Obamacare.In a 7-2 ruling, the court issued a narrow ruling holding that the conservative states that sued over the law did not have standing to do so because they were not directly harmed.

The Florida bill was one of dozens introduced this year, nationwide, centered on how private companies moderate content, according to The New York Times.

Social media 'bias'

Some conservatives claim social media giants Facebook, Twitter and Google collude with liberals to censor conservative speech online.

Brent Bozell, the founder of the conservative Media Research Center, said that over 2,200 examples of what he considers censorship have been compiled on Free Speech America, a branch of the center.

"The problem with Section 230 is that it allows the most-powerful companies in human history to censor online speech and interfere in elections without any recourse," he said. “We are coordinating with our allies in Washington, in the states and around the world to come up with legislative, regulatory and, if necessary, legal remedies to the simple fact that Big Tech has too much control over our lives."

a man wearing a bow tie around his face: Some political conservatives have charged that © Colin Smith/USA TODAY Network, and AP Some political conservatives have charged that "social media giants" Facebook, Twitter and Google collude with far-left liberals to censor conservative speech online.

But ensuring conservative opinion is fairly represented on internet platforms is not the government's responsibility, says Policinski.

"If there's an absence of conservative voices on social media, I assume that enough conservatives who feel that way will flock to a site which offers a more conservative viewpoint," he said. "That is the marketplace of ideas. There is no guarantee that under the First Amendment — after it ensures the government doesn't prevent or punish you for speaking — that anyone will listen. That's up to you."

Stephen Puetz, senior vice president of political consulting firm Axiom Strategies, which represents Republican clients, told USA TODAY that Republicans are trying to expose an inherent bias in social media bans and suspensions.

Supreme Court Finds Cops Cannot Simply Barge into a Home in Pursuit of Someone Suspected of a Misdemeanor

  Supreme Court Finds Cops Cannot Simply Barge into a Home in Pursuit of Someone Suspected of a Misdemeanor The court ruled that cops are not universally authorized to make warrantless entries into homes on the suspicion that a fleeing party committed a misdemeanor. The post Supreme Court Finds Cops Cannot Simply Barge into a Home in Pursuit of Someone Suspected of a Misdemeanor first appeared on Law & Crime.The case presented a tough question for the Court, and it became clear during oral arguments that justices were loathe to create a categorical rule would extend an exception to the warrant rule to every case involving a suspected misdemeanor.

"There's folks who make the argument that these are private companies and they can do what they want," he said.

Legislation like the recent Florida law, as well as other proposed regulations, are efforts to "encourage more thoughtful review before banning people," according to Puetz.

"Limiting speech too aggressively and unfairly is not good for the public discourse in our country."

But Paul Barrett, deputy director of the New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, said that complaints of censorship on social media from Republicans and conservatives are unfounded.

“There is a broad campaign going on from the right to argue that they’re being silenced or cast aside, and that spirit is what is helping to feed the extremism that we are seeing in our country right now,” he said. “We can’t just allow that to be a debating point. It’s not legitimate. It’s not supported by the facts.”

Paulson said big tech companies reserve the right to remove content they deem harmful according to their policies.

"Clearly there are things that Facebook is taking down that that they view as harmful and that some conservatives believe is valuable. But that's Facebook's right," he said.

"Facebook can exercise its First Amendment rights and decide what it wants to share with the public. These principles are clear," he said. "Protecting businesses and preventing inappropriate regulation has always been a conservative value, so this is all very surprising."

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Is banning Trump from Facebook a First Amendment issue? Clarence Thomas, other conservatives say it is

Supreme Court Finds Cops Cannot Simply Barge into a Home in Pursuit of Someone Suspected of a Misdemeanor .
The court ruled that cops are not universally authorized to make warrantless entries into homes on the suspicion that a fleeing party committed a misdemeanor. The post Supreme Court Finds Cops Cannot Simply Barge into a Home in Pursuit of Someone Suspected of a Misdemeanor first appeared on Law & Crime.The case presented a tough question for the Court, and it became clear during oral arguments that justices were loathe to create a categorical rule would extend an exception to the warrant rule to every case involving a suspected misdemeanor.

usr: 9
This is interesting!