Free Speech

[UKMikey]

I've already sent in my photo. Waiting to see what the rest of you look like... no, I can wait quite a bit longer. I think the author profiles of the mods exist somewhere on the site but I've no idea where.

[EDIT] There are photos at the bottom of their articles on the news pages.

 

[TexRex]

Why do Republicans hate free speech?

I neglected to mention the private cause of action.



Per the screenshot above (which is cropped as embedded but can be viewed in full by visiting the embedded link), "the legislation would allow parents of children under 16 to sue social media platforms for damages if the platform allows their child to open an account."

What are appropriate damages for a child having opened an account? We're not talking waived liability protections should said child view unlawful content, rather the mere act of permitting access

Beyond that, once parcel to conservatism was a wariness of excessive litigation, but that has obviously been abandoned as those who purport to be conservatives have indeed weaponized civil litigation, perhaps most notably by the formerly novel scheme introduced in Texas anti-abortion law, Senate Bill 8, signed into law in May of 2021.

By the way, many are pointing out that TikTok is sure to be subject to this law if it's passed, and many Republican critics of the platform purport that it's a Chinese spying operation. If that's the case, maybe it's not the best idea to hand over millions of teenagers' photo IDs to the Chinese government. Of course plenty of Republicans also want to ban the platform in the United States, simultaneously depriving private companies the right to carry the product and denying the American public access to information shared on the platform.

 

[Joey D]

Follow up to the earlier story

Utah Legislature passes bills regulating social media companies

The Utah Legislature has passed two bills aimed at regulating social media companies over their policies for children.Senate Bill 152, sponsored by Sen. Mike Mc

kutv.com

 

[TexRex]

Follow up to the earlier story

Utah Legislature passes bills regulating social media companies

The Utah Legislature has passed two bills aimed at regulating social media companies over their policies for children.Senate Bill 152, sponsored by Sen. Mike Mc

kutv.com

Why do Republicans hate free speech? part 7,245.

And here's part 7,246.

Arizona House passes a bill that would force children to say the Pledge of Allegiance

The Arizona House passed a bill on Tuesday that seeks to mandate the state's schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. That's unconstitutional.

reason.com

A bill aimed at forcing Arizona's public school students to recite the Pledge of Alliance each day passed the state House this week. Despite opponents citing that the measure is clearly unconstitutional, the House's Republican majority is pressing forward.

"We stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day on this floor. What's good for us is good for the children," Rep. Barbara Parker (R–Mesa), who sponsored House Bill 2523, said during a hearing for the bill.

H.B. 2523, which was introduced last month, seeks to require that the state's public primary and secondary schools "set aside a specific time each day for students who wish to recite the pledge of allegiance to the United States flag," adding that "each student shall recite the pledge of allegiance to the United States at this time." The bill allows students to refuse only when they are over 18 or have parental permission to refuse to recite the pledge.

"This is to make sure that students growing up understand the country in which they live and embrace the citizenship and the founding principles that we hold so dear," said state Sen. Wendy Rogers (R–Flagstaff).

The bill passed on Tuesday along party lines, with Republicans exclusively supporting the measure. It will likely pass the Republican-controlled state Senate. However, the bill is blatantly illegal, and even if it manages to somehow overcome a veto from the state's Democratic governor, it would likely be quickly overturned in federal court.

As much as Arizona Republicans want to enforce this "citizenship" exercise, the Supreme Court decisively ruled in 1943 that schoolchildren cannot be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Court ruled that the state cannot compel anyone—even schoolchildren—to profess or vow a belief they do not hold.

"Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard," wrote Justice Robert H. Jackson in the Court's opinion, famously adding, "if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in matters of politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Constitutional law doesn't seem to bother the bill's supporters, who argue that the provision allowing parents to permit their children to sit out the pledge is sufficient protection for free speech. "The current law is that parents have a right to direct the education of their child," Parker said during the floor debate over the bill. "And this is a parents' rights state."

Regardless of Arizona Republicans' insistence, they don't have the power to singlehandedly quash the First Amendment rights of Arizona schoolchildren. If the bill becomes law, they'll likely learn this in court.

The bill passed in the state's House of Representatives, despite every Democrat voting against. Republicans have a majority in the House with just two more members than the minority party.

I don't know if the bill is going to pass in the Senate. Republicans have the same slim majority of just two seats in the upper house, and I think little enough of Republicans that I'd say it easily could.

These performative measures are perennial, so no new ground is actually being broken, but I'd lay odds this particular attempt has a secondary performative purpose. Arizona has a new Democratic governor in Katie Hobbs. Any partisan legislation that passes along those lines has slim chance of being signed into law, and while the majority is sufficient for passage, Republicans in the Arizona state house lack a two-thirds majority to flip a veto. In the likely event that Hobbs appropriately vetoes this facially (and farcically) unconstitutional bill, sparing taxpayers costly constitutional challenge that it's sure to fail and quite possibly even a civil settlement to parties whose rights were violated, she's likely to be attacked by Republicans as "hating America" to pander to the idiot base.

 

[TexRex]

Why do Republicans hate free speech? part 7,247.

Florida Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants bloggers who write about Gov. Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and other members of the Florida executive cabinet or legislature to register with the state or face fines.

Brodeur’s proposal, Senate Bill 1316: Information Dissemination, would require any blogger writing about government officials to register with the Florida Office of Legislative Services or the Commission on Ethics.

In the bill, Brodeur wrote that those who write “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” about “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official.

If another blog post is added to a blog, the blogger would then be required to submit monthly reports on the 10th of each month with the appropriate state office. They would not have to submit a report on months when no content is published.

For blog posts that “concern an elected member of the legislature” or “an officer of the executive branch,” monthly reports must disclose the amount of compensation received for the coverage, rounded to the nearest $10 value.

If compensation is paid for a series of posts or for a specific amount of time, the blogger would be required to disclose the total amount to be received, upon publication of the first post in said series or timeframe.

Additional compensation must be disclosed later on.

Failure to file these disclosures or register with state officials, if the bill passes, would lead to daily fines for the bloggers, with a maximum amount per report, not per writer, of $2,500. The per-day fine is $25 per report for each day it’s late.

The bill also requires that bloggers file notices of failure to file a timely report the same way that lobbyists file their disclosures and reports on assessed fines. Fines must be paid within 30 days of payment notice, unless an appeal is filed with the appropriate office. Fine payments must be deposited into the Legislative Lobbyist Registration Trust Fund if it concerns an elected member of the legislature.

For writing about members of the executive branch, fines would be made payable to the Executive Branch Lobby Registration Trust Fund or, if it concerns both groups, the fine may be paid to both related trust funds in equal amounts.

Explicitly, the blogger rule would not apply to newspapers or similar publications, under Brodeur’s proposed legislation.

In additional to the blogger regulations, the bill also removes provisions of state statutes to require judicial notices of sales to be published on publicly accessible websites, and specifies that a government agency can publish legally required advertisements and public notices on county sites if the cost is not paid by or recovered from an individual.

Should the bill pass, it would take effect immediately upon approval.

It isn't free speech if you have to register with, get approval from, and report to the state.

Modern American conservatism is mental illness.

 

[DK]

I wonder where they got the idea.

 

[Joey D]

I wonder where they got the idea.

Ronsheka DeSantinov

 

[UKMikey]

Ronsheka DeSantinov

That's one way to avoid the blog crackdown...

 

[TexRex]

Edit: lol

 

[TexRex]

Aaaaand the Eleventh Circuit denies Florida's motion to stay the November injunction.

 

[UKMikey]

Edit: lol

I don't blame Nicole for being the voice of cool-headed reason but It definitely sounds like Cox is up. For a fight, I mean:

Suing people for pointing out that your legislation is unconstitutional to own the libs? Yeah, that doesn't sound the least bit frivolous or performative.

 

[TexRex]

I don't blame Nicole for being the voice of cool-headed reason but It definitely sounds like Cox is up. For a fight, I mean:

View attachment 1240045

Suing people for pointing out that your legislation is unconstitutional to own the libs? Yeah, that doesn't sound the least bit frivolous or performative.

While Cox is absolutely a connie bitch that I don't expect to be above using vexatious civil suits to penalize critics, I gather in this context that this was addressed to Ari in his capacity as legal counsel at TechFreedom, one of a few groups likely to lead bring challenges to the unconstitutional bill that Cox is expected to sign into law.

Utah Age Verification Mandate Violates First Amendment

techfreedom.org

Today, TechFreedom was joined by several leading First Amendment and technology scholars in a coalition letter to Utah Governor Spencer Cox, expressing concerns over the First Amendment threat posed by two bills—S.B. 152 and H.B. 311—aimed at regulating social media platforms to protect minors.

“The Utah legislature has prioritized doing something fast over doing something constitutional,” said Ari Cohn, TechFreedom’s Free Speech Counsel. “The proposed legislation would require social media platforms to age-verify all users and deny account access to anyone under the age of 18 whose parent does not consent to their having an account.”

“Because minors have substantial First Amendment rights, the government cannot ban them from social media subject only to a parental veto,” Cohn continued. “The Supreme Court has ruled that government regulation of access to social media implicates minors’ First Amendment rights. It was no less staunch a conservative than the late Justice Antonin Scalia who, writing for the high court, declared that the laws conditioning the exercise of minors’ First Amendment rights on prior parental consent would be ‘obviously’ unconstitutional.”

“An age-verification mandate would violate the First Amendment rights of adults—in Utah and across the country,” says Cohn. “The courts have repeatedly struck down laws regulating access to even material properly deemed harmful to minors because requiring age-verification would chill the exercise of First Amendment rights. This legislation would go further: it is not limited to material deemed harmful to minors, and restricts not only accessing information, but also speaking on social media. And although the proposed legislation purports to apply only to Utah residents, platforms cannot know which users are Utah residents without first verifying their identity. This legislation would be a nationwide mandate that Utah is not permitted to impose.”

“The protection of minors is an undeniably important goal, deserving thoughtful consideration and a nuanced approach,” Cohn concluded. “Unfortunately, these bills have received neither. Instead, they have been rushed through the legislative process in a matter of weeks. A more careful legislative process would have revealed their unconstitutionality.”

 

[UKMikey]

While Cox is absolutely a connie bitch that I don't expect to be above using vexatious civil suits to penalize critics, I gather in this context that this was addressed to Ari in his capacity as legal counsel at TechFreedom, one of a few groups likely to lead bring challenges to the unconstitutional bill that Cox is expected to sign into law.

Utah Age Verification Mandate Violates First Amendment

techfreedom.org

Thanks for the context. No wonder he sounded pissed.

 

[TexRex]

("lead bring"?)

 

[TexRex]

 

[TexRex]

 

[HenrySwanson]

Supreme Court allows Colorado designer to deny LGBT+ customers in ruling

Supreme Court delievered final rulings of the term, opening door for artists to deny services to LGBT+ people

www.independent.co.uk

EDIT: Of course it's during Pride month

 

[TexRex]

I haven't read the article but the information provided in the thumbnail is inaccurate.

The ruling by SCOTUS (on a case that, by appearances, may have been wholly fabricated) is that individuals may not be compelled to relay specific expression.

FIRE statement on the Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis

The Supreme Court's decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis is a resounding victory for freedom of expression and freedom of conscience.

www.thefire.org

[snip]

To cast the decision as a “loss” for LGBTQ rights is a mistake that both misreads the facts and ignores the vital importance of freedom of conscience for all Americans. As the Court makes clear, nothing in today’s decision allows businesses like restaurants or movie theaters to refuse service to customers on the basis of protected class status. While the First Amendment “does not protect status-based discrimination unrelated to expression,” wrote Justice Gorsuch for the majority, “generally it does protect a speaker’s right to control her own message — even when we may disapprove of the speaker’s motive or the message itself.”

[snip]

 

[Danoff]

I haven't read the article but the information provided in the thumbnail is inaccurate.

The ruling by SCOTUS (on a case that, by appearances, may have been wholly fabricated) is that individuals may not be compelled to relay specific expression.

FIRE statement on the Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis

The Supreme Court's decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis is a resounding victory for freedom of expression and freedom of conscience.

www.thefire.org

It's worth noting that this did not prevent liberal justices from dissenting.

Sotomayor dissents after SCOTUS underlines protections for LGBTQ+ people: 'a sad day in American constitutional law'

"The opinion of the Court is, quite literally, a notice that reads: 'Some services may be denied to same-sex couples," she wrote.

www.businessinsider.com

It seems they have it wrong. I agree with the majority position that there can be a distinction between artistic expression and opening your doors to the public. The court seems to want to draw a line there, and while I'm not sure I'd draw the same line in the same place, I admit there there is a line there. If anything, I might draw the line closer to protection of speech than even this represents.

It is frustrating to see the liberal justices abandon free speech considerations when they feel like it. Does anyone stick to principles? Meanwhile, the conservatives are all about free speech in this case, but abandon it when they feel like it as well. If this case were about section 230 and a private business having to host some kind of hate speech, I feel like both sides would flip on the exact same issue of speech. Your door is open, someone walks in with an expression for you to host, and you get to tell them no.

 

[Joey D]

Despite the dubious nature that the case was filed under, the ruling does seem like the correct one. A business shouldn't be compelled to do something and I'd argue that a restaurant or a movie theatre should be able to refuse service too. Is it ethically right to refuse service to someone based on color, creed, sexual orientation, etc? Probably not, but the market will likely sort it out. If a business only wants to cater to straight white men, it probably won't have the best reputation and will likely struggle. In an age where social media puts everything on blast, they'd probably get put through the wringer fairly quickly.

It all comes back to freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I haven't read the article but the information provided in the thumbnail is inaccurate.

The ruling by SCOTUS (on a case that, by appearances, may have been wholly fabricated) is that individuals may not be compelled to relay specific expression.

FIRE statement on the Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis

The Supreme Court's decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis is a resounding victory for freedom of expression and freedom of conscience.

www.thefire.org

Interesting.

Wonder if this could be filed under media bias (I see the NYT has similar wording). Perhaps it's not bias but just shoddy journalism.

I don't think it beats hearing "aspartame causes cancer" on LBC earlier in the week though.

 

[TexRex]

It all comes back to freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

God damn it would be hilarious if the business tanked because the owner's a bigot especially if it's completely true that it didn't actually deny anyone service, content-based or otherwise.

Alas the conservative outrage engine would keep it going for a while.

 

[HenrySwanson]

If anything, I might draw the line closer to protection of speech than even this represents.

How so?

 

[Tornado]

I think the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States rushed to take on a made-up case (several in this session, really) to legislate from the bench will deservedly take up far more of the air in the room than whether or not the ruling was justified.

 

[Danoff]

How so?

Employment for one.

Despite the dubious nature that the case was filed under

I think the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States rushed to take on a made-up case (several in this session, really) to legislate from the bench will deservedly take up far more of the air in the room than whether or not the ruling was justified.

I'm not sure why people are saying this case was dubious. A lot of supreme court cases are hand-picked or even manufactured to get the court to rule on a particular issue. The case here is over an injunction, seems legit for a court to consider. The only thing that seems a little dubious to me is that the court (majority and dissent) seems to not really be interested in the details of the injunction itself rom what I can see, though that might be because that point is somehow boring legally.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not sure why people are saying this case was dubious. A lot of supreme court cases are hand-picked or even manufactured to get the court to rule on a particular issue. The case here is over an injunction, seems legit for a court to consider. The only thing that seems a little dubious to me is that the court (majority and dissent) seems to not really be interested in the details of the injunction itself rom what I can see, though that might be because that point is somehow boring legally.

Maybe I don't understand all the details of the case. I was under the impression that the owner of 303 Creative wanted to put a notice on her website saying they wouldn't build sites for same-sex marriage ceremonies, but didn't because they said it would violate anti-discrimination law. A supposed website request was submitted, but it seems like it could've been faked since the name, phone number, and information were all from a man married to a woman. The supposed customer claimed they didn't submit a request.

So when I say the case was dubious, I'm talking about the supposed request the case was built around.

 

[Tornado]

I'm not sure why people are saying this case was dubious. A lot of supreme court cases are hand-picked or even manufactured to get the court to rule on a particular issue. The case here is over an injunction, seems legit for a court to consider. The only thing that seems a little dubious to me is that the court (majority and dissent) seems to not really be interested in the details of the injunction itself rom what I can see, though that might be because that point is somehow boring legally.

If it doesn't matter that any of the aggrieved parties in a case actually were aggrieved since they made up the situation that the lawsuit was about, I wouldn't put too much faith in Section 230 as mentioned above being around that much longer when HB 20 makes it's way to the Supreme Court after the 5th Circuit already said that the latter trumps the former.

 

[Danoff]

Maybe I don't understand all the details of the case. I was under the impression that the owner of 303 Creative wanted to put a notice on her website saying they wouldn't build sites for same-sex marriage ceremonies, but didn't because they said it would violate anti-discrimination law. A supposed website request was submitted, but it seems like it could've been faked since the name, phone number, and information were all from a man married to a woman. The supposed customer claimed they didn't submit a request.

So when I say the case was dubious, I'm talking about the supposed request the case was built around.

Hmmm.

This is the closest thing I could find in the majority opinion:

"In that suit, she sought an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create wedding websites celebrating marriages that defy her beliefs. App. 303–305.To secure relief, Ms. Smith first had to establish her standing to sue. That required her to show “a credible threat” existed that Colorado would, in fact, seek to compel speech from her that she did not wish to produce. Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. 149, 159 (2014)."

The question at hand is whether it's a credible threat. Some random person submitting a web request doesn't provide a ton of evidence one way or the other in that regard. But I can't see that determination of a credible threat hinged on the details of that request.

Like I said, people very much intentionally and openly manufacture cases with the right fact patterns to take to the supreme court all the time. Many of their cases form in exactly that fashion.

@Tornado


Edit:

For example, here's her establishing "credible threat" using another action against Masterpiece Cakeshop.

"In her lawsuit, Ms. Smith alleged that, if she enters the wedding website business to celebrate marriages she does endorse, she faces a credible threat that Colorado will seek to use CADA to compel her to create websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse. 6 F. 4th 1160, 1173–1174(CA10 2021). As evidence, Ms. Smith pointed to Colorado’s record of past enforcement actions under CADA, including one that worked its way to this Court five years ago. See Masterpiece Cakeshop, 584 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 9); see also App. 25–155 (discussing Colorado’s other past enforcement actions)."

 

[Liquid]

"In her lawsuit, Ms. Smith alleged that, if she enters the wedding website business to celebrate marriages she does endorse, she faces a credible threat that Colorado will seek to use CADA to compel her to create websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse. 6 F. 4th 1160, 1173–1174(CA10 2021). As evidence, Ms. Smith pointed to Colorado’s record of past enforcement actions under CADA, including one that worked its way to this Court five years ago. See Masterpiece Cakeshop, 584 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 9); see also App. 25–155 (discussing Colorado’s other past enforcement actions)."

Correct ruling or not, "if" seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

 

[Famine]

it seems like it could've been faked since the name, phone number, and information were all from a man married to a woman

... and who is a web designer.