The Supreme Court is hearing the case of social media censorship
Signing Up for a Free Market Rate in Israel: Israel, Egypt, Qatar and the Paris Abelian-Palestinian Agreement
Good morning. The newsletter is called Up First. To subscribe, you will need to click on the link above to get it delivered to your inbox.
Israelis held hostage by Hamas and Palestinians who are imprisoned in Israel will be exchanged for them under the deal for another temporary cease-fire. Representatives of Israel, the U.S., Egypt and Qatar agreed on the “basic contours” of a deal this past week in Paris, according to White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan. Next stage of talks will be held in Qatar. Still, despite U.S. objections, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he will not call off a planned military offensive in Gaza’s southernmost city of Rafah, where more than 1 million Palestinians are seeking refuge.
Gaza: Cuts, Fires, and Censorship: A Woman’s View on Tech and the Laws of the High Court
The Supreme Court will hear arguments today that center on Florida and Texas laws preventing social media companies from banning users based on political viewpoints or rapidly changing their policies. Legal experts say it’s one of the most important First Amendment cases in a generation. The laws were passed months after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, after several social media websites banned former President Donald Trump over fears that his messages could promote more unrest.
Congress is facing a partial government shutdown yet again. Lawmakers are supposed to pass laws to fund the government every year by the end of September. But they’ve been unable to modify their spending plan. Federal funding for several departments, including the Transportation, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs, runs out at the end of the week. President Joe Biden is expected to host the top four Congressional lawmakers tomorrow to negotiate ahead of Friday’s deadline.
A portion of our long conversation was broadcast on Morning Edition. But a few minutes didn’t capture the full flavor. So we have also published a longer version. She describes her thoughts on the tech world and her differences with it.
Swisher’s memoir Burn Book: A Tech Love Story recounts more than three decades covering the tech industry as a beat reporter, analyst, columnist, podcaster and TV personality. She writes that she went from asking tech leaders what they were thinking to telling them what she thought of their business. She isn’t happy with many of them.
Social Media Controversy: What Do People Think about Freedom of Speech? An Empirical Study of Mt. Everest and the Tharu Community
The Himalayan mountains are plagued by waste left by mountaineering activities over the years. Nepal’s Department of Tourism estimates that there are nearly 140,000 tons of waste on Mt. Everest alone. The government began an initiative in 2019 to clean up the mountains. Garbage from the mountains has found a new home in the Tharu community, where they are turning it into something entirely new by using traditional skills.
The effort to transform mountain waste into economic opportunity for their community was highlighted by the photos of how Sunita Kumari Chaudry and her fellow crafter turned trash into art.
“There is nothing more Orwellian than the government trying to dictate what viewpoints are distributed in the name of free expression,” said Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, a trade group for the social media companies that’s involved in the litigation. That’s what is at issue in this case.
The dispute grew after Donald Trump was removed from social media due to fears that he could cause more unrest.
“Freedom of speech is under attack in Texas,” declared Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott at the bill signing. “There is a dangerous movement by some social media companies to silence conservative ideas and values. This is wrong, and we won’t allow it in Texas.
“It is necessary to have guidelines and terms of use to make sure that a community isn’t polluted,” Schruers said. Things like posting dog pictures in the cat forum to barbeque in the vegan forum are just some of the serious things that can be done.
When Social Media Gets Weary: John Whitehead and the Florida Supreme Court to hear challenges to Texas, Florida social media laws (Journal Paper v Tornillo)
John Whitehead runs the Rutherford Institute, a conservative-leaning nonprofit group. Whitehead, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the cases, said the big social media sites have become the center of people’s lives and they should not be engaging in any censorship.
“It’s out there to make people think,” he said. You can disagree in other words. If someone puts something foolish on, let’s say, Facebook, people should respond immediately and start a debate. Not eliminating is the key, Debating is it.
Other allies of Texas and Florida argue the sites are merely hosting content, not making editorial judgments that deserve lots of First Amendment protection.
Everyone is responsible for opposing government control of speech. “Because as it may be your person in the White House today, we know that that will not be forever. And that’s why the First Amendment is so important and so paramount.”
Is it more like bookstores and newspapers where the highest levels of First Amendment protection are given?
The social media giants are relying in part on a 1974 Supreme Court case, Miami Herald v Tornillo. The newspaper in Florida didn’t want to publish op-eds. The Herald had the backing of the high court.
Florida wants the big social media platforms to print every letter to the editor. Users don’t want that and neither do advertisers, they said.
Source: Supreme Court to hear challenges to Texas, Florida social media laws
The Koch Brothers and the Social Media of the September 11, 2001 New Zealand mosque shooter: What are they telling us about online hate and online violence?
The American Civil Liberties Union is linked to the Koch brothers, and they are among groups backing the trade associations Netchoice and CCIA.
A group of national security experts weighed in as well. The special master for the September 11th victim compensation fund is a former Justice Department lawyer. She is now working at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.
“Social media content moderation plays a really important role in keeping some of the worst of the hate and the violence off of the Internet,” Bhattacharyya said.
Home-grown extremists like the Proud Boys and foreign groups like the Islamic State have deployed social media to attract converts and broadcast violence. She said that the New Zealand mosque shooter live-streamed his activities to try to inspire others.
Consumer protection and anti-fraud laws should be included in the regulations of social media platforms. Some of the big sites have questionable content moderation policies.
Their court papers cited hateful speech and threats against the justices. Moderators said they delete those things now. But under the state laws, they might face lawsuits for yanking “trolls” who flood their chats with vulgar and racist posts.
