Tag: FIRE

  • FIRE demands answers from Trump admin officials on arrest of Mahmoud Khalil

    FIRE demands answers from Trump admin officials on arrest of Mahmoud Khalil

    FIRE Letter to Trump Administration Officials on Detention of Mahmoud Khalil

    March 10, 2025

    The Honorable Marco Rubio
    Secretary of State
    U.S. Department of State
    2201 C St., NW
    Washington, DC 20520

    The Honorable Kristi Noem
    Secretary of Homeland Security
    U.S. Department of Homeland Security
    Office of the Executive Secretary 
    Mail Stop 0525  
    Washington, DC 20528 

    The Honorable Pamela Bondi
    Attorney General
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
    Washington, DC 20530

    Mr. Todd Lyons
    Acting Director, ICE Leadership
    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    500 12th St., SW 
    Washington, DC 20536

    Dear Secretary Rubio, Attorney General Bondi, Secretary Noem, and Acting Director Lyons:

    On March 8, agents from the Department of Homeland Security arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the United States who has been involved in activism related to the current conflict in Gaza.[1] According to Mr. Khalil’s attorney, the agents who arrested him initially said his visa had been revoked.[2] Upon being informed that Mr. Khalil is a lawful permanent resident, whose status therefore cannot be revoked by unilateral DHS action, the agents arrested him anyway. When Mr. Khalil’s attorney asked to see a warrant for his arrest, DHS declined to produce one.[3] As of this writing, Mr. Khalil remains in DHS detention.

    Mr. Khalil recently received a graduate degree from Columbia University, where he has participated in student protests intended to express opposition to policies of the U.S. and Israeli governments. On March 9, DHS stated that Mr. Khalil’s arrest was made “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism,” and that “Khalil led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”[4] Secretary Rubio, alluding to Mr. Khalil’s arrest, stated, “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”[5] On March 10, President Trump remarked on Mr. Khalil’s arrest, noting that the government intends to seek removal of any foreign students who engage in “pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity.”[6]

    Demonstrations occurring on Columbia’s campus since Oct. 7, 2023, have included both constitutionally protected speech and unlawful conduct, but the government has not made clear the factual or legal basis for Mr. Khalil’s arrest. The statements the government has released suggest its decision may be based on his constitutionally protected speech. This lack of clarity is chilling protected expression, as other permanent residents cannot know whether their lawful speech could be deemed to “align to” a terrorist organization and jeopardize their immigration status.

    The federal government must not use immigration enforcement to punish and filter out ideas disfavored by the administration. It must also afford due process to anyone facing arrest and detention, and must be clear and transparent about the basis for its actions, to avoid chilling protected speech. To that end, we request answers to the following questions: 

    • What was the specific legal and factual basis for Mr. Khalil’s arrest on March 8?
    • What is the specific legal and factual basis for Mr. Khalil’s detention?
    • What is the specific legal and factual basis on which you are seeking revocation of Mr. Khalil’s green card?
    • Will Mr. Khalil be afforded the due process protections required by U.S. law?
    • Is it your intention to seek the revocation of lawful immigration status on the basis of speech protected by the First Amendment?[7]

    We request a substantive response to this letter no later than close of business on Tuesday, March 11, 2025. Any delay in resolving these questions risks further chilling protected speech.

    Sincerely,

    Carolyn Iodice
    Legislative and Policy Director
    Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    Notes

    [1] Ginger Adams Otis, ICE Arrests Columbia Student Who Helped Lead Pro-Palestinian Protests, Wall St. J. (March 9, 2025, 10:07 pm), https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/dhs-detains-columbia-student-who-helped-lead-pro-palestinian-protests-fbbd8196.

    [2] Eliza Shapiro, Immigration Authorities Arrest Pro-Palestinian Activist at Columbia, N.Y. Times (March 9, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/09/nyregion/ice-arrests-palestinian-activist-columbia-protests.html.

    [3] Canada’s New Leader, ICE Arrest Columbia Student, Congress and The Budget, NPR (March 10, 2025, 6:05 AM), https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1237260282.

    [4] Homeland Security (@DHSgov), X (March 9, 2025, 9:29PM), https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1898908955675357314.

    [5] Marco Rubio (@marcorubio), X (March 9, 6:10PM), https://x.com/marcorubio/status/1898858967532441945.

    [6] Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (March 10, 2025, 1:05PM), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114139222625284782.

    [7] Note there is no categorical exception to the First Amendment for speech that “aligns to” or even expresses explicit support for a foreign terrorist organization.

    Source link

  • FIRE calls out 60 Minutes investigation as ‘political stunt’ in comment to FCC

    FIRE calls out 60 Minutes investigation as ‘political stunt’ in comment to FCC

    Below is the summary of argument in FIRE’s comment to the FCC on its opening a proceeding to investigate claims of news distortion by 60 Minutes in airing an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, filed today.

    This proceeding is a political stunt. Neither the Center for American Rights’ (CAR) complaint nor this Commission’s decision to reopen its inquiry accords with how the agency has understood and applied its broadcast regulations ever. To the contrary, the Commission has made clear it “is not the national arbiter of the truth,” Complaints Covering CBS Program “Hunger in America,” 20 F.C.C.2d 143, 151 (1969), and it has strictly avoided the type of review sought here because “[i]t would involve the Commission deeply and improperly in the journalistic functions of broadcasters.” Complaint Concerning the CBS Program “The Selling of the Pentagon,” 30 F.C.C.2d 150, 152 (1971). The staff’s initial dismissal of CAR’s complaint was obviously correct.

    For the Commission to reopen the matter and to seek public comment turns this proceeding into an illegitimate show trial. This is an adjudicatory question, not a rulemaking, and asking members of the public to “vote” on how they feel about a news organization’s editorial policies is both pointless and constitutionally infirm. Prolonging this matter is especially unseemly when paired with FCC review of a pending merger application involving CBS’s parent corporation and the fact that President Trump is currently involved in frivolous litigation over the same 60 Minutes broadcast. In this context, this proceeding is precisely the kind of unconstitutional abuse of regulatory authority the Supreme Court unanimously condemned in NRA v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024). However, having solicited public comments, the FCC is obligated to respond to the statutory and constitutional objections raised on this record.

    The CAR complaint rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Commission’s limited role in regulating broadcast journalism and fails to grasp the basic elements of the news distortion policy as the FCC historically has defined and applied it. This agency has never asserted the authority to police news editing and has rightly observed that it would result in a “quagmire” even to try. Hunger in America, 20 F.C.C.2d at 150. The news distortion policy simply does not involve itself with “a judgment as to what was presented, as against what should have been presented,” Network Coverage of the Democratic Nat’l Convention, 16 F.C.C.2d 650, 657–58 (1969), yet that is CAR’s sole complaint. And even if CBS’s editorial decisions in 60 Minutes fell within the range of activities governed by the news distortion policy, the CAR complaint is utterly deficient. It does not present any “extrinsic evidence” of news distortion as the policy requires, and the full unedited transcript of the interview in question shows the network’s editing did not alter the substance of the answers given. CAR’s complaint merely reflects its own editorial preferences, which cannot justify this inquiry.

    Even if the FCC’s news distortion policy somehow authorized the Commission to act as editor-in-chief, as CAR imagines, the Communications Act and the First Amendment prohibit such intrusion into journalistic decisions. The Act expressly denies to the FCC “the power of censor- ship” as well as the ability to promulgate any “regulation or condition” that interferes with freedom of speech. 47 U.S.C. § 326. The FCC accordingly has interpreted its powers narrowly so as not to conflict with the First Amendment. And whatever limited authority the Commission might have possessed in the era the news distortion policy was created has diminished over time with changes in technology. Any attempt in this proceeding to apply a more robust view of the Commission’s public interest authority to include an ability to review and dictate individual news judgments would stretch the FCC’s public interest mandate to the breaking point.

    Ultimately, no FCC policy can override the First Amendment’s fundamental bar against the government compelling editors and publishers “to publish that which ‘reason tells them should not be published.’” Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 256 (1974) (citation omitted). “For better or worse, editing is what editors are for; and editing is selection and choice of material.” CBS, Inc. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 412 U.S. 94, 120 (1973). The news distortion policy still exists only because of the exceedingly limited role the Commission has given it over the years, and this proceeding is not a vehicle for expanding its reach.

    Finally, this proceeding itself is an exercise in unconstitutional jawboning. The Commission must heed the Supreme Court’s recent reminder that the “‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion … to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment.” Vullo, 602 U.S. at 180. The purpose and timing of this inquiry are both obvious and unjustifiable. Launching a politically fraught investigation based on such a paper-thin complaint in these circumstances is alone a compelling example of regulatory abuse. But to resurrect the flimsy complaint after it was fully and properly interred by staff dismissal, and to do so in support of the President’s private litigation position, is all but a signed confession of unconstitutional jawboning. The Commission can begin to recover some dignity only by dropping the matter immediately.

    READ THE FULL COMMENT BELOW

    Source link

  • FIRE Statement on City of Clarksdale v. Delta Press Publishing Company (Clarksdale Press Register)

    FIRE Statement on City of Clarksdale v. Delta Press Publishing Company (Clarksdale Press Register)

    Below is a statement from FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh on the restraining order against the Clarksdale Press Register:

    The city of Clarksdale, Mississippi, thinks it knows better than the Founders. Clarksdale asked a court to order a local newspaper to remove an editorial asking why the city was not being more transparent about a proposed tax increase. As a result of the city’s lawsuit, a court ordered the Clarksdale Press Register to delete the online editorial. 

    That’s unconstitutional. In the United States, the government can’t determine what opinions may be shared in the public square. A free society does not permit governments to sue newspapers for publishing editorials. 

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting First Amendment rights, is exploring all options to aid The Press Register in defending these core expressive rights.

    Source link

  • FIRE demands Fort Worth police return artwork confiscated from museum

    FIRE demands Fort Worth police return artwork confiscated from museum

    FORT WORTH, Feb. 19, 2025 — A trio of civil liberty organizations are speaking up today to demand the Fort Worth Police Department end its unconstitutional censorship and seizure of several pieces of art that were on display at the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, National Coalition Against Censorship, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas are joining forces to demand the return of several pieces of art by Sally Mann, a renowned photographer with accolades from the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Guggenheim Foundation.

    In November 2024, the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth began hosting an exhibition called “Diaries from Home,” featuring works that “explore the multilayered concepts of family, community, and home.” Included in the collection were some of the photos from Mann’s 1990 collection “Immediate Family.” Mann’s collection featured an intimate and candid look at her family’s rural life. As she describes it, “I photographed their triumphs, confusion, harmony and isolation, as well as the hardships that tend to befall children — bruises, vomit, bloody noses, wet beds — all of it.”

    Of the 65 photos in Mann’s “Immediate Family,” 13 depicted her children in the nude. The selection of nude photos displayed in the Modern reportedly included depictions of Mann’s daughter jumping onto a picnic table in a ballet pose, Mann’s daughter lying in bed with a stain from a nighttime accident, and Mann’s son with a melted popsicle running down his body.

    “Anyone who’s ever taken a photo of their child or grandchild taking a bath understands that not all photographs of child nudity are malicious, let alone child abuse,” said FIRE Director of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr. “The seizure of Mann’s works is an egregious abuse of power that dishonestly conflates artistic expression with sexual exploitation.”

    The works are not the product of child abuse, and they are neither intended nor designed to excite lust in the viewer. They do what much art does — convey ideas and invite viewers to reflect on the human experience.

    Nor do the works meet the legal definition of “obscenity,” an extremely narrow definition that does not apply to all depictions of child nudity. This should be common sense to anyone familiar with the iconic “Napalm Girl” photograph, National Geographic documentaries, or even major Hollywood films like the 1978 version of “Superman.”

    “Immediate Family” was controversial even at its debut decades ago, but has been showcased in more than a dozen art galleries across the world, including the National Gallery of Art. But its inclusion in the Fort Worth exhibition reignited the debate when local press and politicians denounced the photos as “child pornography.” Fort Worth police seized the artwork last month ostensibly as part of an investigation into “child abuse,” even though all of Mann’s children, as adults, continued to support the collection and their mother and have never once suggested they were abused.

    “Publicity stunts like this one — in which artworks that have been shown and discussed for over 30 years are suddenly the focus of an unfounded ‘investigation’ — do nothing to protect victims of child abuse, and serve only to chill the creative expressions of artists and cultural institutions by subjecting them to the threat of political prosecution and the unconstitutional seizure of artwork,” said Elizabeth Larison, Director of NCAC’s Arts and Culture Advocacy Program.

    “It’s shameful that government officials would use the criminal legal process to censor art and expression,” said Adriana Piñon, legal director of the ACLU of Texas. “This is a clear violation of the First Amendment and of the guardrails against abuse of the criminal justice system. Artistic expression should not be subject to the whim and punishment of government officials’ personal taste.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    The ACLU of Texas is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that works with communities, at the State Capitol, and in the courts to protect and advance civil rights and civil liberties for every Texan, no exceptions.

    Since its inception in 1974, the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) has functioned as a first responder in protecting freedom of expression, a fundamental human right and a keystone of democracy. Representing 60 national education, publishing, and arts organizations, NCAC encourages and facilitates dialogue between diverse voices, perspectives, and audiences.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Kristi Gross, Press Strategist, ACLU of Texas, [email protected]

    Alex Finan, Communications Lead, NCAC, [email protected]

    Source link

  • FIRE opposes Virginia’s proposed regulation of candidate deepfakes

    FIRE opposes Virginia’s proposed regulation of candidate deepfakes

    Last year, California passed restrictions on sharing AI-generated deepfakes of candidates, which a court then promptly blocked for violating the First Amendment. Virginia now looks to be going down a similar road with a new bill to penalize people for merely sharing certain AI-generated media of political candidates.

    This legislation, which has been in SB 775 and HB 2479, would make it illegal to share artificially generated, realistic-looking images, video, or audio of a candidate to “influence an election,” if the person knew or should have known that the content is “deceptive or misleading.” There is a civil penalty or, if the sharing occurred within 90 days before an election, up to one year in jail. Only if a person adds a conspicuous disclaimer to the media can they avoid these penalties.

    The practical effects of this ban are alarming. Say a person in Virginia encounters a deepfaked viral video of a candidate on Facebook within 90 days of an election. They know it’s not a real image of the candidate, but they think it’s amusing and captures a message they want to share with other Virginians. It doesn’t have a disclaimer, but the person doesn’t know it’s supposed to, and doesn’t know how to edit the video anyway. They decide to repost it to their feed.

    That person could now face jailtime.

    The ban would also impact the media. Say a journalist shares a deepfake that is directly relevant to an important news story. The candidate depicted decides that the journalist didn’t adequately acknowledge “in a manner that can easily be heard and understood by the average listener or viewer, that there are questions about the authenticity of the media,” as the bill requires. That candidate could sue to block further sharing of the news story.

    The First Amendment safeguards expressive tools like AI, allowing them to enhance our ability to communicate with one another without facing undue government restrictions.

    These illustrate the startling breadth of SB 775/HB 2479’s regulation of core political speech, which makes it unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny. Laws targeting core political speech have serious difficulty passing constitutional muster, even when they involve false or misleading speech. That’s because there’s no general First Amendment exception for misinformation, disinformation, or other false speech. That’s for good reason: A general exception would be easily abused to suppress dissent and criticism.

    Wave of state-level AI bills raise First Amendment problems

    News

    There’s no ‘artificial intelligence’ exception to the First Amendment.


    Read More

    There are narrow, well-defined categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment — such as fraud and defamation — that Virginia can and does already restrict. But SB 775/HB 2479 is not limited to fraudulent or defamatory speech.

    For laws that burden protected speech related to elections, it is a very high bar to pass constitutional muster. This bill doesn’t meet that bar. It restricts far more speech than necessary to prevent voters from being deceived in ways that would have any effect on an election, and there are other ways to address deepfakes that would burden much less speech. For one, other speakers or candidates can (and do) simply point them out, eroding their potential to deceive.

    The First Amendment safeguards expressive tools like AI, allowing them to enhance our ability to communicate with one another without facing undue government restrictions.

    We urge the Virginia General Assembly to oppose this legislation. If it gets to his desk, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin should veto.

    Source link

  • FIRE statement on White House denying AP Oval Office access

    FIRE statement on White House denying AP Oval Office access

    Punishing journalists for not adopting state-mandated terminology is an alarming attack on press freedom.

    Source link

  • After FIRE lawsuit, California community colleges will not enforce DEI mandate in classroom

    After FIRE lawsuit, California community colleges will not enforce DEI mandate in classroom

    FRESNO, Feb. 10, 2025 — After a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression challenged regulations mandating the evaluation of professors based on their commitment to “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA), the California Community Colleges system and a community college district attested in court that the regulations do not require community college professors to teach and endorse the state’s pro-DEIA views in the classroom.

    In March 2023, the California Community College system amended its tenure and employee review guidelines to “include diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility standards in the evaluation and tenure review of district employees.” The new regulations stated that faculty members “shall employ teaching, learning, and professional practices that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles” and mandated they “promote and incorporate culturally affirming DEIA and anti-racist principles.”

    That August, FIRE filed suit against California Community Colleges and the State Center Community College District on behalf of six Fresno-area community college professors who oppose the highly politicized concepts of “DEIA” (more often called “DEI”) and “anti-racism” and thus did not want to incorporate them into their teaching.

    Forced to defend the regulations in court, the state chancellor and district quickly disclaimed any intention to use the state guidelines or the district’s faculty contract to police what professors teach in the classroom or to punish them for their criticism of DEI. 

    Specifically, the Chancellor’s Office “disavowed any intent or ability to take any action against Plaintiffs” for their classroom teaching. The district likewise confirmed that none of the plaintiffs’ “proposed future actions” for their courses violate the rules or the faculty contract. It added that plaintiffs are not “prohibited from presenting” their “viewpoints or perspectives in the classrooms” and will not “be disciplined, terminated, or otherwise punished for doing so.” 

    In particular, the Defendants denied they would punish Plaintiffs for any of their proposed speech, including “assigning certain literary works, such as Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letters from Birmingham Jail,” using “methodologies and course materials in their classroom” intended to encourage debate and discussion about the merits of DEI viewpoints, criticizing concepts like “anti-racism,” or supporting a color-blind approach to race in their self-evaluations. 

    On Jan. 28, U.S. District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff relied on those assurances to hold as a legal matter that because of the college officials’ disavowals, the professors had not suffered a harm sufficient to challenge the regulations’ constitutionality. In dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Sherriff emphasized that neither the DEI Rules nor the faculty contract “mandate what professors teach or how any DEIA principles should be implemented.”

    “FIRE filed suit to prevent California’s community colleges from evaluating our faculty clients on the basis of their classroom commitment to a political ideology, and that’s exactly the result we’ve achieved,” said FIRE attorney Daniel Ortner. “As a result of our suit, the state and the district promised a federal judge they won’t interfere with our clients’ academic freedom and free speech rights. The classroom is for discussion and exploration, not a top-down mandate about what ideas must take priority. We’ll make sure it stays that way.”

    “FIRE will be watching like a hawk to ensure that the state chancellor and district live up to their word,” said FIRE attorney Zach Silver. “If they force any professors to parrot the state’s DEI views, or punish them for criticizing the state’s position, we’ll be ready to stand up for their rights.”

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF PLAINTIFFS FOR MEDIA USE

    Despite unobjectionable-sounding labels, “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and “anti-racism” frameworks often encompass political topics and ideology that are contested and controversial. The glossary of DEI terms put out by California Community Colleges, for example, stated that “persons that say they are ‘not a racist’ are in denial,” while denouncing “colorblindness” as a concept for “perpetuat[ing] existing racial inequities.”

    DEI requirements are also highly controversial within academia. FIRE’s most recent faculty survey indicated that half of faculty think it is “rarely” or “never” justifiable for universities to make faculty candidates submit statements pledging commitment to DEI before being considered for a job (50%) or to be considered for tenure or promotion (52%).

    Since FIRE filed its lawsuit in 2023, many top universities and university systems have voluntarily moved away from mandatory DEI, including Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Arizona system. Most recently, the University of Michigan dropped the use of diversity statements in hiring and firing in December 2024 following a viral New York Times article that detailed how the school’s DEI practices stifled academic freedom and discourse at the school.

    FIRE sued on behalf of six professors, James Druley, David Richardson, Linda de Morales, and Loren Palsgaard of Madera Community College, Bill Blanken of Reedley College, and Michael Stannard of Clovis Community College. (Professors Stannard and Druley withdrew from the case in 2024 upon retiring from teaching.)

    “Wherever you stand on the debate over DEI, the important thing is there is a debate in the first place,” said Palsgaard. “I’m happy that thanks to our lawsuit, we know that debate will continue in California, both inside and outside the classroom.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • VICTORY: District court blocks Texas social media law after FIRE lawsuit

    VICTORY: District court blocks Texas social media law after FIRE lawsuit

    AUSTIN, Texas, Feb. 7, 2025 — After a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Davis Wright Tremaine, a district court today stopped enforcement of a Texas law that would have blocked access to broad categories of protected speech for minors and forced websites to collect adults’ IDs or biometric data before they can access social media sites.

    Northern District of Texas Judge Robert Pitman granted FIRE’s motion for a preliminary injunction against provisions of the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act (SCOPE Act) requiring content monitoring and filtering, targeted advertising bans, and age-verification requirements, ruling that these measures were unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

    “The court determined that Texas’s law was likely unconstitutional because its provisions restricted protected speech and were so vague that it made it hard to know what was prohibited,” said FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere. “States can’t block adults from engaging with legal speech in the name of protecting children, nor can they keep minors from ideas that the government deems unsuitable.”

    The SCOPE Act would have required social media platforms to register the age of every new user. Platforms would have been forced to track how much of their content is “harmful” to minors and, once a certain percentage is reached, force users to prove that they are 18 or older. In other words, the law would have burdened adults who wanted to view content that is fully legal for adults, serving as an effective ban for those who understandably don’t trust a third-party website with their driver’s license or fingerprints.

    The law also required websites to prevent minors from being exposed to “harmful material” that “promotes, glorifies, or facilitates” behaviors like drug use, suicide, or bullying. That definition was far too vague to pass constitutional muster: whether speech “promotes” or “glorifies” an activity is inherently subjective, and platforms had testified that they would be forced to react by censoring all discussions of those topics.

    Today’s ruling should serve as yet another warning to states tempted to jump on the unconstitutional bandwagon of social media age verification bills.

    “At what point… does alcohol use become ‘substance abuse?’” asked Judge Pitman in his ruling. “When does an extreme diet cross the line into an ‘eating disorder?’ What defines ‘grooming’ and ‘harassment?’ Under these indefinite meanings, it is easy to see how an attorney general could arbitrarily discriminate in his enforcement of the law.”

    FIRE sued on August 16 on behalf of three plaintiffs who use the Internet to communicate with young Texans and keep them informed on issues that affect them. A fourth plaintiff, M.F.,  is a 16-year-old rising high school junior from El Paso who is concerned that Texas is blocking his access to important content.

    Lead plaintiff Students Engaged in Advancing Texas represents a coalition of Texas students who seek to increase youth visibility and participation in policymaking.

    Nope to SCOPE: FIRE sues to block Texas’ unconstitutional internet age verification law

    Press Release

    Texans browsing your favorite websites, beware. If the state has its way, starting next month, the eyes of Texas may be upon you.


    Read More

    “Young people have free speech rights, too,” said SEAT Executive Director Cameron Samuels. “They’re also the future voters and leaders of Texas and America. The SCOPE Act would make youth less informed, less active, and less engaged on some of the most important issues facing the nation.”

    Earlier, Judge Pitman enjoined the content moderation requirements while ruling on a separate lawsuit from the Computer & Communications Industry Association and Netchoice. Judge Pitman ruled in August that Texas “cannot pick and choose which categories of protected speech it wishes to block teenagers from discussing online.”

    “This is a tremendous victory against government censorship, especially for our clients—ordinary citizens—who stood up to the State of Texas,” said Adam Sieff, partner at Davis Wright Tremaine. “The Court enjoined every substantive provision of the SCOPE Act we challenged, granting even broader relief than its first preliminary injunction. We hope this decision will give other states pause before broadly restricting free expression online.”

    Texas lawmakers perhaps could have predicted today’s ruling. Age verification laws have been enjoined by courts across the country in states like California, Arkansas, Mississippi, Ohio, and even initially in Texas, in another law currently before the Supreme Court for review.

    “Today’s ruling should serve as yet another warning to states tempted to jump on the unconstitutional bandwagon of social media age verification bills,” said Corn-Revere. “What these laws have in common is that they seek to impose simplistic one-size-fits-all solutions to address complicated problems.” 

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

     

    Source link

  • FIRE kicks off legislative season by opposing speech-restrictive AI bill

    FIRE kicks off legislative season by opposing speech-restrictive AI bill

    The legislative season is in full swing, and FIRE is already tackling a surge of speech-restrictive bills. We started with Washington’s House Bill 1170, which would require AI-generated content to include a disclosure.  

    FIRE Legislative Counsel John Coleman testified in opposition to the bill. In his testimony, John emphasized what FIRE has been saying for years, that the “government can no more compel an artist to disclose whether they created a painting from a human model as opposed to a mannequin than it can compel someone to disclose that they used artificial intelligence tools in creating an expressive work.” 

    Artificial intelligence, like earlier technologies such as the printing press, the camera, and the internet, has the power to revolutionize communication. The First Amendment protects the use of all these mediums for expression and forbids government interference under most circumstances. Importantly, the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak without fear of government retaliation but also the right not to speak. Government-mandated disclosures relating to speech, like those required under HB 1170, infringe on these protections and so are subject to heightened levels of First Amendment scrutiny. 

    FIRE remains committed to defending the free speech rights of all Americans and will continue to advocate against overbroad policies that stifle innovation and expression.

    Of course, as John stated, “Developers and users can choose to disclose their use of AI voluntarily, but government-compelled speech, whether that speech is an opinion or fact or even just metadata . . . undermines everyone’s fundamental autonomy to control their own expression.”

    In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which includes Washington state) reiterated this fundamental principle just last year in X Corp. v. Bonta when it blocked a California law requiring social media platforms to publish information about their content moderation practices. Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. acknowledged the government’s stated interest in transparency, but emphasized that “even ‘undeniably admirable goals’ ‘must yield’ when they ‘collide with the . . . Constitution.’”

    This principle is likely to put HB 1170 in significant legal jeopardy.

    FIRE statement on legislative proposals to regulate artificial intelligence

    News

    Existing laws and First Amendment doctrine already address the vast majority of concerns that legislators are seeking to address.


    Read More

    Another major problem with the policy embodied by HB 1170 is that it would apply to all AI-generated media rather than targeting a specific problem, like unlawful deceptive uses of AI, such as defamation. John pointed out to lawmakers that “if the intent of the bill is to root out deceptive uses of AI, this bill would do the opposite” by fostering the false impression that all AI-generated media is deceptive. In reality, AI-generated media — like all media — can be used to share both truth and falsehood. 

    Moreover, people using AI to commit actual fraud will likely find ways to avoid disclosing that AI was used, whether by removing evidence of AI use or using tools from states without disclosure requirements. As a result, this false content will appear more legitimate than it would in a world without the disclosures required by this bill because people will be more likely to believe that content lacking the mandated disclosure was not created with AI.

    Rather than preemptively imposing blanket rules that will stifle free expression, lawmakers should instead assess whether existing legal frameworks sufficiently address the concerns they have with AI. 

    FIRE remains committed to defending the free speech rights of all Americans and will continue to advocate against overbroad policies that stifle innovation and expression.

    Source link

  • FIRE statement on reports of forthcoming executive order on student visas and campus protests

    FIRE statement on reports of forthcoming executive order on student visas and campus protests

    President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order today threatening action against international students in the United States for their involvement in campus protests related to Israel and Hamas. 

    Per reports, President Trump promises to “quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before,” and to deport students who joined “pro-jihadist protests.” 

    The revocation of student visas should not be used to punish and filter out ideas disfavored by the federal government. The strength of our nation’s system of higher education derives from the exchange of the widest range of views, even unpopular or dissenting ones.

    Students who commit crimes — including vandalism, threats, or violence — must face consequences, and those consequences may include the loss of a visa. But if today’s executive order reaches beyond illegal activity to instead punish students for protest or expression otherwise protected by the First Amendment, it must be withdrawn.

    Source link