Tag: FIRE

FIRE to University of Texas at Dallas: Stop censoring the student press

The University of Texas at Dallas has a troubling history of trying to silence students. Now those students are fighting back.

Today, the editors of The Retrograde published their first print edition, marking a triumphant return for journalism on campus in the face of administrative efforts to quash student press.

Headlines above the fold of the first issue of The Retrograde, a new independent student newspaper at UT Dallas.

Why call the newspaper The Retrograde? Because it’s replacing the former student newspaper, The Mercury, which ran into trouble when it covered the pro-Palestinian encampments on campus and shed light on UT Dallas’s use of state troopers (the same force that broke up UT Austin’s encampment just one week prior) and other efforts to quash even peaceful protest. As student journalists reported, their relationship with the administration subsequently deteriorated. University officials demoted the newspaper’s advisor and even removed copies of the paper from newsstands. At the center of this interference were Lydia Lum, director of student media, and Jenni Huffenberger, senior director of marketing and student media, whose titles reflect the university’s resistance to editorial freedom.

The conflict between the paper and the administration came to a head when Lum called for a meeting of the Student Media Oversight Board, a university body which has the power to remove student leaders, accusing The Mercury’s editor-in-chief, Gregorio Olivares Gutierrez, of violating student media bylaws by having another form of employment, exceeding printing costs, and “bypassing advisor involvement.” Yet rather than follow those same bylaws, which offer detailed instructions for removing a student editor, Lum told board members from other student media outlets not to attend the meeting. A short-handed board then voted to oust Gutierrez. Adding insult to injury, Huffenberger unilaterally denied Gutierrez’s appeal, again ignoring the bylaws, which require the full board to consider any termination appeals.

The student journalists of The Retrograde have shown incredible spirit. With your help, we can ensure their efforts — and the rights of all student journalists — are respected.

In response, The Mercury’s staff went on strike, demanding Gutierrez’s reinstatement. To help in that effort, FIRE and the Student Press Law Center joined forces to pen a Nov. 12, 2024 letter calling for UT Dallas to honor the rights of the student journalists. We also asked them to pay the students the money they earned for the time they worked prior to the strike.

UT Dallas refused to listen. Instead of embracing freedom of the press, the administration doubled down on censorship, ignoring both the students’ and our calls for justice.

FIRE took out a full page ad in support of The Retrograde at UT Dallas.

In our letter, we argued that the university’s firing of Gutierrez was in retaliation for The Mercury’s unflattering coverage of the way administrators had handled the encampments. This is not even the first time UT Dallas has chosen censorship as the “best solution;” look no further than in late 2023 when they removed the “Spirit Rocks” students used to express themselves. Unfortunately, the university ignored both the students’ exhortations and FIRE’s demands, leaving UT Dallas without its newspaper.

But FIRE’s Student Press Freedom Initiative is here to make sure censorship never gets the last word.

Students established The Retrograde, a fully independent newspaper. Without university resources, they have had to crowdfund and source their own equipment, working spaces, a new website, and everything else necessary to provide quality student-led journalism to the UT Dallas community. They succeeded, and FIRE is proud to support their efforts, placing a full-page ad in this week’s inaugural issue of The Retrograde.

The fight for press freedom at UT Dallas is far from over — but we need your help to make a difference.

Demand accountability from UT Dallas. The student journalists of The Retrograde have shown incredible spirit. With your help, we can ensure their efforts — and the rights of all student journalists — are respected.

Source link

January 21, 2025
FIRE statement on Supreme Court’s ruling in TikTok v. Garland

The Supreme Court today ruled that a federal law compelling TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to sell the social media platform or cease operations in the United States does not violate the First Amendment. The law functionally requires TikTok to shut down its operations by Jan. 19 absent some other accommodation.

FIRE issued the following statement:

Our unique national commitment to freedom of expression requires more caution than today’s ruling delivers. The unprecedented ban of a communication platform used by 170 million Americans demands strict judicial scrutiny, not the rushed and highly deferential review the Supreme Court instead conducted.

The Court explicitly notes the “inherent narrowness” of today’s decision. FIRE will hold it to that promise, and fight to contain the threat the ruling poses to our First Amendment rights.

Source link

January 17, 2025
Cosmetologists can’t shoot a gun? FIRE ‘blasts’ tech college for punishing student over target practice video

Language can be complicated. According to Merriam-Webster, the verb “blast” has as many as 15 different meanings — “to play loudly,” “to hit a golf ball out of a sand trap with explosive force,” “to injure by or as if by the action of wind.”

Recently, the word has added another definition to the list. Namely, “to attack vigorously” with criticism, as in, “to blast someone online” or “to put someone on blast.” This usage has become a common expression.

That’s what Leigha Lemoine, a student at Horry-Georgetown Technical College, meant when she posted in a private Snapchat group that a non-student who had insulted her needed to get “blasted.”

But HGTC’s administration didn’t see it that way. When some students claimed they felt uncomfortable with Lemoine’s post, the college summoned her to a meeting. Lemoine explained that the post was not a threat of physical harm, but rather a simple expression of her belief that the person who had insulted her should be criticized for doing so. The school’s administrators agreed and concluded there was nothing threatening in her words.

But two days later, things took a turn. Administrators discovered a video on social media of Lemoine firing a handgun at a target. The video was recorded off campus a year prior to the discovery, and had no connection to the “blasted” comment, but because she had not disclosed the video’s existence (why would she be required to?), the college decided to suspend her until the 2025 fall semester. Adding insult to injury, HGTC indicated she Lemoine would be on disciplinary probation when she returned.

Screenshots of Leigha Lemoine’s video on social media.

HGTC administrators claim Lemoine’s post caused “a significant amount of apprehension related to the presence and use of guns.”

“In today’s climate, your failure to disclose the existence of the video, in conjunction with group [sic] text message on Snapchat where you used the term ‘blasted,’ causes concern about your ability to remain in the current Cosmetology cohort,” the college added.

Never mind the context of the gun video, which had nothing to do with campus or the person she said needed to get “blasted.” HGTC was determined to jeopardize Lemoine’s future over one Snapchat message and an unrelated video.

Colleges and universities would do well to take Lemoine’s case as a reminder to safeguard the expressive freedoms associated with humor and hyperbolic statements. Because make no mistake, FIRE will continue to blast the ones that don’t.

FIRE wrote to HGTC on Lemoine’s behalf on Oct. 7, 2024, urging the college to reverse its disciplinary action against Lemoine. We pointed out the absurdity of taking Lemoine’s “blasted” comment as an unprotected “true threat” and urged the college to rescind her suspension. Lemoine showed no serious intent to commit unlawful violence with her comment urging others to criticize an individual, and tying the gun video to the comment was both nonsensical and deeply unjust.

But HGTC attempted to blow FIRE off and plowed forward with its discipline. So we brought in the big guns — FIRE Legal Network member David Ashley at Le Clercq Law Firm took on the case, filing an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order. On Dec. 17, a South Carolina federal district court ordered HGTC to allow her to return to classes immediately while the case works its way through the courts.

Jokes and hyperbole are protected speech

Colleges and universities must take genuine threats of violence on campus seriously. That sometimes requires investigations and quick institutional action to ensure campus safety. But HGTC’s treatment of Lemoine is the latest in a long line of colleges misusing the “true threats” standard to punish clearly protected speech — remarks or commentary that are meant as jokes, hyperbole, or otherwise unreasonable to treat as though they are sincere.

Take over-excited rhetoric about sports. In 2022, Meredith Miller, a student at the University of Utah, posted on social media that she would detonate the nuclear reactor on campus (a low-power educational model with a microwave-sized core that one professor said “can’t possibly melt down or pose any risk”) if the football team lost its game. Campus police arrested her, and the Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office charged her with making a terroristic threat.

The office eventually dropped the charge, but the university tried doubling down by suspending her for two years. It was only after intervention from FIRE and an outside attorney that the university relented. But that it took such significant outside pressure — especially over a harmless joke that was entirely in line with the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric one expects in sports commentary — reveals how dramatically the university overreacted.

Political rhetoric is often targeted as well. In 2020, Babson College professor Asheen Phansey found himself in hot water after posting a satirical remark on Facebook. After President Trump tweeted a threat that he might bomb 52 Iranian cultural sites, Phansey jokingly suggested that Iran’s leadership should publicly identify a list of American cultural heritage sites it wanted to bomb, including the “Mall of America” and the “Kardashian residence.” Despite FIRE’s intervention, Babson College’s leadership suspended Phansey and then fired him less than a day later.

Or consider an incident in which Louisiana State University fired a graduate instructor who left a heated, profanity-laced voicemail for a state senator in which he criticized the senator’s voting record on trans rights. The senator reported the voicemail to the police, who investigated and ultimately identified the instructor. The police closed the case after concluding that the instructor had not broken the law. You’re supposed to be allowed to be rude to elected officials. LSU nevertheless fired him.

More examples of universities misusing the true threats standard run the political gamut: A Fordham student was suspended for a post commemorating the anniversary of the Tianneman Square massacre; a professor posted on social media in support of a police officer who attacked a journalist and was placed on leave; an adjunct instructor wished for President Trump’s assassination and had his hiring revoked; another professor posted on Facebook supporting Antifa, was placed on leave, and then sued his college. Too often, the university discipline is made more egregious by the fact that administrators continue to use the idea of “threatening” speech to punish clearly protected expression even after local police departments conclude that the statements in question were not actually threatening.

What is a true threat?

Under the First Amendment, a true threat is defined as a statement where “the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

That eliminates the vast majority of threatening speech you hear each day, and for good reason. One of the foundational cases for the true threat standard is Watts v. U.S., in which the Supreme Court ruled that a man’s remark about his potential draft into the military — “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ” — constituted political hyperbole, not a true threat. The Court held that such statements are protected by the First Amendment. And rightfully so: Political speech is where the protection of the First Amendment is “at its zenith.” An overbroad definition of threatening statements would lead to the punishment of political advocacy. Look no further than controversies in the last year and a half over calls for genocide to see how wide swathes of speech would become punishable if the standard for true threats was lower.

Colleges and universities would do well to take Lemoine’s case as a reminder to safeguard the expressive freedoms associated with humor and hyperbolic statements. Because make no mistake, FIRE will continue to blast the ones that don’t.

Source link

January 14, 2025
Meta’s content moderation changes closely align with FIRE recommendations
On Tuesday, Meta* CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan announced sweeping changes to the content moderation policies at Meta (the owner of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads) with the stated intention of improving free speech and reducing “censorship” on its platforms. The changes simplify policies, replace the top-down fact-checking with a Community Notes-style system, reduce opportunities for false positives in automatic content flagging, and allow for greater user control of content feeds. All these changes mirror recommendations FIRE made in its May 2024 Report on Social Media.

Given Meta’s platforms boast billions of users, the changes, if implemented, have major positive implications for free expression online.

FIRE’s Social Media Report

FIRE Report on Social Media 2024

Reports

With as many as 5.17 billion accounts worldwide, social media is the most powerful tool in history for average citizens to express themselves.

Read More

In our report, we promoted three principles to improve the state of free expression on social media:
1. The law should require transparency whenever the government involves itself in social media moderation decisions.
2. Content moderation policies should be transparent to users, who should be able to appeal moderation decisions that affect them.
3. Content moderation decisions should be unbiased and should consistently apply the criteria that a platform’s terms of service establish.
Principle 1 is the only one where FIRE believes government intervention is appropriate and constitutional (and we created a model bill to that effect). Principles 2 and 3 we hoped would enjoy voluntary adoption by social media platforms that wanted to promote freedom of expression.

While we don’t know whether these principles influenced Meta’s decision, we’re pleased the promised changes align very well with FIRE’s proposals for how a social media platform committed to free expression could put that commitment into practice.

Meta’s changes to content moderation structures

With a candid admission that it believes 10-20% of its millions of daily content removals are mistakes, Meta announced it is taking several actions to expand freedom of expression on the platform. The first is simplification and scaling back of its rules on the boundaries of discourse. According to Zuckerberg and Kaplan:

[Meta is] getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate. It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms. These policy changes may take a few weeks to be fully implemented.

While this is promising in and of itself, it will be enhanced by a broad change to the automated systems for content moderation. Meta is restricting its automated flagging to only the most severe policy violations. For lesser policy violations, a user will have to manually report a post for review and possible removal. Additionally, any removal will require the agreement of multiple human reviewers.

This is consistent with our argument that AI-driven and other automated flagging systems will invariably have issues with false-positives, making human review critical. Beyond removals, Meta is increasing the confidence threshold required for deboosting a post suspected of violating policy.

Who fact-checks the fact checkers?

Replacing top-down fact-checking with a bottom-up approach based on X’s Community Notes feature may be just about the biggest change announced by Meta. As FIRE noted in the Social Media Report:

Mark Zuckerberg famously said he didn’t want Facebook to be the “arbiter of truth.” But, in effect, through choosing a third-party fact checker, Facebook becomes the arbiter of the arbiter of truth. Given that users do not trust social media platforms, this is unlikely to engender trust in the accuracy of fact checks.

Zuckerberg similarly said in the announcement that Meta’s“fact checkers have just been too politically biased, and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created.”

Our Social Media Report argued that the Community Notes feature is preferable to top-down fact-checking, because a community of diverse perspectives will likely be “less vulnerable to bias and easier for users to trust than top-down solutions that may reflect the biases of a much smaller number of stakeholders.” Additionally, we argued labeling is more supportive of free expression, being a “more speech” alternative to removal and deboosting.

We are eager to see the results of this shift. At a minimum, experimentation and innovation in content moderation practices provides critical experience and data to guide future decisions and help platforms improve reliability, fairness, and responsiveness to users.

User trust and the appearance of bias

An overall theme in Zuckerberg and Kaplan’s remarks is that biased decision-making has eroded user trust in content moderation at Meta, and these policy changes are aimed at regaining users’ trust. As FIRE argued in our Social Media Report:

In the case of moderating political speech, any platform that seeks to promote free expression should develop narrow, well-defined, and consistently enforceable rules to minimize the kind of subjectivity that leads to arbitrary and unfair enforcement practices that reduce users’ confidence both in platforms and in the state of free expression online.

We also argued that perception of bias and flexibility in rules encourages powerful entities like government actors to “work the refs,” including through informal pressure, known as “jawboning.”

What is jawboning? And does it violate the First Amendment?

Issue Pages

Indirect government censorship is still government censorship — and it must be stopped.

Read More

Additionally, when perceived bias drives users to small, ideologically homogeneous alternative platforms, the result can damage broader discourse:

If users believe their “side” is censored unfairly, many will leave that platform for one where they believe they’ll have more of a fair shake. Because the exodus is ideological in nature, it will drive banned users to new platforms where they are exposed to fewer competing ideas, leading to “group polarization,” the well-documented phenomenon that like-minded groups become more extreme over time. Structures on all social media platforms contribute to polarization, but the homogeneity of alternative platforms turbocharges it.

These are real problems, and it is not clear whether Meta’s plans will succeed in addressing them, but it is welcome to see them recognized.

International threats to speech

Our Social Media Report expressed concern that the Digital Services Act — the broad EU regulation mandating censorship on social media far beyond what U.S. constitutional law allows — would become a least common denominator approach for social media companies, even in the United States. Mark Zuckerberg seems to announce his intention to do no such thing, stating he planned to work with President Trump to push back on “governments around the world” that are “pushing [companies] to censor more.”

While we are pleased at the implication that Meta’s platforms will seemingly not change their free expression policies in America at the behest of the EU, the invocation of a social media company working with any government, including the United States government, rings alarm bells for any civil libertarian. We will watch this development closely for that reason.

FIRE has often said — and it often bears repeating — the greatest threat to freedom of expression will always come from the government, and as Zuckerberg himself notes, the government has in years past pushed Meta to remove content.

When the rubber meets the road

Meta’s commitment to promote freedom of expression on its platforms offers plenty of reasons for cautious optimism.

But we do want to emphasize caution. There is, with free expression, often a large gap between stated intentions and what happens when theory meets practice. As a civil liberties watchdog, our duty is to measure promise against performance.

Take, for example, our measured praise for Elon Musk’s stated commitment to free expression, followed by our frequent criticism when he failed to live up to that commitment. And that criticism hasn’t kept us from giving credit when due to X, such as when it adopted Community Notes.

Similarly, FIRE stands ready to help Meta live up to its stated commitments to free expression. You can be sure that we will watch closely and hold them accountable.

* Meta has donated to FIRE.
Source link
January 9, 2025
Four San Diego State fraternity members charged after one was set on fire (Fox 5 San Diego)

Higher Education Inquirer : Four San Diego State fraternity members charged after one was set on fire (Fox 5 San Diego)

Four San Diego State fraternity members charged after one was set on fire (Fox 5 San Diego)

Source link

January 9, 2025
FIRE statement on legislative proposals to regulate artificial intelligence

As the 2025 legislative calendar begins, FIRE is preparing for lawmakers at both the state and federal levels to introduce a deluge of bills targeting artificial intelligence.

The First Amendment applies to artificial intelligence just as it does to other expressive technologies. Like the printing press, the camera, and the internet, AI can be used as an expressive tool — a technological advance that helps us communicate with one another and generate knowledge. As FIRE Executive Vice President Nico Perrino argued in The Los Angeles Times last month: “The Constitution shouldn’t be rewritten for every new communications technology.”

We again remind legislators that existing laws — cabined by the narrow, well-defined exceptions to the First Amendment’s broad protection — already address the vast majority of harms legislatures may seek to counter in the coming year. Laws prohibiting fraud, forgery, discrimination, and defamation, for example, apply regardless of how the unlawful activity is ultimately carried out. Liability for unlawful acts properly falls on the perpetrator of those acts, not the informational or communicative tools they use.

Some legislative initiatives seeking to govern the use of AI raise familiar First Amendment problems. For example, regulatory proposals that would require “watermarks” on artwork created by AI or mandate disclaimers on content generated by AI violate the First Amendment by compelling speech. FIRE has argued against these kinds of efforts to regulate the use of AI, and we will continue to do so — just as we have fought against government attempts to compel speech in school, on campus, or online.

Rather than compelling disclaimers or imposing content-based restrictions on AI-generated expression, legislators should remember the law already protects against defamation, fraud, and other illegal conduct.

Lawmakers have also sought to regulate or even criminalize the use of AI-generated content in election-related communications. But courts have been wary of legislative attempts to control AI’s output when political speech is implicated. Following a First Amendment challenge from a satirist who uses AI to generate parodies of political figures, for example, a federal district court recently enjoined a California statute aimed at “deepfakes” that regulated “materially deceptive” election-related content.

Content-based restrictions like California’s law require strict judicial scrutiny, no matter how the expression is created. As the federal court noted, the constitutional protections “safeguarding the people’s right to criticize government and government officials apply even in the new technological age when media may be digitally altered.” So while lawmakers might harbor “a well-founded fear of a digitally manipulated media landscape,” the court explained, “this fear does not give legislators unbridled license to bulldoze over the longstanding tradition of critique, parody, and satire protected by the First Amendment.”

Artificial intelligence, free speech, and the First Amendment

Issue Pages

FIRE offers an analysis of frequently asked questions about artificial intelligence and its possible implications for free speech and the First Amendment.

Read More

Other legislative proposals threaten the First Amendment by imposing burdens directly on the developers of AI models. In the coming months, for example, Texas lawmakers will consider the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, or TRAIGA, a sweeping bill that would impose liability on developers, distributors, and deployers of AI systems that may introduce a risk of “algorithmic discrimination,” including by private actors. The bill vests broad regulatory authority in a newly created state “Artificial Intelligence Council” and imposes steep compliance costs. TRAIGA compels developers to publish regular risk reports, a requirement that will raise First Amendment concerns when applied to an AI model’s expressive output or the use of AI as a tool to facilitate protected expression. Last year, a federal court held a similar reporting requirement imposed on social media platforms was likely unconstitutional.

TRAIGA’s provisions incentivize AI developers to handicap their models to avoid any possibility of offering recommendations that some might deem discriminatory or simply offensive — even if doing so curtails the models’ usefulness or capabilities. Addressing unlawful discrimination is an important legislative aim, and lawmakers are obligated to ensure we all benefit from the equal protection of the law. At the same time, our decades of work defending student and faculty rights has left FIRE all too familiar with the chilling effect on speech that results from expansive or arbitrary interpretations of anti-discrimination law on campus. We will oppose poorly crafted legislative efforts that would functionally build the same chill into artificial intelligence systems.

The sprawling reach of legislative proposals like TRAIGA run headlong into the expressive rights of the people building and using AI models. Rather than compelling disclaimers or imposing content-based restrictions on AI-generated expression, legislators should remember the law already protects against defamation, fraud, and other illegal conduct. And rather than preemptively saddling developers with broad liability for an AI model’s possible output, lawmakers must instead examine the recourse existing laws already provide victims of discrimination against those who would use AI — or any other communicative tool — to unlawful ends.

FIRE will have more to say on the First Amendment threats presented by legislative proposals regarding AI in the weeks and months to come.

Source link

January 8, 2025
FIRE to defend veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer in Trump lawsuit over outlier election poll

DES MOINES, Iowa, Jan. 7, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression announced today it will defend veteran Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer pro bono against a lawsuit from President-elect Donald Trump that threatens Americans’ First Amendment right to speak on core political issues.

“Punishing someone for their political prediction is about as unconstitutional as it gets,” said FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere. “This is America. No one should be afraid to predict the outcome of an election. Whether it’s from a pollster, or you, or me, such political expression is fully and unequivocally protected by the First Amendment.”

EXPLAINER: FIGHTING TRUMP’S LAWSUIT IS FIRST AMENDMENT 101

Trump’s lawsuit stems from a poll Selzer published before the 2024 presidential election that predicted Vice President Kamala Harris leading by three points in Iowa. The lawsuit, brought under Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act, is meritless and violates long-standing constitutional principles.

The claim distorts the purpose of consumer fraud laws, which target sellers who make false statements to get you to buy merchandise.

“Consumer fraud laws are about the scam artist who rolls back the odometer on a used car, not a newspaper pollster or TV meteorologist who misses a forecast,” said FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick.

Trump’s suit seeks damages and a court order barring the newspaper from publishing any future “deceptive polls” that might “poison the electorate.” But Selzer and The Des Moines Register were completely transparent about how the poll was conducted. Selzer and the newspaper released the demographic breakdowns showing the results of the telephone survey and the weighting system. Selzer also released an analysis of how her methods might have contributed to missing the mark.

“I’ve spent my career researching what the people of Iowa are thinking about politics and leading issues of the day,” Selzer said. “My final poll of the 2024 general election missed the mark. The response to a mismatch between my final poll and the decisions Iowa voters made should be thoughtful analysis and introspection. I should be devoting my time to that and not to a vengeful lawsuit from someone with enormous power and assets.”

Selzer’s Iowa polls have long enjoyed “gold standard” status among pollsters. She correctly predicted Trump’s win in Iowa in 2016 and 2020 using the same methodology in her 2024 poll.

COURTESY PHOTOS OF J. ANN SELZER FOR MEDIA USE

“Donald Trump is abusing the legal system to punish speech he dislikes,” said FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “If you have to pay lawyers and spend time in court to defend your free speech, then you don’t have free speech.”

America already rejected its experiment with making the government the arbiter of truth. President John Adams used the Sedition Act of 1798 to imprison political rivals for “false” political statements. Trump’s lawsuit is just a new spin on the same theory long rejected under the First Amendment.

The lawsuit fits the very definition of a “SLAPP” suit — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Such tactical claims are filed purely for the purpose of harassing and imposing punishing litigation costs on perceived opponents, not because they have any merit or stand any chance of success. In other words, the lawsuit is the punishment. As Trump once colorfully put it after losing a lawsuit: “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”

By providing pro bono support, FIRE is helping to remove the punishment-by-process incentive of SLAPP suits — just as we’ve done when a wealthy Idaho landowner sued over criticism of his planned airstrip, when a Pennsylvania lawmaker sued a graduate student for “racketeering,” and when an education center threatened to sue a small, autistic-led, nonprofit organization for criticizing the center’s use of electric shocks.

“Pollsters don’t always get it right,” said Fitzpatrick. “When the Chicago Tribune published its famously incorrect ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ headline, it was because the polls were off. Truman didn’t sue the newspaper. He laughed — his victory was enough. That’s how you handle missed predictions in a free society.”

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 defends free speech for all Americans, regardless of political ideology. We’ll defend your rights whether you’re a student barred from wearing a “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirt, a professor censored under Florida’s STOP WOKE Act, or a mother arrested for criticizing your city’s mayor. If it’s protected, we’ll defend it. No throat-clearing, no apologies.

CONTACT:

Daniel Burnett, Senior Director of Communications, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

Source link

January 7, 2025
FIRE to SCOTUS: TikTok ban violates Americans’ First Amendment rights
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the law to ban TikTok in the United States did not violate Americans’ First Amendment rights. Never before has Congress taken the extraordinary step of effectively banning a platform for communication, let alone one used by half the country.

The First Amendment requires an explanation of why such a dramatic restriction of the right to speak and receive information is necessary, and compelling evidence to support it. The government failed to provide either.

What little Congress did place on the public record includes statements from lawmakers raising diffuse concerns about national security and, more disturbingly, their desire to control the American public’s information diet in a way that strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.

Today, FIRE and a coalition of organizations filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reverse the decision.

FIRE is proud to be joined by the following organizations and individuals for today’s brief:
- The Institute for Justice
- Reason Foundation
- The Future of Free Speech
- The Woodhull Freedom Foundation
- The First Amendment Lawyers Association
- Stop Child Predators
- The Pelican Institute for Public Policy
- CJ Pearson
Will Creeley, legal director at FIRE: “The government doesn’t have the power to pull the plug on TikTok without demonstrating exactly why such a dramatic step is absolutely necessary. It has failed to publicly lay out the case for cutting off an avenue of expression that 170 million of us use. The First Amendment requires a lot more than just the government’s say-so. Fifty years after the publication of the Pentagon Papers, Americans understand that invoking ‘national security’ doesn’t grant the government free rein to censor. By failing to properly hold the government to its constitutionally required burden of proof, the court’s decision erodes First Amendment rights now and in the future.”

Jacob Mchangama, executive director of The Future of Free Speech and senior fellow at FIRE: “For decades, the United States has been the global gold standard for free speech protections. The unprecedented bipartisan push to effectively shut down TikTok — an online platform where millions exercise their right to free expression and access information — represents a troubling shift from this proud legacy. If enacted, this ban would make the U.S. the first free and open democracy to impose such sweeping restrictions, drawing uncomfortable parallels with authoritarian regimes like Somalia, Iran, and Afghanistan, which use similar measures to suppress dissent and control their populations. This is not just about a single app; it is a litmus test for the resilience of First Amendment principles in the digital age. The Supreme Court must ensure that Congress is held to the highest standard before permitting actions of such profound consequence. A TikTok ban risks setting a dangerous precedent that undermines the very freedoms distinguishing democracies from autocracies.”

The D.C. Circuit’s decision justifies the Act’s sweeping censorship by invoking “free speech fundamentals.” In so doing, it confuses the First Amendment values at stake, and sacrifices our constitutional tradition of debate and dialogue for enforced silence. The D.C. Circuit’s misguided reasoning is sharply at odds with longstanding First Amendment precedent, violating the constitutional protections it claims to preserve. Instead of following the instructive example set by Taiwan, which has eschewed a blanket TikTok ban in favor of robust counterspeech, the D.C. Circuit’s logic echoes the authoritarianism of North Korea and Iran.

READ THE FULL BRIEF BELOW
Source link
December 27, 2024
One day after FIRE lawsuit, Congress passes changes to filming permits in national parks

On Wednesday, FIRE and the National Press Photographers Association filed a lawsuit challenging the arbitrary and unconstitutional laws that require Americans to apply for a permit and pay costly fees before exercising their right to film in national parks. The very next day, the U.S. Senate passed a bill addressing these same issues. The bill now goes to President Biden, who is expected to sign it in a huge victory for filmmakers — and for the First Amendment.

Currently, filmmakers must obtain a permit and pay a fee if they intend to later profit from their footage in national parks, even if they are using the same handheld camera or phone that a tourist would use. Permits are routinely denied for arbitrary and unpredictable reasons, making it difficult for people like documentary filmmakers, press photographers, and wedding videographers to earn a living. Under the EXPLORE Act, that changes.

WATCH VIDEO

The EXPLORE Act, championed in the Senate by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Wyoming Republican John Barrasso, does several things to fix the constitutional problems with the permit scheme that FIRE is challenging. First, so long as the filming takes place where the public is allowed, doesn’t impact other visitors or damage parks resources, and involves five or fewer people, no permit is required. Second, no permit is required simply because the filmmaker intends to make a profit. Third, no permit is needed to film activities that are already allowed in the park. And fourth, the EXPLORE Act makes clear that when the National Park Service has already approved an event like a wedding to take place in a national park, no additional permit is needed to film or photograph the special occasion.

After filing, FIRE and NPPA took the story to the media and to Capitol Hill. FIRE looks forward to seeing this bill become law.

Source link

December 20, 2024
VICTORY: FIRE lawsuit leads California to halt law penalizing reporters, advocates, and victims who discuss publicly known information about sealed arrest records

SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 19, 2024 — A federal court, acting on a stipulation agreed to by the California attorney general and San Francisco city attorney, today halted enforcement of a California law that officials deployed to suppress journalism about a controversial tech CEO’s sealed arrest records.

Under the law, any person — including journalists, advocates, witnesses, and victims of crimes — faced a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for sharing public information. The court order results from a First Amendment lawsuit filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in November, which led the California attorney general and San Francisco city attorney to agree not to enforce the law while the lawsuit is pending.

“The press and public have a constitutional right to discuss what’s publicly known,” said FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “Government officials can’t punish the press and public when officials fail to safeguard information. That responsibility starts and ends with the government.”

In October 2023, journalist Jack Poulson published articles about a controversial tech CEO’s arrest, sharing a copy of the arrest report sent to him by an unidentified source. The San Francisco Police Department had previously made that report public, even though the executive had successfully petitioned a state court to seal the record.

Almost a year after Poulson published the report, the city attorney of San Francisco — working with the tech executive — sent three letters to Poulson and his webhost, Substack, demanding they remove articles and the sealed report. Those letters threatened enforcement of California’s anti-dissemination statute, Penal Code § 851.92(c). The law imposes a civil penalty of up to $2,500 on any person (except the government officials charged with maintaining the secrecy of sealed records) who shares a sealed arrest report or any information “relating to” the report — even if the information is already publicly available.

Concerned by the implications of the statute, FIRE sued the San Francisco city attorney and the California attorney general on behalf of the Bay Area-based First Amendment Coalition, its Director of Advocacy Ginny LaRoe, and legal commentator Eugene Volokh. Each regularly comments on censorship campaigns precisely like the one the tech CEO and city attorney launched against Paulson and Substack. But the anti-dissemination statute prohibited them from covering the CEO story, even though the information has been publicly available for over a year.

Today, the court entered a preliminary injunction agreed to by both California and the city attorney that prohibits them from enforcing the law with respect to publicly available information.

The preliminary injunction protects not only FAC and Volokh, but anyone — including journalists like Poulson — who publishes information made available to the public.

“Discussing and sharing lawfully obtained information about arrests is not a crime — it’s a core First Amendment right,” said FIRE Staff Attorney Zach Silver. “The rich and powerful shouldn’t have the luxury of deploying the government to put their skeletons back in the closet. By standing up for their own rights, the First Amendment Coalition and Eugene Volokh have helped to protect others from facing legal action under California’s anti-dissemination law.”

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:

Jack Whitten, Communications Campaign Specialist, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

Source link

December 19, 2024