" The injunction effectively shuts down government efforts to coordinate and acting in concert with social media in removing content.
In 2018, Congress unanimously passed legislation in the closing days of the Republican-controlled House on unanimous consent, H.R. 3359, that authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security and the newly created Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency - one of the worst censorship offenders in the federal court injunction - to disseminate information to the private sector including Big Tech social media companies in a bid to combat potential foreign and domestic terrorists.
In addition to the CISA authorizing statute, the 2018 through 2020 National Defense Authorization Acts included extensive provisions allowing the government to target what it calls "Foreign malign influence" by Russia and other countries, but which was used to target to speech of regular Americans, including violating the freedom of the press as it related to reports about Russiagate and also the Hunter Biden laptop story.
That's a particularly high standard, but is also about the only speech-for example a phone call to a hitman to murder someone-that the government is allowed under the First Amendment to concern itself with, because it would be evidence of a crime.
It includes a private right of action for individuals who are ever censored by the government "For reasonable attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, and actual damages" removing any presumption of sovereign immunity and indemnity from the federal government.
As can be seen with the CISA and NDAA provisions, there is almost always a colorable rationale for the government to intervene and remove what it perceives to be enemy communications and propaganda from U.S. media outlets including social media.
If the Free Speech Protection Act is filibustered, then make it a part of appropriations and if opponents want to shut down the government over it, that's their prerogative.
No comments:
Post a Comment