The first part of our argument will be familiar to anyone who has heard us talk about Twitter’s decision to ban Trump. 2/X
In the second part, we raise some concerns about the FOB’s mandate. 3/X
We argue that the Trump case highlights the problems with the FOB’s mandate especially starkly. 4/X
And we caution the FOB against answering the Trump question on Facebook’s terms. 5/X
Rather than answer the question now, we say, the FOB should insist that Facebook commission an independent study into how its design decisions may have helped create the circumstances that made Trump’s statements on Jan. 6, online and offline, so dangerous. 6/X
Why didn’t we just argue that the FOB’s mandate be expanded to encompass design decisions? Because it seems unlikely to us that Facebook will ever give the FOB authority over decisions that are so central to its business model. 7/X
It’s more realistic, we think, to hope that the FOB can influence Facebook’s design decisions even if it doesn’t have formal authority to review them. 8/X
Looking forward to hearing reactions to all of this. FIN
The new admin has taken important steps to make government more transparent and reaffirm the freedoms of speech and the press. Here are some of them. /X
We litigated this with @CREWcrew, and we highlighted the importance of this transparency in our First Amendment Agenda for the New Administration, which is here. /3 knightcolumbia.org/content/a-firs…
Some quick thoughts about the social media companies suspending Trump’s accounts. /1 nytimes.com/2021/01/07/tec…
The platforms should have a heavy bias in favor of leaving political leaders' speech up. Not because platforms owe this to political leaders, but because they owe it to the public. /2
Knowing what political leaders are saying is crucial to the public’s ability to hold those leaders accountable for their decisions. /3
Laura Poitras says the Assange indictment poses a grave threat to press freedom. She's right. 1/x nytimes.com/2020/12/21/opi…
It doesn’t matter whether Assange himself is a properly described as a journalist. He’s being charged for acts that are integral to national security journalism. 2/x
The Assange indictment was part of the Trump admin’s effort to constrain and demonize the press—an effort that also included describing journalism as fake news, describing journalists as enemies of the people, and embracing foreign tyrants who murder reporters and activists. 3/x
I didn’t respond to @paulkrugman's original tweet because I assumed it was just a bad tweet and that he’d figure that out on his own. But now I'm realizing that a lot of the events that defined the past 19 years for people like me didn’t even register with him. THREAD
The problem with the argument he makes here is that it doesn’t recognize that most of the "anti-Muslim sentiment and violence" was *officially sanctioned*. Focusing narrowly on hate crimes stats has the effect of moving all of that out of the picture.
For example, hundreds of Muslim men were rounded up in New York and New Jersey in the weeks after 9/11. They were imprisoned without charge and often subject to abuse in custody because of their religion. None of this would register in any hate crimes database.
I don’t think DOJ is going to get its prior restraint against the bookstores, Simon & Schuster, or John Bolton. Still… (1/x)
Events of the past few days really make you wonder whether it might not have been better if the Bush and Obama DOJs hadn’t persuaded courts to defer blindly to the executive branch’s classification decisions. (2/x)
Maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to argue, as the Bush and Obama DOJs did, that government employees never have a First Amendment right to disclose info the executive branch has classified. (3/x)
We need to do more to ensure that the public and press are getting timely access to reliable and complete information about the pandemic and about government’s response to it. (1/x)
We filed it b/c the WH has issued misleading and inaccurate statements about the pandemic even as it has imposed restrictions on the ability of CDC employees to speak to the press and public. (3/x)