"... 1969, in Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member, and established a new standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." - @ACLU
2/🧵
"Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. The Brandenberg standard prevails today."
Free speech door swings both ways. I know someone is going to mention Fairness Doctrine, so I'll do that as 4/ and explain what it was, which most don't know, from a .gov attorney and why it doesn't apply.
Imagine DeSantis in charge of the .gov agency deciding 'fake news'.
New York Times v Sullivan, 1964. Who benefits if it's overturned? Politicians, rich & powerful and corporations.
7/ 🧵
Eugene V. Debs, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act just for telling a rally of peaceful workers to realize they were "fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder."
-
Prior to Brandenburg Vs. Ohio. Then came the McCarthy era.
8/🧵
Prior to Brandenburg v Ohio.
'Or Sidney Street, jailed in 1969 for burning an American flag on a Harlem street corner to protest the shooting of civil rights figure James Meredith .. ACLU
James Meredith: biography.com/activist/james…
9/🧵
Faux News the root of all evil? And these? Hundreds of whack outlets, print, radio, TV, YouTube, blogs. This is a short list.
SHUT THEM ALL DOWN!!! THEY LIE!!
(of course they do)
You can't shut them down without tossing your own 1st Amendment rights, and they know it.
10/ 🧵(end)
That list is a MAGA list pre-2020 election.☝️ Also, defamation. Sue their as$. Dominion is about to take a big chunk from Murdoch. Alex Jones? He lost. Civil court. Sandy Hook parents proved damages. Done. Also, lying under oath, not covered.
🧵⬇️ Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has begun his unconstitutional assault on a free press, challenging long-standing SCOTUS law upholding press freedoms in 1964 New Times v Sullivan, but the same law (HB991) discriminates against LGBTQ rights. It’s designed to silence dissent.
NY Times v Sullivan shaped press freedoms an held politician accountable even with unfavorable coverage they don’t agree with, not fines. it’s considered a basic pillar of the First Amendment. The case in a nutshell. ⬇️
nytimes.com/2023/02/10/us/… Our fringe-right SCOTUS may take away these rights, and bankrupt every media, including social media, allowing them to sue with much lower standards.
New York Times v Sullivan, 1964 - one of the most important First Amendment SCOTUS cases ever.
Our fringe-right court may take this right away. "Justice Clarence Thomas has written three times that he wants the Supreme Court to revisit Sullivan."
This is also the law DeSantis is trying to rewrite, which will effect free speech on social media and by bloggers - or anyone - even if they don't live in Florida. It's not *just* the press. It affects LGBTQ, gay rights, abortion speech. (See /3)
Democrats need to understand the 26 words that created the internet as we know it - Section 230 before the Supreme Court next week. There’s a reason GQP Sen. Josh Hawley wants it gutted.
There’s a reason (D) Sen. @RonWyden wrote it. Let’s break it down. It protects YOU.
2/
“We're talking about rewriting the legal rules that govern the fundamental architecture of the internet," - @EFF
—
Conservatives are using the case as a vehicle to rail against "Big Tech" firms & amplify claims ..platforms censor content based on political ideology.” - CBS
3/
It fact, it does just the opposite of what Hawley claims, who has taken several shots at the First Amendment and free speech,
A right-wing #SCOTUS has now agreed to hear a case that could literally change the 26 words that created the internet.
-
The internet will be a much different place if the Supreme Court strikes down Section 230. ➡️ (podcast)
- slate.com/podcasts/what-… ⬅️ @jkosseff via @Slate#1A
Section 230 effects social media, blogs, image sharing, forums and comment sections — any service that enables users to submit content. Literally every online platform that allows users to post information, share content, and comment relies on Section 230.
Sec. 230 ... is regarded as “the most important law in tech” because it encourages investment and innovation on the Internet by providing legal certainty to services that they will not be held liable for the speech or actions of third parties.'
Here are those 26 words, Section 230, Communication Decency Act, passed by Congress in 1996.
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"