Like far too many legislators in far too many states, Tennessee’s lawmakers have jumped on the book banning bandwagon. For years, public libraries and school libraries were stocked at the discretion of librarians and largely operated without a lot of interference from state governments. While attempts to ban certain books happened now and then, there was never a concerted effort to remove wide swaths of literature from public library shelves.

Now, it’s just the sort of thing that happens multiple times on a daily basis. And the number of book challenges and book ban attempts continue to increase exponentially as idiots push their personal agendas using the government’s power to control what content the public has access to.

The law passed by the state legislature doesn’t actually ban books from school libraries. But no matter what the text says, that’s obviously the end goal. (h/t BookRiot)

Passed earlier this year, the bill amended the state’s “Age-Appropriate Materials Act,” signed into law by Republican Gov. Bill Lee in 2022, which, according to the ACLU of Tennessee, requires schools to maintain and post lists of the materials in their libraries and to evaluate challenged materials to determine whether or not they are “age-appropriate.”

So, now every Tom, Dick, and Karen can simply challenge a book and force librarians to review the content to see whether or not it’s “age-appropriate.” The initial bill didn’t even bother to define the few terms it bothered to use to describe the age-appropriateness of content, much less provide librarians with guidelines for handling challenges and/or eventual book removals.

The “fixed” version isn’t much better. While it does provide a list of things legislators think are inappropriate for all students (including those in their senior year of high school, where they’re often treated legally as adults when charged with crimes), the laundry list of inappropriate things is still far too vague.

H.B. 843 clarifies that books containing “nudity, or descriptions or depictions of sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violence, or sadomasochistic abuse” are not appropriate for K–12 students, regardless of the context in which those descriptions or depictions appear in the material.

How much violence is “excessive?” Will health textbooks depicting nudity, sexual conduct, and “sexual excitement” be removed from classrooms? Will no one under the age of 18 be able to access content they’re legally allowed to access anywhere else but in a public library?

Perhaps more importantly, what of the Bible?

During debate on the Tennessee Senate floor, state Sen. Jeff Yarbro (D) noted that the bill’s definition of what is “inappropriate” applies to the Bible. “You cannot read the book of Samuel or Kings or Chronicles, much less much of the first five books of the Bible, without significant discussions of rape, sexual excitement, multiple wives, bestiality — numerous things. That’s before you get in just to, you know, very express and explicit descriptions of violence,” Yarbro argued, according to WKRN News 2.

If this point gets pressed, you can rest assured a carve-out will be created for “religious texts,” but… you know… only applied to one specific religion and its main text.

The terms are vague and overly broad. The guidelines for compliance are still mostly nonexistent. And so, at least one school is reopening for the school year with its library closed.

A Wilson County high school is warning teachers to skip classroom libraries and closed the school library over concerns surrounding a new state law.

Under the law, any brief mention of sex, nudity or excess violence can lead to a book ban.

The Wilson County Director of Schools says they are temporarily closing the library at Green Hill High School to sort through books to make sure they get rid of the those that are required to be banned.

So, as teachers and librarians follow the government’s orders to ensure they’re only exposed to content the legislative majority likes, students are going be struggling to comprehend the things they’re learning in civics classes about their fundamental rights.

And all the bill’s supporters have to offer are patently false assertions about how bad things have been for unprotected students prior to the institution of this law.

Senator Pody explains they are trying to protect children from pornography which they’ve found in the past to be available in public schools.

I guarantee you this isn’t true. Notably, Senator Pody offers no times, dates, locations, or any other verification of his claim “pornography” has been found in school libraries or classrooms. Unfortunately, he’s representative of the legislative majority and its ideals. It’s nothing but censorship propelled by bigotry and backed by lies. Caught in the crossfire are the kids and the public school employees who just want to give them the best education they can.

It’s never about the children. Supporters of age verification laws, book bans, drag show bans, and abortion bans always claim they’re doing these things to protect children. But it’s always just about themselves. They want to impose their morality on other adults. That’s all there is to it.

Abortion bans are just a way to strip women of bodily autonomy. If it was really about cherishing children and new lives, these same legislators wouldn’t be routinely stripping school lunch programs of funding, introducing onerous means testing to government aid programs, and generally treating children as a presumptive drain on society.

The same goes for book bans. They claim they want to prevent children from accessing inappropriate material. But you can only prevent children from accessing it by removing it entirely from public libraries, which means even adults will no longer be able to read these books.

The laws targeting drag shows aren’t about children. They’re about punishing certain people for being the way they are — people whose mere existence seems to be considered wholly unacceptable by bigots with far too much power.

The slew of age verification laws introduced in recent years are being shot down by courts almost as swiftly as they’re enacted. And for good reason. Age verification laws are unconstitutional. And they’re certainly not being enacted to prevent children from accessing porn.

Of course, none of the people pushing this kind of legislation will ever openly admit their reasons for doing so. But they will admit it to people they think are like-minded. All it takes is a tiny bit of subterfuge to tease these admissions out of activist groups that want to control what content adults have access to — something that’s barely hidden by their “for the children” facade.

As Shawn Musgrave reports for The Intercept, a couple of people managed to coax this admission out of a former Trump official simply by pretending they were there to give his pet project a bunch of cash.

“I actually never talk about our porn agenda,” said Russell Vought, a former top Trump administration official, in late July. Vought was chatting with two men he thought were potential donors to his right-wing think tank, the Center for Renewing America. 

For the last three years, Vought and the CRA have been pushing laws that require porn websites to verify their visitors are not minors, on the argument that children need to be protected from smut. Dozens of states have enacted or considered these “age verification laws,” many of them modeled on the CRA’s proposals. 

[…]

But in a wide-ranging, covertly recorded conversation with two undercover operatives — a paid actor and a reporter for the British journalism nonprofit Centre for Climate Reporting — Vought let them in on a thinly veiled secret: These age verification laws are a pretext for restricting access to porn more broadly. 

“Thinly veiled” is right. While it’s somewhat amusing Vought was taken in so easily and was immediately willing to say the quiet part loud when he thought cash was on the line, he’s made his antipathy towards porn exceedingly clear. As Musgrave notes in his article, Vought’s contribution to Project 2025 — a right-wing masturbatory fantasy masquerading as policy proposals should Trump take office again — almost immediately veers into the sort of territory normally only explored by dictators and autocrats who relied heavily on domestic surveillance, forced labor camps, and torture to rein in those who disagreed with their moral stances.

Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.

Perhaps the most surprising part of this paragraph (and, indeed, a lot of Vought’s contribution to Project 2025) is that it isn’t written in all caps with a “follow me on xTwitter” link attached. These are not the words of a hinged person. They are the opposite — the ravings of a man in desperate need of a competent re-hinging service.

And he’s wrong about everything in this paragraph, especially his assertion that pornography is not a First Amendment issue. It is. That’s why so many of these laws are getting rejected by federal courts. The rest is hyperbole that pretends it’s just bold, common sense assertions. I would like to hear more about the epidemic of porn overdoses that’s leaving children parentless and overloading our health system. And who can forget the recent killing sprees of the Sinoloa Porn Cartel, which has led to federal intervention from the Mexican government?

But the most horrifying part is Vought’s desire to imprison people for producing porn and converting librarians to registered sex offenders just because their libraries carry some content that personally offends his sensibilities.

These are the words and actions of people who strongly support fascism so long as they’re part of the ruling party. They don’t care about kids, America, democracy, or the Constitution. They want a nation of followers and the power to punish anyone who steps out of line. The Center for Renewing America is only one of several groups with the same ideology and the same censorial urges. These are dangerous people, but their ideas and policy proposals are now so common it’s almost impossible to classify it as “extremist.” There are a lot of Americans who would rather see the nation destroyed than have to, at minimum, tolerate people and ideas they don’t personally like. Their ugliness needs to be dragged out into the open as often as possible, if only to force them to confront the things they’ve actually said and done.

If good intentions created good laws, there would be no need for congressional debate.

I have no doubt the authors of this bill genuinely want to protect children, but the bill they've written promises to be a Pandora's box of unintended consequences.

The Kids Online Safety Act, known as KOSA, would impose an unprecedented duty of care on internet platforms to mitigate certain harms associated with mental health, such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.

While proponents of the bill claim that the bill is not designed to regulate content, imposing a duty of care on internet platforms associated with mental health can only lead to one outcome: the stifling of First Amendment–protected speech.

Today's children live in a world far different from the one I grew up in and I'm the first in line to tell kids to go outside and "touch grass."

With the internet, today's children have the world at their fingertips. That can be a good thing—just about any question can be answered by finding a scholarly article or how-to video with a simple search.

While doctors' and therapists' offices close at night and on weekends, support groups are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for people who share similar concerns or have had the same health problems. People can connect, share information, and help each other more easily than ever before. That is the beauty of technological progress.

But the world can also be an ugly place. Like any other tool, the internet can be misused, and parents must be vigilant in protecting their kids online.

It is perhaps understandable that those in the Senate might seek a government solution to protect children from any harms that may result from spending too much time on the internet. But before we impose a drastic, first-of-its-kind legal duty on online platforms, we should ensure that the positive aspects of the internet are preserved. That means we have to ensure that First Amendment rights are protected and that these platforms are provided with clear rules so that they can comply with the law.

Unfortunately, this bill fails to do that in almost every respect.

As currently written, the bill is far too vague, and many of its key provisions are completely undefined.

The bill effectively empowers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to regulate content that might affect mental health, yet KOSA does not explicitly define the term "mental health disorder." Instead, it references the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders…or "the most current successor edition."

Written that way, not only would someone looking at the law not know what the definition is, but even more concerning, the definition could change without any input from Congress whatsoever.

The scope of one of the most expansive pieces of federal tech legislation could drastically change overnight, and Congress may not even realize it until after it already happened. None of the people's representatives should be comfortable with a definition that effectively delegates Congress's legislative authority to an unaccountable third party.

Second, the bill would impose an unprecedented duty of care on internet platforms to mitigate certain harms, such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders. But the legislation does not define what is considered harmful to minors, and everyone will have a different belief as to what causes harm, much less how online platforms should go about protecting minors from that harm.

The sponsors of this bill will tell you that they have no desire to regulate content. But the requirement that platforms mitigate undefined harms belies the bill's effect to regulate online content. Imposing a "duty of care" on online platforms to mitigate harms associated with mental health can only lead to one outcome: the stifling of constitutionally protected speech.

For example, if an online service uses infinite scrolling to promote Shakespeare's works, or algebra problems, or the history of the Roman Empire, would any lawmaker consider that harmful?

I doubt it. And that is because website design does not cause harm. It is content, not design, that this bill will regulate.

Last year, Harvard Medical School's magazine published a story entitled "Climate Anxiety; The Existential Threat Posed by Climate Change is Deeply Troubling to Many Young People." That article mentioned that among a "cohort of more than 10,000 people between the ages of 16 and 25, 60 percent described themselves as very worried about the climate and nearly half said the anxiety affects their daily functioning."

The world's most well-known climate activist, Greta Thunberg, famously suffers from climate anxiety. Should platforms stop her from seeing climate-related content because of that?

Under this bill, Greta Thunberg would have been considered a minor and she could have been deprived from engaging online in the debates that made her famous.

Anxiety and eating disorders are two of the undefined harms that this bill expects internet platforms to prevent and mitigate. Are those sites going to allow discussion and debate about the climate? Are they even going to allow discussion about a person's story overcoming an eating disorder? No. Instead, they are going to censor themselves, and users, rather than risk liability.

Would pictures of thin models be tolerated, lest it result in eating disorders for people who see them? What about violent images from war? Should we silence discussions about gun rights because it might cause some people anxiety?

What of online discussion of sexuality? Would pro-gay or anti-gay discussion cause anxiety in teenagers?

What about pro-life messaging? Could pro-life discussions cause anxiety in teenage mothers considering abortion?

In truth, this bill opens the door to nearly limitless content regulation, as people can and will argue that almost any piece of content could contribute to some form of mental health disorder.

In addition, financial concerns may cause online forums to eliminate anxiety-inducing content for all users, regardless of age, if the expense of policing teenage users is prohibitive.

This bill does not merely regulate the internet; it threatens to silence important and diverse discussions that are essential to a free society.

And who is empowered to help make these decisions? That task is entrusted to a newly established speech police. This bill would create a Kids Online Safety Council to help the government decide what constitutes harm to minors and what platforms should have to do to address that harm. These are the types of decisions that should be made by parents and families, not unelected bureaucrats serving as a Censorship Committee.

Those are not the only deficiencies of this bill. The bill seeks to protect minors from beer and gambling ads on certain online platforms, such as Facebook or Hulu. But if those same minors watch the Super Bowl or the PGA tour on TV, they would see those exact same ads.

Does that make any sense? Should we prevent online platforms from showing kids the same content they can and do see on TV every day? Should sports viewership be effectively relegated to the pre-internet age?

And even if it were possible to shield minors from every piece of content that might cause anxiety, depression, or eating disorders, that is still not enough to comply with the KOSA. That is because KOSA requires websites to treat differently individuals that the platform knows or should know are minors.

That means that media platforms who earnestly try to comply with the law could be punished because the government thinks it "should" have known a user was a minor.

This bill, then, does not just apply to minors. A should-have-known standard means that KOSA is an internet-wide regulation, which effectively means that the only way to comply with the law is for platforms to verify ages.

So adults and minors alike better get comfortable with providing a form of ID every time they go online. This knowledge standard destroys the notion of internet privacy.

I've raised several questions about this bill. But no one, not even the sponsors of the legislation, can answer those questions honestly, because they do not know the answer. They do not know how overzealous regulators or state attorneys general will enforce the provisions in this bill. They do not know what rules the FTC may come up with to enforce its provisions.

The inability to answer those questions is the result of several vague provisions of this bill, and once enacted into law, those questions will not be answered by the elected representatives in Congress, they will be answered by bureaucrats who are likely to empower themselves at the expense of our First Amendment rights.

There are good reasons to think that the courts will strike down this bill. They would have a host of reasons to do so. Vagueness pervades this bill. The most meaningful terms are undefined, making compliance with the bill nearly impossible. Even if we discount the many and obvious First Amendment violations inherent in this bill, the courts will likely find this bill void for vagueness.

But we should not rely on the courts to save America from this poorly drafted bill. The Senate should have rejected KOSA and forced the sponsors to at least provide greater clarity in their bill. The Senate, however, was dedicated to passing a KOSA despite its deficiencies.

KOSA contains too many flaws for any one amendment to fix the legislation entirely. But the Senate should have tackled the most glaring problem with KOSA—that it will silence political, social, and religious speech.

My amendment merely stated that no regulations made under KOSA shall apply to political, social, or religious speech. My amendment was intended to address the legitimate concern that this bill threatens free speech online. If the supporters of this legislation really do want to leave content alone, they would have welcomed and supported my amendment to protect political, social, and religious speech.

But that is not what happened. The sponsors of the bill blocked my amendment from consideration and the Senate was prohibited from taking a vote to protect speech.

That should be a lesson about KOSA. The sponsors did not just silence debate in the Senate. Their bill will silence the American people.

KOSA is a Trojan horse. It purports to protect our children by claiming limitless ability to regulate speech and depriving them of the benefits of the internet, which include engaging with like-minded individuals, expressing themselves freely, as well as participating in debates among others with different opinions.

Opposition to this bill is bipartisan, from advocates on the right to the left.

A pro-life organization, Students for Life Action, commented on KOSA, stating, "Once again, a piece of federal legislation with broad powers and vague definitions threatens pro-life speech…those targeted by a weaponized federal government will almost always include pro-life Americans, defending mothers and their children—born and preborn."

Student for Life Action concluded its statement by stating: "Already the pro-life generation faces discrimination, de-platforming, and short and long term bans on social media on the whims of others. Students for Life Action calls for a No vote on KOSA to prevent viewpoint discrimination from becoming federal policy at the FTC."

The ACLU brought more than 300 high school students to Capitol Hill to urge Congress to vote no on KOSA because, to quote the ACLU, "it would give the government the power to decide what content is dangerous to young people, enabling censorship and endangering access to important resources, like gender identity support, mental health materials, and reproductive healthcare."

Government mandates and censorship will not protect children online. The internet may pose new problems, but there is an age-old solution to this issue. Free minds and parental guidance are the best means to protect our children online.

The post Censoring the Internet Won't Protect Kids appeared first on Reason.com.

In U.S. classrooms and libraries, a coordinated attack on students’ right to learn is underway.

Since January 2021, 44 states have introduced bills or taken other steps to restrict how teachers can teach about racism and sexism in the classroom. These unlawful efforts impact students as young as five or six, and exist throughout the education system, reaching high school students and those at higher education institutions. In addition to censoring classroom conversations, lawmakers and school boards have also enacted sweeping book bans that further restrict access to diverse viewpoints.

The ACLU has challenged classroom censorship laws and book bans nationwide as part of its broader efforts to defend education equity. To better understand who these censorship attempts harm and how young people are being impacted, this back-to-school season, we spoke to high school students from across the country at the ACLU’s annual National Advocacy Institute about how classroom censorship has impacted their right to learn.

I am not able to take AP Psychology or AP African American History. I am also unable to find a lot of the books that I like because they are being banned and removed from my local libraries. I have to work harder to find information and, because it is harder, I sometimes just decide not to look for it.

As a woman of color, I haven’t fully felt that I identify with much of the history taught in my classrooms. I think book banning, and taking away certain avenues of education for students to learn about their background and where they came from … is really harmful to students, especially youth who are trying to find their sense of community and where to belong.

If I'm in the classroom and I can't get an array of perspectives from an array of different authors, I feel that I'm not getting an education representative of our America. If I can't read authors who look like me, who look like my black and brown friends, [who look like] my friends of AAPI descent, then what am I really learning? I'm learning America from the perspective of only one kind of person, and that's not the education that I want, nor is it the education that any student should receive.

Students learn from being able to read books, voice our opinions, and hear the opinions of others. As someone who's Jewish and has had family murdered in the Holocaust, I understand firsthand that when you start to ban books and label books as forbidden the people in those books soon find themselves also labeled forbidden… Information, the right to knowledge, and the right to converse freely are what protect all of our other rights that we care about so deeply.

History isn’t as pretty and simple as some people want to make it seem. It’s very complicated. You really need to have access to all of the information you can get and hear a lot of different opinions …Having access to all viewpoints allows me to expand my knowledge and makes learning a lot more interesting.

Banning books is one of the ways that we are actively stunting educational growth for young students. I think that, for kids, the library is often a haven for where they can go and just garner so many new perspectives and gain an idea of what change can possibly be.

As a kid, I got into advocacy from reading The Hunger Games and seeing the rise of Katniss Everdeen and the revolution. And so, if books like that, like Fahrenheit 451, like The Hunger Games, or Of Mice and Men are banned, these narratives are being erased. Kids can’t get that sort of education and perspective that can encourage them to make change later on as leaders of the future.

My school district has dealt with book bans and curriculum censorship…I really saw a burden come on our educators and our students where we didn't feel like we were being adequately represented in the curriculum, and we didn't feel that we were able to grow in our knowledge in a very truthful and real way. We need to have the opportunity to explore our knowledge at a deeper level and not be restricted by adults that think that we're not smart enough to understand.

If my teachers weren’t allowed to talk about issues I cared about, I would honestly feel a little bit belittled, especially because teachers are very looked up to. They’re the people that we learn from, who educate us since we're little. And if our role models can't speak to something that we're passionate about, what does that say about our passions? Are those belittled as well? Are our feelings belittled? Are we invalidated? I think that it instills in us from a young age that we can only say certain things and can't speak our mind.

More than half of Americans believe the First Amendment can go too far in the rights it guarantees, according to a new survey from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment–focused nonprofit.

The survey, released on Thursday, asked 1,000 American adults a range of questions about the First Amendment, free speech, and the security of those rights. Fifty-three percent of respondents agreed with the statement "The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees" to at least some degree, with 28 percent reporting that it "mostly" or "completely" describes their thoughts.

Americans were further divided along partisan lines. Over 60 percent of Democrats thought the First Amendment could go too far, compared to 52 percent of Republicans.

"Evidently, one out of every two Americans wishes they had fewer civil liberties," Sean Stevens, FIRE's chief research adviser, said on Thursday. "Many of them reject the right to assemble, to have a free press, and to petition the government. This is a dictator's fantasy."

Further, 1 in 5 respondents said they were "somewhat" or "very" worried about losing their job if someone complains about something they said. Eighty-three percent reported self-censoring in the past month, with 23 percent doing so "fairly" or "very" often.

Just 22 percent of respondents said they believed the right to free speech was "very" or "completely" secure. But despite these concerns, over a third said they trusted the government "somewhat," "very much," or "completely" to make fair decisions about what speech is deemed "intimidating," "threatening," "harassing," and "indecent," among other labels.

In all, almost 7 out of every 10 respondents agreed that America is going in the wrong direction when it comes to free speech—though it's not clear whether respondents think our culture and government are becoming too tolerant, or not tolerant enough, of controversial speech.

This latest survey indicates that many Americans are concerned about the security of free speech rights, yet also eager to censor speech they personally find distasteful.

"Americans have little tolerance for certain forms of protected speech and a lot of tolerance for unprotected conduct, when it should be the other way around," Stevens said. "This poll reveals that the state of free speech in America is dire."

The post More Than Half of Americans Think the First Amendment Provides Too Many Rights appeared first on Reason.com.

New legislation would repeal parts of the Comstock Act, a Victorian-era law that's being revived to attack abortion pills.

Passed in 1873, the Comstock Act was a big deal in earlier eras, sending people to prison for publishing information about birth control, critiques of marriage, and more.

The law is vague and broad, banning the mailing of any "article, matter, thing, device, or substance" that the government deems "obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile," along with anything "designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use." Essentially, the Comstock Act weaponizes the U.S. Postal Service to give the federal government an in against things that otherwise wouldn't be its business.

"Anthony Comstock, the law's namesake and an anti-smut crusader, lobbied for and personally enforced the law as a special agent of the U.S. Postal Service," noted the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) lawyer Robert Corn-Revere in a recent piece for Reason about efforts to posthumously pardon publisher D.M. Bennett. "Under the law's broad mandate, everything that Comstock considered immoral was by definition obscene and, therefore, illegal. Comstock's concept of immorality included blasphemy, sensational novels and news stories, art, and even scientific and medical texts." (You can read more about Comstock, "the prodigal censor," here.)

The Comstock Act lay dormant for a while, rendered toothless in part by court interpretations of the First Amendment that were more vigorously protective of free speech. But these days, activists and politicians opposed to abortion are trying to revive the law, seeing its potential usefulness in going after mifepristone and misoprostol, the two-pill regimen approved to end first-trimester pregnancies.

The resurgence of interest in the Comstock Act underscores the need to repeal bad laws, not simply assume them defanged by decades of latency.

The Biden administration certainly isn't going to start prosecuting people under the Comstock Act, but a more conservative future administration could. "[Donald] Trumps' [sic] advisors are…arguing that the Comstock Act is a de facto national abortion ban already on the books," says Madison Roberts, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "They are wrong. The Department of Justice has made clear and federal appeals courts have uniformly held for almost a century that the Comstock Act does not apply to legal abortion care. But anti-abortion extremists have manipulated the law to ban abortion before, and there's no reason to think they won't try it again."

Moreover, the law was cited in a legal challenge to abortion pills and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's decision to let them be sent via mail. The district judge who first heard the case (and sided with the plaintiffs) wrote that "dispensing of chemical abortion drugs through mail violates unambiguous federal criminal law." That case was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court last week on procedural grounds, but it certainly won't be the last attempt to stop the prescription and mailing of abortion pills. Nor is it likely to be the last time Comstock is invoked for this purpose—unless the act is revised or repealed.

"It is too dangerous to leave this law on the books," Sen. Tina Smith (D–Minn.) said in a statement.

The Stop Comstock Act, which Smith is slated to introduce soon (no draft has been released yet, however), would repeal the parts of the law "that could be used by an anti-abortion administration to ban the mailing of mifepristone and other drugs used in medication abortions, instruments and equipment used in abortions, and educational material related to sexual health," per Smith's press release. A companion bill will be introduced in the House by Rep. Becca Balint (D–Vt.).

This is good, but not far enough, if it only partially repeals the law.

Why stop with repealing the parts that could be used to target abortion? The Comstock Act's reach is much more broad than that, and every bit could do some damage in the wrong hands.

Here's the full spate of things that the Comstock Act declares criminal to mail:

Every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; and

Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

Every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or from whom, or by what means any of such mentioned matters, articles, or things may be obtained or made, or where or by whom any act or operation of any kind for the procuring or producing of abortion will be done or performed, or how or by what means abortion may be produced, whether sealed or unsealed; and

Every paper, writing, advertisement, or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

Every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing.

It's time to repeal the whole thing.

Today, it's only the abortion part of the law that people are trying to revive. But a few years ago, most of us weren't expecting a Comstock revival at all. Who's to say that a few years from now, people won't try to use it against all sorts of information, art, etc. that they don't like?

If we want to stop the Comstock Act from ever again being used to suppress speech, restrict access to contraceptives, punish people for homosexuality, and more, then we need to stop the Comstock Act entirely.

The post The Stop Comstock Act Doesn't Go Far Enough appeared first on Reason.com.

A freshly pressed tuxedo shirt. A black bowtie and a crisp black tuxedo jacket, topped off by my curly red afro. On that day last fall, I knew I looked good. I felt like myself. I was so excited to take my senior class portrait. It was a rite of passage I’d been looking forward to for a long time.

I think back fondly on the memories I made at Harrison Central High School in Mississippi. I loved playing basketball with the Red Rebelettes, volunteering with the honor societies, or having so much fun with my friends. I take pride in my accomplishments and experiences.

Most of all, I am immensely proud of who I am – a gay woman of color.

I was eager to take my senior portrait for the yearbook and create a keepsake for my friends, family, and high school community to remember me for years to come.

With my school’s approval, my mom and I scheduled my portrait appointment at the local photography studio. When I arrived, the photographer told me that if I wore my tuxedo then my senior portrait would not be included in the yearbook. I was told my school district required girls to wear a drape – a black off-the-shoulder top that mimics the look of a formal gown. Only boys could wear tuxedos.

I was devastated.

Throughout high school I consistently wore traditionally masculine clothing. Wearing masculine clothing is a central part of the way I express my gender and my sexual orientation. I could not believe that based on my sex, I would be forced to either wear a drape, or have my senior portrait excluded from the yearbook.

My mom and I decided that I would not accept this unfair and sexist rule. I held firm and took my senior portrait – a photograph meant to represent me – in my tuxedo.

When my mom contacted Harrison County Superintendent Mitchell King to ask for my portrait to be included in the yearbook, she got an outright rejection. Superintendent King insisted on enforcing the school district’s requirement that girls must wear drapes for their senior portraits.

My mom kept fighting for my rights. She bought a full-page senior ad and included my senior portrait in it. But in late March, a school staff member told my mom that the principal hadn’t approved the use of my portrait in the ad yet.

By this time, I’d attended my senior prom, wearing – you guessed it – a tuxedo. I received nothing but compliments. No one said that my attire violated the dress code. I was utterly confused at this point. What was so wrong about me wearing a tuxedo in my senior portrait?

When I received my yearbook, I discovered that the school district had deleted me from the graduating senior section of the yearbook entirely. Not only did they refuse to use my portrait, they also refused to print my name, academic honors, sports, or activities. They deleted my portrait from the ad my mom paid for in the yearbook. It was as if my time at Harrison Central never happened.

Not being recognized in the yearbook really hurt. When I look at the senior section today, I see all my peers, I see where my name and accomplishments should have been, and yet I am not there. It feels like the school district erased who I am and what I have achieved.

Despite what happened with the yearbook, I was so excited for my graduation ceremony. I was going to graduate with high honors and experience this once-in-a-lifetime event. As the crowd waited for the seniors to walk the stage, the school played a slideshow with portraits of each member of the graduating class. My family eagerly waited to see my portrait, but it never came. The slideshow skipped right past me.

While I have happy memories of celebrating with my family, it still hurts that the school excluded my portrait from the graduation ceremony. But I won’t let the school – or anyone – stop me from choosing to be myself. The school has no right to try to shame me or erase me or my pride. I am looking ahead to brighter times, starting with playing basketball and studying sports management in college.

I am also committed to ensuring that the next student who shows up at the portrait studio is free to choose a tuxedo or a drape for their senior portrait based on who they are, not who the school thinks they should be. That’s why I joined other Harrison County students in fighting back against the School District’s discriminatory actions by filing a Title IX complaint with the U.S. Department of Education. No student should be forced to conform to rigid sex stereotypes to take part in high school, let alone at capstone events like the yearbook and graduation.

You only graduate from high school once. Together with the ACLU and the community that supports my authentic self-expression, we won’t let schools silence, exclude, or erase us for taking pride in who we are and daring to be ourselves.

A Texas public library can't remove books simply because they discuss topics like "butts and farts," a federal court ruled last week. 

The case is one of the more bizarre instances of library censorship in recent years, but it nonetheless led to a decisive option from the majority, who found that it is unconstitutional to remove library books out of a "desire to limit access to ideas with which they [disagree]."

The legal battle began after Llano County Judge Ron Cunningham received complaints in 2021 concerning "pornographic and overtly sexual books in the library's children's section." The complainants were particularly upset about children's books about "butts and farts."

One of the aggrieved citizens, Llano resident Rochelle Wells, "had been checking out those books continuously for months to prevent others from accessing them."

Following the complaint, Cunningham told the library's director, Amber Milum, to remove the books from library shelves. After more complaints were lodged, Cunningham told the library director to also remove several other books that "depict any type of sexual activity or questionable nudity."

Milum later testified that she would not have removed the books as part of typical curation activities—she only removed them because of directions from county officials. 

Making matters worse, in January 2022, the county's library board was dissolved and replaced with new board members. Two of the complainers who successfully pressured Cunningham to order books removed were placed on the new board.

According to the opinion, the new board "implemented several policy changes, including prohibiting Milum from attending their meetings and requiring her to seek approval before purchasing any new books."

Seven library patrons brought a suit in 2022, arguing that the removal of the book was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Eventually, a lower court agreed, granting a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to return the removed books. However, the county appealed. Just this week, a panel of judges from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs.

Referencing other cases surrounding attempted library censorship, the majority opinion constructed a series of "rules" about how books can be removed from library collections. "Librarians may consider books' contents in making curation decisions," Judge Jaques Weiner Jr. wrote in the majority opinion. "Their discretion, however, must be balanced against patrons' First Amendment rights…a book may not be removed for the sole—or a substantial—reason that the decision-maker does not wish patrons to be able to access the book's viewpoint or message."

The motivation for removing targeted books from Llamo public libraries doesn't meet this test. The opinion notes that censors wanted the books gone simply because they didn't like their content. 

"Government actors may not remove books from a public library with the intent to deprive patrons of access to ideas with which they disagree," the opinion concludes. "Because that is apparently what occurred in Llano County, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim."

The post Texas Public Library Can't Remove Books About 'Butts and Farts,' Federal Court Rules appeared first on Reason.com.

The creators behind BASEDPolitics are suing over a measure meant to either ban TikTok or force its divestiture.

President Joe Biden signed the (highly unconstitutional) bill in April, and it already faces several legal challenges, including one filed by TikTok and one filed by eight TikTok content creators. Like those efforts, the BASEDPolitics suit focuses on the law's affront to free speech.

"We wanted to file a lawsuit that was specifically focused on free speech and the First Amendment from the creators' perspective, rather than some of the other, business-related concerns in other lawsuits," Brad Polumbo of BASEDPolitics tells me. "We also wanted to emphasize the political speech aspect, rather than other creators who are more in the mold of everyday 'influencers,' and show that right-leaning/non-liberal voices are being impacted by this as well."

Polumbo hopes the lawsuit will "help Republicans and conservatives see why this ban is inconsistent with the free speech values they say they care about."

TikTok Ban: Not Just Bad for Lifestyle Influencers or Leftists

BASEDPolitics is a nonprofit media organization run by Polumbo, Hannah Cox, and Jack Hunter. Its goal is to introduce young people "to the ideas of free market capitalism and individual liberty."

TikTok helps them reach audiences they likely wouldn't reach on other platforms, says Cox. "Both Brad and I have large platforms across social media, but TikTok offers a unique audience that can't be found elsewhere," she tells me. "Most on TikTok loathe Meta and X, so if they weren't on TikTok it's unlikely they'd engage meaningfully elsewhere. Their algorithm is also more open, and it enables us to reach many people who would never encounter us otherwise."

There's a popular perception that TikTok either isn't a place for political speech or is an asset only for left-leaning political speakers. But the BASEDPolitics team hasn't found this to be true at all.

"Anyone who thinks TikTok is all just frivolous content is probably not a user," says Polumbo. "There's substantive conversation happening on there on every issue under the sun, from religion to dating to politics." And while "TikTok is dominated by left-leaning content," it's also "a much more politically diverse ecosystem than many might think."

Their suit focuses not just on how a ban would negatively affect BASEDPolitics but on its larger repurcussions for civil liberties.

"We felt the need to stand up as individuals who are using TikTok to effectively fight back against the government and educate others on the principles of free market capitalism, individual rights, and limited government," says Cox, who sees all sorts of "incredible work being done on TikTok—both politically and non politically."

"People are pushing back on war…they're questioning our monetary system, they're highlighting injustices carried out by our government," she says. "Outside of politics, TikTok is now the top search engine for young people. They're getting mental health resources from therapists, DIY help from retired grandpas, nutrition information they can't get from their health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The list is endless."

Propaganda Is Free Speech

BASEDPolitics is being represented by the Liberty Justice Center. The suit seeks a declaration that the anti-TikTok law—officially known as the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act—is unconstitutional and a block on the U.S. Attorney General enforcing it.

The law makes it illegal for Americans to "access, maintain, or update" apps linked to "foreign adversaries," a category that the measure defines to include TikTok. TikTok will be banned if TikTok parent company ByteDance does not sell it by January 19, 2025. The law also allows the president to declare other apps off limits (or force their sale) if they're based out of any country declared a foreign adversary or if anyone based in these countries owns a fifth or more of the app.

"The Act violates the First Amendment because it bans all speech on TikTok—even though all, or nearly all, of that speech is constitutionally protected," the Liberty Justice Center states in a press release. "The lawsuit also argues that lawmakers' justifications for the ban—national security and protecting Americans from propaganda—cannot justify the infringement on users' First Amendment rights, because there is no evidence that TikTok threatens national security or that a complete ban is necessary to address whatever threat it might pose. Furthermore, the lawsuit argues, the First Amendment does not allow the government to suppress 'propaganda,' which is simply speech."

Cox elaborates on this point in a video about the lawsuit, noting that people act like TikTok is unique because it could be linked to the Chinese Communist Party. Yet "you have tons of state-owned media that is available in the U.S.," points out Cox, citing the BBC and Russia today as two examples.

In the U.S., we don't ban speech merely because another government—even one we find alarming—might endorse it. So even if some of the more speculative fears about China and TikTok are true, that should be no reason to ban it entirely.

Cox says this sort of thing is more befitting of "communist dystopias" such as North Korea.

There's been some (overhyped) concern about TikTok suppressing content that could offend Chinese authorities. But even if that's true, it wouldn't justify a ban either.

"As First Amendment supporters, we also support the legal right of TikTok as a private platform to ban or restrict whatever kinds of content it wants even if we personally resent their choices or think it's unfair," Polumbo adds.

Larger Anti-Speech and Anti-Tech Trends 

"If enacted, this would constitute one of the most egregious acts of censorship in modern American history," Cox and Polumbo write, placing the TikTok ban in the midst of larger anti-speech and anti-tech trends:

In the federal and state governments, both Republicans and Democrats have become increasingly anti-free speech in recent years. We've seen a plethora of bills that have sought to strip Americans and their businesses of their right to free expression, many of them presented as necessary to rein in "Big Tech." The TikTok ban is merely the latest iteration of this trend.

The truth is that government actors who want to preserve and expand their own power have a vital interest in taking over the tech industry. Of course the government has yet to see a thriving free market industry it doesn't want to get its hands on. But social media in particular poses a unique threat to the government—which has for decades been able to control the flow of information and the narrative on political issues via its cozy relationship with many in the mainstream media.

We've seen the Biden Administration seek to lasso social media in a similar fashion numerous times over the past couple of years thanks to the bombshell reports released under both the Twitter Files and the Facebook Files—not to mention the government-wide conspiracy to shadowban information on our own government's funding of the Wuhan lab….

The obvious point is that government officials do not want the American people to be able to freely share information, especially information that makes them look bad.

The bottom line, they suggest, is that "if they can control the flow of information, they can control you."

"Social media poses a unique threat to politicians and the government, and that's because for decades…the government could control the narrative, and they could control the narrative because they mostly control the mainstream media," says Cox in her video. "As social media has grown, they have lost more and more control of the narrative, because they are no longer the gatekeepers, and they don't control the gatekeepers anymore."

"Ultimately the war on Big Tech is a war on free speech and the government desperately trying to regain control of the narrative the [mainstream media] granted them for decades," she tells me.

The BASEDPolitics team also pushes back on the idea that this isn't really a ban because it gives ByteDance the option to sell. "In effect, the legislation is an outright ban on the app, because Bytedance, TikTok's parent company, is likely legally prohibited from selling the TikTok algorithm by China's export control laws," write Cox and Polumbo. "And, TikTok without its algorithm is not really TikTok at all."

You can read their full complaint here.

More Sex & Tech News

• Supreme Court decisions are coming soon—possibly this week—in two major cases concerning abortion. One of these cases prescriptions of the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone amd another concerns a Biden administration declaration regarding abortions as emergency care.

• Kaytlin Bailey and Yasmin Vafa debate whether it's OK to pay for sex.

• Antitrust warriors come for AI: The Federal Trade Commission is subpoenaing Microsoft over its deal with the artificial intelligence startup Inflection. Meanwhile, the Justice Departments "is poised to investigate Nvidia and its leading position in supplying the high-end semiconductors underpinning AI computing," Politico reports.

• "When a new technology arises, it matters greatly whether technocrats align themselves with dynamists or with reactionaries," Virginia Postrel tells Miller's Book Review. "We were lucky in the 1990s that both political parties included people with positive views of the emerging internet, including people with a dynamist understanding of its potential. The opposite is true today. Reactionaries are in ascendance in both parties, and technocrats are listening to them. Plus there are always businesses seeking to use regulation to hinder their competitors. The result is that instead of regarding AI as an exciting potential tool for enhancing human creativity and fostering prosperity, our public discourse tends to frame it as at best a job-destroyer and at worst the Terminator."

• A federal judge has rejected North Carolina's attempt to mandate that abortion pills must be taken in a doctor's office and that their prescription requires an in-person followup visit 72 hours after the medication is taken. The ruling means that women "can again take the medicine mifepristone at home and can obtain the medication from a pharmacy or by mail," WUNC reports.

• "Because 'misinformation' is overwhelmingly identified by focusing on information that contradicts the consensus judgements of experts and elites within society's leading knowledge-generating institutions, the focus on misinformation ignores how such institutions can themselves be deeply dysfunctional and problematic," writes Dan Williams in a very good (and lengthy) post at Conspicuous Cognition. "This includes science, intelligence agencies, mainstream media, and so on."

Today's Image

The post 'If They Can Control the Flow of Information, They Can Control You': BASEDPolitics Sues To Stop TikTok Ban appeared first on Reason.com.

In a welcome development for people who care about liberty, Australia's government suspended its efforts to censor the planet. The country's officials suffered pushback from X (formerly Twitter) and condemnation by free speech advocates after attempting to block anybody, anywhere from seeing video of an attack at a Sydney church. At least for the moment, they've conceded defeat based, in part, on recognition that X is protected by American law, making censorship efforts unenforceable.

A Censor Throws In the Towel

"I have decided to discontinue the proceedings in the Federal Court against X Corp in relation to the matter of extreme violent material depicting the real-life graphic stabbing of a religious leader at Wakeley in Sydney on 15 April 2024," the office of Australia's eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, announced last week. "We now welcome the opportunity for a thorough and independent merits review of my decision to issue a removal notice to X Corp by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal."

The free speech battle stems from the stabbing in April of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel and Father Isaac Royel at an Orthodox Christian Church by a 16-year-old in what is being treated as an Islamist terrorist incident. Both victims recovered, but Australian officials quickly sought to scrub graphic video footage of the incident from the internet. Most social media platforms complied, including X, which geoblocked access to video of the attack from Australia pending an appeal of the order.

But Australian officials fretted that their countrymen might use virtual private networks (VPNs) to evade the blocks. The only solution, they insisted, was to suppress access to the video for the whole world. X understandably pushed back out of fear of the precedent that would set for the globe's control freaks.

Global Content Battle

"Our concern is that if ANY country is allowed to censor content for ALL countries, which is what the Australian 'eSafety Commissar' is demanding, then what is to stop any country from controlling the entire Internet?" responded X owner Elon Musk.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) also argued that "no single country should be able to restrict speech across the entire internet" as did the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The organizations jointly sought, and received, intervener status in the case based on "the capacity for many global internet users to be substantially affected."

In short, officials lost control over a tussle they tried to portray as a righteous battle by servants of the people against, in the words of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, "arrogant billionaire" Elon Musk. Instead, civil libertarians correctly saw it as a battle for free speech against grasping politicians who aren't content to misgovern their own country but reach for control over people outside their borders.

Worse for them, one of their own judges agreed.

"The removal notice would govern (and subject to punitive consequences under Australian law) the activities of a foreign corporation in the United States (where X Corp's corporate decision-making occurs) and every country where its servers are located; and it would likewise govern the relationships between that corporation and its users everywhere in the world," noted Justice Geoffrey Kennett in May as he considered the eSafety commissioner's application to extend an injunction against access to the stabbing video. "The Commissioner, exercising her power under s 109, would be deciding what users of social media services throughout the world were allowed to see on those services."

He added, "most likely, the notice would be ignored or disparaged in other countries."

American Speech Protections Shield the World

This is where the U.S. First Amendment and America's strong protections for free speech come into play to thwart Australian officials' efforts to censor the world.

"There is uncontroversial expert evidence that a court in the US (where X Corp is based) would be highly unlikely to enforce a final injunction of the kind sought by the Commissioner," added Kennett. "Courts rightly hesitate to make orders that cannot be enforced, as it has the potential to bring the administration of justice into disrepute."

Rather than have his government exposed as impotently overreaching to impose its will beyond its borders, Kennett refused to extend the injunction.

Three weeks later, with free speech groups joining the case to argue against eSafety's censorious ambitions, the agency dropped its legal case pending review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

"We are pleased that the Commissioner saw the error in her efforts and dropped the action," responded David Greene and Hudson Hongo for EFF. "Global takedown orders threaten freedom of expression around the world, create conflicting legal obligations, and lead to the lowest common denominator of internet content being available around the world, allowing the least tolerant legal system to determine what we all are able to read and distribute online."

But if the world escaped the grasp of Australia's censors, the country's residents may not be so lucky.

Domestic Censorship Politics

The fight between eSafety and X "isn't actually about the Wakeley church stabbing attacks in April — it's about how much power the government ultimately hands the commissioner once it's finished reviewing the Online Safety Act in October," Ange Lavoipierre wrote for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

"The video in dispute in the case against X has been used, in my opinion, as a vehicle for the federal government to push for powers to compel social media companies to enforce rules of misinformation and disinformation on their platforms," agrees Morgan Begg of the free-market Institute of Public Affairs, which opposes intrusive government efforts to regulate online content. "The Federal Court's decision highlights the government's fixation with censorship."

That is, the campaign to force X to suppress video of one crime is largely about domestic political maneuvering for power. But it comes as governments around the world—especially that of the European Union—become increasingly aggressive with their plans to control online speech.

If the battle between Australia's eSafety commissioner and X is any indication, the strongest barrier to international censorship lies in countries—the U.S. in particular—that vigorously protect free speech. From such safe havens, authoritarian officials and their grasping content controls can properly be "ignored or disparaged."

The post Australian Censors Back Down, Highlighting the U.S. as a Free Speech Haven appeared first on Reason.com.

The real fight for free speech means more than just doing “that which matches the law.” It means being willing to stand up to extremist authoritarian bullies, even when the odds are stacked against you. Challenging regimes where a single satirical post, a meme, or a critical blog can put someone behind bars requires bravery. But sometimes people have to fight, because it’s the right thing to do.

And every once in a while you win.

The notoriously thin-skinned authoritarian Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has sued thousands of people for the crime of “insulting” him (or comparing him to Gollum).

He has jailed journalists for criticizing his government and claims that social media (not his own authoritarian rule) is a “threat to democracy” for allowing his critics to speak.

It won’t surprise you to find out that his government is frequently looking to silence people online.

Elon Musk complied, but the makers of WordPress, Automattic (which also host Techdirt), fought back. Like ExTwitter, Turkey regularly demands Automattic remove content critical of Erdogan. After a demand to remove a critical blog in 2015, Automattic went to court. And while it lost initially, basically a decade later it has prevailed:

With the support of the blogger, we swiftly appealed the First Instance Court’s decision on the basis that such a restriction was an undue interference in freedom of expression. Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), this argument was rejected.

At Automattic, we firmly believe in the importance of freedom of expression—and we weren’t about to let this clear attempt at political censorship go by without a fight. Given the nature of the allegations involved, we decided to strike back, and petitioned the Turkish Constitutional Court. While the prospects of success seemed low, we were fully prepared to take the case all the way to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg if necessary.

Eight years after we submitted our original appeal, we finally received word that the Constitutional Court had accepted our arguments, and unanimously concluded that both the user’s freedom of expression (as provided for under Article 26 of the Turkish Constitution) and their right to an effective remedy (as provided for under Article 40) had been violated. 

According to Automattic, this is a rare and surprising outcome. Turkish courts have rejected similar attempts by the company, but the company hasn’t stopped fighting these fights and, at least in this case, succeeding.

Do not underestimate the significance of this outcome. Victories of this kind in Turkey are rare, and prior to this case, we had spent almost $100,000 USD appealing 14 different takedown orders, without any success.

At Tech Policy Press, Burak Haylamaz explores how Turkey’s “Internet Law” has been widely abused:

…the Turkish government has employed various tactics over the last decade, including content or website access blocking and removal, bandwidth restrictions, and internet throttling to censor critical media and quell government criticism. By the end of 2022, a total of 712,558 websites and domain names, access to 150,000 URL addresses, 9,800 Twitter accounts, 55,000 tweets, 16,585 YouTube videos, 12,000 Facebook posts, and 11,150 Instagram posts were blocked in Türkiye. These decisions are imposed by various authorities, most effectively through recourse mechanisms before the criminal judgeships of peace, which are carefully framed within the legal system.

It’s especially notable that the main law Turkey relies on for this broad censorship was directly modeled on similar “internet regulations” in Europe (especially Germany’s NetzDG law, which partially inspired the DSA across the EU).

This ruling in favor of Automattic is significant because it puts at least some guardrails on the government’s abuse of the law. However, there are limits. As Haylamaz explains, the Constitutional Court had called out the censorial problems with the law years ago, but left it up to the Turkish Parliament to address, which it did not do.

Finally, with no progress, the Constitutional Court again stepped up to call out how these laws conflict with free expression and to declare them unconstitutional, though for some reason the law stays in place until October.

As Haylamaz further explains, this ruling on the law hasn’t stopped Turkish officials from issuing more blocking orders:

One might assume that the criminal judgeships of peace would cease issuing access-blocking and/or content removal decisions based on Article 9 of the Internet Law, or at least consider the interests of online platforms and content authors, especially after the article was deemed unconstitutional. However, this is simply not the case in Turkish politics and courtrooms. The criminal judgeships of peace continue to issue access-blocking and/or content removal decisions based on Article 9 of the Internet Law, despite its unconstitutional status. This comes as no surprise to many, especially after President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan expressed his discomfort with the Constitutional Court’s internet-related decisions and announced his intention to closely monitor them.

It’s good to see Automattic taking on the impossible task of fighting censorial, authoritarian governments and winning. It would be nice to see more companies follow suit.

Across the nation, college administrators are cracking down on pro-Palestenian speech. In Texas, police violently broke up peaceful protests, and one college even reportedly told students that they couldn't use the phrases "Israel," "Zionism," or chant in Arabic. At Brandeis University, police shut down a pro-Palestine protest because its president said it had "devolved into the invocation of hate speech."

While progressives have tended to support campus censorship efforts in recent years, an article in Vox by writer Eric Levitz argues that the left should embrace free speech—and that its push to censor speech in the name of inclusion and social justice was misguided. 

"Should students concerned with social justice rethink their previous skepticism of free speech norms, for the sake of better protecting radical dissent? I think the answer is yes." wrote Levitz. "There is reason to believe that progressives would be better equipped to resist the present crackdown on pro-Palestinian advocacy had social justice activists not previously popularized an expansive conception of harmful speech."

Levitz's article also argues that rejecting censorship could lead the left to find more allies when their ideas are on the chopping block.

"In a world where right-of-center intellectuals had more cause for believing that their defense of leftists' free expression would be reciprocated," Levitz wrote, "it seems plausible that opposition to the Antisemitism Awareness Act might be a bit more widespread and its prospects for clearing the Senate somewhat dimmer."

While Levitz's piece is refreshing, its support for free speech isn't about adopting a new appreciation for the principles of free expression, regardless of political viewpoint. It's about adopting the best policies to protect left-wing ideas.

Save several paragraphs reminding progressives that debate is necessary for finding the truth and that "the more insulated any ideological orthodoxy is from critique, the more vulnerable it will be to persistent errors," Levitz's argument is pragmatic in nature. He spends most of the piece—correctly—arguing that if progressives had been willing to take a stand against censorship of right-wing beliefs, the current norms allowing for the censorship of pro-Palestine activists would not have been set in place. 

However, if your reason to defend speech is purely practical and self-interested, it becomes much easier to indulge in exceptions to your free speech principles. Surely, allowing the censorship of the most offensive, unproductive viewpoints couldn't be used to justify the suppression of your own, much better, ideas, right?

Levitz even hints at such exceptions. "If adopting a permissive attitude toward campus speech entailed significant costs to progressive causes, then doing so might be unwise," he wrote, later adding, "Defending free speech and standing up for the disempowered may sometimes be competing objectives."

When your defense of free speech comes from a core, universal principle, calls for censorship are unthinkable. This is why, for example, it's so frustrating to see Levitz group the First Amendment nonprofit the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) with a long list of "conservatives" who have spoken out against censorship of pro-Palestinian activism. 

FIRE—and everyone else smeared as "conservative" for standing up against censorship—doesn't begrudgingly defend left-wing speech so that right-wing speech will stay protected—they're a nonpartisan organization that defends First Amendment rights because they believe fiercely in the importance of free speech.

Perhaps the biggest flaw is that Levitz's piece still doesn't make the core realization that there can be true, principled, defenders of free speech—those who truly think a nation with more ideas and more voices, even offensive ones, is better than one with fewer. Instead, he sees speech protections as a kind of truce, a decision from both the left and right to leave each other alone so they can both best further their political goals.

We would have a better, more functional world if more people—left or right—were willing to passionately defend the free speech rights of those with whom they disagree. However, getting to that world requires that people let go of the idea that censorship is ever a good idea, not merely that it's impractical. 

The post <i>Vox</i> Wants Progressives To Support Free Speech for the Wrong Reasons appeared first on Reason.com.

Vietnam has recently taken action to block access to the popular PC gaming platform Steam, according to reports from various gaming news outlets. The move ...

The post Steam banned in Vietnam appeared first on Gizchina.com.

Stellar Blade will be "uncensored" in all regions, including Japan.

That's according to the game's official social media account on X, which announced the news earlier today.

"Stellar Blade offers the same uncensored version in all countries, including the Japanese version," the tweet said in both English and Japanese, appending the message with a pixellated image with red X emblazoned across it, and the words "uncensored all countries".

Read more

Apparently, the TikTok ban bill is back.

Speaker Mike Johnson plans to include TikTok divestiture legislation already passed by the House in a fast-moving aid package for Ukraine and Israel that the chamber is set to clear on Saturday. The Senate is expected to quickly take up the measure, and President Joe Biden promised Wednesday to sign it immediately.

If signed into law, the bill would deliver a significant blow to a video-sharing app used by as many as 170 million Americans. Its enactment would also mark a major setback to the company’s intense lobbying efforts, especially by Chief Executive Officer Shou Chew, who made the rounds on Capitol Hill last month in a bid to get the Senate to squelch the legislation.

I’ve already explained why the TikTok ban is both unconstitutional and would not do anything to fix the “concerns” that people have raised about it. We’ve also discussed how those most vocally pushing for the TikTok ban appear to be financially conflicted.

But, even more important than all that, is that a TikTok ban would be a disaster for the open web. Yes, other countries have banned apps, but they tend to be authoritarian countries that have never liked and never supported an open web.

Banning an entire app in the US would be a massive attack on the very concept of an open web. And that’s really unfortunate, given that the US used to be the world’s most vocal supporter of the web being kept open and free.

The New York Times recently had a good article calling out what a disaster the ban would be for the open web.

Digital rights groups and others around the world have taken notice — and raised the question of how the moves against TikTok contradict the United States’ arguments in favor of an open internet.

A Russian opposition blogger, Aleksandr Gorbunov, posted on social media last month that Russia could use the move to shut down services like YouTube. And digital rights advocates globally are expressing fears of a ripple effect, with the United States providing cover for authoritarians who want to censor the internet.

In March, the Chinese government, which controls its country’s internet, said America had “one way of saying and doing things about the United States, and another way of saying and doing things about other countries,” citing the TikTok legislation.

Passing the TikTok ban would effectively be telling the world (1) it’s totally okay to ban apps you don’t like, and (2) the U.S. long-standing commitment to the open web was always fake and always bullshit, because the second a successful foreign app came along, we tossed out those principles.

“It would diminish the U.S.’s standing in promoting internet freedom,” said Juan Carlos Lara, the executive director of Derechos Digitales, a Latin American digital rights group based in Chile. “It would definitely not bolster its own case for promoting a free and secure, stable and interoperable internet.”

And that signal will be heard loud and clear around the world:

Mishi Choudhary, a lawyer who founded the New Delhi-based Software Freedom Law Center, said the Indian government would also use a U.S. ban to justify further crackdowns. It has already engaged in internet shutdowns, she said, and it banned TikTok in 2020 over border conflicts with China.

“This gives them good reason to find confidence in their past actions, but also emboldens them to take similar future actions,” she said in an interview.

Mr. Lara of Derechos Digitales noted that countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua had already passed laws that gave the government more control over online content. He said increased government control of the internet was a “tempting idea” that “really risks materializing if such a thing is seen in places like the U.S.”

A forced sale or ban of TikTok could also make it harder for the American government to ask other countries to embrace an internet governed by international organizations, digital rights experts said.

And, if the goal here is to hurt China in particular, that may backfire massively:

Patrick Toomey, the deputy director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that if the TikTok measure became law, the “hypocrisy would be inescapable and the dividends to China enormous.”

China has long made a big deal whenever the US government is hypocritical like this. This would be a huge PR win for the Chinese government. It would allow it to claim that its Great Firewall approach to the internet is right, and that the US was admitting that openness and an open internet fails. It would allow China to call out US hypocrisy, and that matters a lot at this moment when China is working hard to build stronger relationships with lots of countries around the globe.

Banning TikTok won’t help the US against China. It will play right into China’s hands. It doesn’t need TikTok to get data on Americans, nor to try to influence Americans. But, destroying decades of US foreign policy promoting an open and free internet serves China’s interests massively.

Is TikTok's time finally up? On Saturday, the House of Representatives passed a measure that would require a change in the app's ownership or ban it if that doesn't happen.

Called the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, it's essentially the same divestiture-or-ban bill I wrote about in this newsletter back in March, now tucked into a larger bill (H.R. 8038, the insanely named 21st Century Peace through Strength Act) that deals with everything from fentanyl trafficking to Russian sanctions, Iranian petroleum, Hamas, and boatloads of foreign aid.

The most talked-about part of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act would ban TikTok unless it completely breaks ties with its Chinese parent-company, ByteDance, within 270 days.

But the bill goes far beyond TikTok, and could be used to justify a ban on all sorts of popular apps tied to China, Russia, Iran, or any other country that gets deemed a foreign adversary.

Specifically, the bill makes it illegal "to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application." And the bill's definition of "foreign adversary controlled application" is really broad.

It specifically defines TikTok, ByteDance, and subsidiaries or successors thereof as foreign adversary controlled applications.

The definition would also apply to an array of websites, apps, and "augmented or immersive technology" (with a focus on large social media entities), if they are headquartered in, principally based in, or organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country or if any person or entity with at least a 20 percent stake is based there.

And it would grant the president broad power to determine who meets this bill, opening the measure up for all sorts of potential abuse.

There are multiple ways in which this legislation likely violates the Constitution.

The most obvious constitutional problem is the First Amendment. The bill suppresses the free speech rights of Americans who post to TikTok and of those who consume TIkTok content.

It may also amount to a bill of attainder—a law punishing a specific person or entity, without a trial—and those are unconstitutional.

And it may also violate the 5th Amendment, as Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) noted in a Reason article last week.

Paul thinks the Supreme Court "will ultimately rule it unconstitutional because it would violate the First Amendment rights of over 100 million Americans who use TikTok to express themselves," and "rule that the forced sale violates the Fifth Amendment. Under the Constitution, the government cannot take your property without accusing and convicting you of a crime—in short, without due process. Since Americans are part of TikTok's ownership, they will eventually get their day in court."

Paul's point brings up an important—and often overlooked—factor in all of this: No one has produced evidence of any specific legal infractions committed by TikTok, let alone proven such offenses took place. There's a ton of speculation about what TikTok could be doing, but that's it. A lot of people seem sure that TikTok is a tool of the Chinese Communist Party and you're a fool if you think otherwise. And maybe it is! But that still doesn't mean we can simply sanction the company with no due process, as Paul points out.

Speculation about what the app's ties to China mean may be a good reason for certain people to approach TikTok with caution. But they cannot justify legal action against TikTok.

More Sex & Tech News

• The coddling of the American parent: "Jonathan Haidt's new book…blames youth mental health issues on social media in a way that's easy, wrong, and dangerous," Mike Masnick writes in The Daily Beast.

• Colorado activists failed to collect enough signatures to get an anti-abortion constitutional amendment on the state's ballot this fall.

• Laura LeMoon writes about fighting financial discrimination against sex workers.

Today's Image

The post TikTok Measure Passed by House Is Unconstitutional in Multiple Ways appeared first on Reason.com.

Banning TikTok for real this time: On Saturday, the House passed bills that will send large sums of aid to Israel ($26 billion), Ukraine ($60 billion), and Taiwan ($8 billion), as well as a long-gestating measure to force the divestiture of the video app TikTok.

Now the legislation will need to be approved by the Senate and signed into law by President Joe Biden.

The TikTok ban will probably be challenged. "This is an unprecedented deal worked out between the Republican Speaker and President Biden," declared Michael Beckerman, TikTok's head of public policy, in a memo to the company's American staff. "At the stage that the bill is signed, we will move to the courts for a legal challenge."

China's internet regulator/censor, the Cyberspace Administration, has taken note of the movement on the TikTok bill, which would either ban the Chinese-owned company from operating in the U.S. or force sale of the app to an American owner within a tight timeframe. Forcing divestiture presents a few problems, namely that the proprietary algorithm and source code would likely fail to convey with the purchase, making the app…practically useless.

Not to be outdone by American lawmakers, China's government on Friday ordered that the Meta-owned WhatsApp and Threads be pulled from Apple's app store over "national security concerns" (of course). "A person briefed on the situation said the Chinese government had found content on WhatsApp and Threads about China's president, Xi Jinping, that was inflammatory and violated the country's cybersecurity laws," reports The New York Times. WhatsApp is used minimally compared to WeChat (owned by Chinese company Tencent). But for Apple—which anticipated this to some degree, and already started shifting its supply chain overseas after having been quite conciliatory to the Chinese Communist Party for many years—to be caught in the crosshairs is a harbinger of more to come.

This type of justification can always be found if one looks hard enough—and China's censors certainly do. But beware the coming internet wars, and the use of the American TikTok ban as justification for all manner of crackdowns.

Free and open internet? "A Russian opposition blogger, Aleksandr Gorbunov, posted on social media last month that Russia could use the move to shut down services like YouTube," argues The New York Times' David McCabe. "I don't think the obvious thing needs to be stated out loud, which is that when Russia blocks YouTube, they'll justify it with precisely this decision of the United States," said Gorbunov.

Xi's regime in China and Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia, of course, feel quite comfortable taking whatever cheap shots they can at U.S. lawmakers; if they want to crack down on internet freedoms, they can and will, no excuse necessary. But the TikTok bill is certainly escalatory, and it undermines America's longstanding rhetorical commitment to a free and open internet—or the internet as a "global free-trade zone," in the words of former President Bill Clinton.

---

Scenes from New York: Today is my birthday! And on Saturday, I went out with friends (including a grand total of three babies, who were shockingly well-behaved) to eat crab in Chinatown. After that we went to an event in a basement on East Broadway where the books attempted to teach my toddler that rules are for breaking! Marginally better than Ibram X. Kendi's children's books, but not by much.

---

QUICK HITS

• New York just passed the Local Journalism Sustainability Act, which sets aside $30 million annually to incentivize hiring new local journalists. "The late addition to the $237 billion budget allows eligible outlets to receive a 50 percent refundable credit for the first $50,000 of a journalist's salary, up to a total of $300,000 per outlet," reports Politico. I think it would be fun to troll the legislators by being one of the beneficiaries of this program and then choosing to be the most aggressive muckraker that ever was, scavenging through their records, making them rue the day they were born, etc.
• Tubal ligation and vasectomy trends since Dobbs. Will that Supreme Court decision, which led to abortion being returned to the states (and many states choosing to institute crackdowns), end up actually leading to a lower fertility rate?
• Children in elementary schools all over Poland have been freed from the shackles of homework.
• Protests at Columbia have prompted an Orthodox rabbi on campus sent this message to students:

In response to "horrific" scenes of antisemitic harassment at and around campus, the Orthodox Rabbi at Columbia/Barnard sent a WhatsApp message to more than 290+ Jewish students this morning recommending that they go home until it's safe again for them on campus: pic.twitter.com/uqAntEICLv

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) April 21, 2024

• The Cass review—a four-year review of the evidence on child gender transitions that has led the U.K.'s National Health Service to substantially alter its guidance—isn't important enough for Scientific American to cover, apparently:

Scientific American doesn't cover the Cass Review -- "cass report" and "cass review" net zero Google hits -- but instead, the week after its release, it publishes an interview with an activist who believes kids should have full medical automony and that interpreting scientific… https://t.co/C7C19zxYKT

— Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) April 21, 2024

The post China's Retribution appeared first on Reason.com.

Apparently, the TikTok ban bill is back.

Speaker Mike Johnson plans to include TikTok divestiture legislation already passed by the House in a fast-moving aid package for Ukraine and Israel that the chamber is set to clear on Saturday. The Senate is expected to quickly take up the measure, and President Joe Biden promised Wednesday to sign it immediately.

If signed into law, the bill would deliver a significant blow to a video-sharing app used by as many as 170 million Americans. Its enactment would also mark a major setback to the company’s intense lobbying efforts, especially by Chief Executive Officer Shou Chew, who made the rounds on Capitol Hill last month in a bid to get the Senate to squelch the legislation.

I’ve already explained why the TikTok ban is both unconstitutional and would not do anything to fix the “concerns” that people have raised about it. We’ve also discussed how those most vocally pushing for the TikTok ban appear to be financially conflicted.

But, even more important than all that, is that a TikTok ban would be a disaster for the open web. Yes, other countries have banned apps, but they tend to be authoritarian countries that have never liked and never supported an open web.

Banning an entire app in the US would be a massive attack on the very concept of an open web. And that’s really unfortunate, given that the US used to be the world’s most vocal supporter of the web being kept open and free.

The New York Times recently had a good article calling out what a disaster the ban would be for the open web.

Digital rights groups and others around the world have taken notice — and raised the question of how the moves against TikTok contradict the United States’ arguments in favor of an open internet.

A Russian opposition blogger, Aleksandr Gorbunov, posted on social media last month that Russia could use the move to shut down services like YouTube. And digital rights advocates globally are expressing fears of a ripple effect, with the United States providing cover for authoritarians who want to censor the internet.

In March, the Chinese government, which controls its country’s internet, said America had “one way of saying and doing things about the United States, and another way of saying and doing things about other countries,” citing the TikTok legislation.

Passing the TikTok ban would effectively be telling the world (1) it’s totally okay to ban apps you don’t like, and (2) the U.S. long-standing commitment to the open web was always fake and always bullshit, because the second a successful foreign app came along, we tossed out those principles.

“It would diminish the U.S.’s standing in promoting internet freedom,” said Juan Carlos Lara, the executive director of Derechos Digitales, a Latin American digital rights group based in Chile. “It would definitely not bolster its own case for promoting a free and secure, stable and interoperable internet.”

And that signal will be heard loud and clear around the world:

Mishi Choudhary, a lawyer who founded the New Delhi-based Software Freedom Law Center, said the Indian government would also use a U.S. ban to justify further crackdowns. It has already engaged in internet shutdowns, she said, and it banned TikTok in 2020 over border conflicts with China.

“This gives them good reason to find confidence in their past actions, but also emboldens them to take similar future actions,” she said in an interview.

Mr. Lara of Derechos Digitales noted that countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua had already passed laws that gave the government more control over online content. He said increased government control of the internet was a “tempting idea” that “really risks materializing if such a thing is seen in places like the U.S.”

A forced sale or ban of TikTok could also make it harder for the American government to ask other countries to embrace an internet governed by international organizations, digital rights experts said.

And, if the goal here is to hurt China in particular, that may backfire massively:

Patrick Toomey, the deputy director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that if the TikTok measure became law, the “hypocrisy would be inescapable and the dividends to China enormous.”

China has long made a big deal whenever the US government is hypocritical like this. This would be a huge PR win for the Chinese government. It would allow it to claim that its Great Firewall approach to the internet is right, and that the US was admitting that openness and an open internet fails. It would allow China to call out US hypocrisy, and that matters a lot at this moment when China is working hard to build stronger relationships with lots of countries around the globe.

Banning TikTok won’t help the US against China. It will play right into China’s hands. It doesn’t need TikTok to get data on Americans, nor to try to influence Americans. But, destroying decades of US foreign policy promoting an open and free internet serves China’s interests massively.

The censors who abound in Congress will likely vote to ban TikTok or force a change in ownership. It will likely soon be law. I think the Supreme Court will ultimately rule it unconstitutional, because it would violate the First Amendment rights of over 100 million Americans who use TikTok to express themselves.

In addition, I believe the Court will rule that the forced sale violates the Fifth Amendment. Under the Constitution, the government cannot take your property without accusing and convicting you of a crime—in short, without due process. Since Americans are part of TikTok's ownership, they will eventually get their day in court.

The Court could also conclude that naming and forcing the sale of a specific company amounts to a bill of attainder, legislation that targets a single entity.

These are three significant constitutional arguments against Congress' forced sale/ban legislation. In fact, three different federal courts have already invalidated legislative and executive attempts to ban TikTok.

If the damage to one company weren't enough, there is a very real danger this ham-fisted assault on TikTok may actually give the government the power to force the sale of other companies.

Take, for example, Apple. As The New York Times reported in 2021, "In response to a 2017 Chinese law, Apple agreed to move its Chinese customers' data to China and onto computers owned and run by a Chinese state-owned company."

Sound familiar? The legislators who want to censor and/or ban TikTok point to this same law to argue that TikTok could (someday) be commanded to turn over American users' data to the Chinese government.

Note that more careful speakers don't allege that this has happened, but rather that it might. The banners of TikTok don't want to be troubled by anything inconvenient like proving in a court of law that this is occurring. No, the allegation is enough for them to believe they have the right to force the sale of or ban TikTok.

But back to Apple. It's not theoretical that it might turn over data to the Chinese Communist government. It already has (albeit, Chinese users' information). Nevertheless, it could be argued that Apple, by their actions, could fall under the TikTok ban language that forces the sale of an entity: under the influence of a foreign adversary.

(Now, of course, I think such legislation is absurdly wrong and would never want it applied to Apple, but I worry the language is vague enough to apply to many entities.)

As The New York Times explains: "Chinese government workers physically control and operate the data center. Apple agreed to store the digital keys that unlock its Chinese customers' information in those data centers. And Apple abandoned the encryption technology it uses in other data centers after China wouldn't allow it."

This sounds exactly like what the TikTok censors describe in their bill, except so far as we know, only Americans who live in China might be affected by Apple's adherence to China's law. TikTok actually has spent a billion dollars agreeing to house all American data with Oracle in Texas.

Are there other companies that might be affected by the TikTok ban? Commentary by Kash Patel in The Washington Times argues that Temu, an online marketplace operated by a Chinese company, is even worse than TikTok and should be banned. He makes the argument that Temu, in contrast with TikTok, "does not employ any data security personnel in the United States."

And what of the global publishing enterprise Springer Nature? It has admitted that it censors its scientific articles at the request of the Chinese Communist government. Will the TikTok bill force its sale as well?

Before Congress rushes to begin banning and punishing every international company that does business in China, perhaps they should pause, take a breath, and ponder the ramifications of rapid, legislative isolationism with regard to China.

The impulse to populism is giving birth to the abandonment of international trade. I fear, in the hysteria of the moment, that ending trade between China and the U.S. will not only cost American consumers dearly but ultimately lead to more tension and perhaps even war.

No one in Congress has more strongly condemned the historical famines and genocides of Communist China. I wrote a book, The Case Against Socialism, describing the horrors and inevitability of state-sponsored violence in the pursuit of complete socialism. I just recently wrote another book called Deception, condemning Communist China for covering up the Wuhan lab origins of COVID-19.

And yet, even with those searing critiques, I believe the isolationism of the China hysterics is a mistake and will not end well if Congress insists on going down this path.

The post If They Ban TikTok, Is Apple Next? appeared first on Reason.com.

For the price of $77 to $224, Pennsylvania residents can get a personalized license plate that "contain[s] a combination of up to seven letters and/or numbers," per the state's Department of Transportation (PennDOT). 

That is unless your application for a vanity plate is among the 2,872 rejected over the years.

The department keeps a "Do Not Issue" list, effectively banning thousands of "unacceptable configurations" that they interpret as euphemisms, epithets, or obstructions to law enforcement.

These restrictions are backed by PennDot's loosely defined list of 16 criteria, which the department's staff strictly adheres to, using internet slang dictionaries to check if the acronyms pass.

To be fair, it's not the entire list that raises eyebrows. Restrictions on libel or slander—as well as text that meddles with the license plates' primary purpose "to provide a State-issued, visible, and unique alpha-numeric identification mark for display in a uniform manner"—make sense.

But then you have "words which inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." What does that include, exactly? It includes what the department staff says it includes. 

Also not allowed are acronyms that suggest sexual innuendo, like BLOWME, or contain profane or obscene intent, like DZZNUTZ. Don't even think about references to excretory functions.

Pennsylvania is far from the only state that has banned acronyms from vanity plates. New York doesn't allow NOTPOLCE or, for whatever reason, AY000000. Tennessee banned ILVTOFU back in 2014 for a vegan application. In 2017, Georgia banned Donald Trump's infamous COVFEFE gaffe. Kentucky said no to KARMA.

The examples don't end there; a list of banned personalized plates is commonplace across the U.S. But the constitutionality of the matter is not necessarily settled.

In 2015, a Texas nonprofit argued that displaying the Confederate flag on the organization's special license plate was their First Amendment right. In a 5-4 vote, the court disagreed. 

"In our view, specialty license plates issued pursuant to Texas's statutory scheme convey government speech," former Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority. "Were the Free Speech Clause interpreted otherwise, government would not work."

The dissent argued that most people do not recognize speech on a license plate as government policy. "The Court's decision passes off private speech as government speech," wrote Justice Samuel Alito, "and, in doing so, establishes a precedent that threatens private speech that government finds displeasing." 

The Court's ruling, however, applied to special plates with names and logos, not personalized plates. There is thus no official ruling at a national level as to whether vanity plates are private or government speech. This leaves plenty of room for state officials to interpret the propriety of applications for approval, and even to rescind vanity plates to address complaints.

Without an official distinction, however, there have been many instances of successful lawsuits to reverse rejections, from striking down Kentucky's rejection of IM GOD to stopping California's crackdown against messages "offensive to good taste and decency."

Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law, wrote that lower courts, upon petition, have typically recognized the design of the plate as government speech, but not the text itself. But until there's an official distinction by the Supreme Court, rejected applicants who are upset can try suing. Otherwise, the next-best option is taking it up to the department.

And though PennDOT is willing to discuss rejections with applicants, they have a disclaimer: "PennDOT reserves the right to limit or reject certain requests."

The post Your Local DMV May Have No Sense of Humor appeared first on Reason.com.

Read 21 remaining paragraphs | Comments

By now you know that Senator Richard Blumenthal has released a new version of KOSA, the misleadingly named Kids Online Safety Act, that he pretends fixes all the problems. It doesn’t. It still represents a real threat to speech online, and in particular speech from LGBTQ users. This is why Blumenthal, a prominent Democrat, is putting out press releases including supportive quotes from infamous anti-LGBTQ groups like the Institute for Family Studies and the “American Principles Project” (one of the leading forces behind anti-trans bills across the US). Incredibly, it also has an approving quote from NCOSE, formerly known as “Morality in Media,” a bunch of prudish busybodies who believe all pornography should be banned, and who began life trying to get “salacious” magazines banned.

When a bill is getting supportive quotes from NCOSE, an organization whose entire formation story is based around an attempt to ban books, you know that bill is not good for speech.

Why is a Democratic Senator like Blumenthal lining up with such regressive, censorial, far right nonsense peddlers? Well, because he doesn’t give a shit that KOSA is going to do real harm to LGBTQ kids or violate the Constitution he swore an oath to protect: he just wants to get a headline or two claiming he’s protecting children, with not a single care about how much damage it will actually do.

Of course, as we noted, the latest bill does make it marginally more difficult to directly suppress LGBTQ content. It removed the ability of state Attorneys General to enforce one provision, the duty of care provision, though still allows them to enforce other provisions and to sue social media companies if those state AGs feel the companies aren’t complying with the law.

Still, at least some of the MAGA crowd feel that this move, making it marginally more difficult for state AGs to try to force LGBTQ content offline means the bill is no longer worth supporting. Here’s Charlie Kirk, a leading MAGA nonsense peddler who founded and runs Turning Point USA, whining that the bill is no longer okay, since it won’t be used to silence LGBTQ folks as easily:

If you can’t read that, it’s Charlie saying:

The Senate is considering the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a bill that looks to protect underage children from groomers, pornographers, and other predators online.

But the bill ran into trouble because LGBT groups were worried it would make it too easy for red state AGs to target predators who try to groom children into mutilating themselves or destroying themselves with hormones and puberty blockers.

So now, the bill has been overhauled to take away power from from state AGs (since some of them might be conservatives who care about children) and instead give almost all power to the FTC, currently read by ultra-left ideologue Lina Khan. Sure enough, LGBT groups have dropped all their concerns.

We’ve seen this pattern before. What are the odds that this bill does zero to protect children but a lot to vaguely enhance the power of Washington bureaucrats to destroy whoever they want, for any reason?

If you can get past his ridiculous language, you can see that he’s (once again, like the Heritage Foundation and KOSA co-sponsor Senator Marsha Blackburn before him) admitting that the reason the MAGA crowd supports KOSA is to silence LGBTQ voices, which he falsely attacks as “groomers, pornographers, and other predators.”

He’s wrong that the bill can’t still be used for this, but he’s correct that the bill now gives tremendous power to whoever is in charge of the FTC, whether its Lina Khan… or whatever MAGA incel could be put in place if Trump wins.

Meanwhile, if Kirk is so concerned about child predators and groomers, it’s odd you never see him call out the Catholic church. Or, his former employee who was recently sentenced to years in jail for his “collection” of child sexual abuse videos. Or the organization that teamed up with Turning Point USA to sponsor an event, even though the CEO was convicted of “coercing and enticing” a minor. It’s quite interesting that Kirk is so quick to accuse LGBTQ folks of “grooming” and “predation,” when he keeps finding actual such people around himself, and he never says a word.

Either way, I’m curious if watching groups like TPUSA freak out about this bill not being censorial enough of LGBTQ content will lead Republicans to get cold feet on supporting this bill.

At the very least, though, it’s a confirmation that Republican support for this bill is based on their strong belief that it will censor and suppress LGBTQ content.

First, Donald Trump and right-wing extremists attacked government trainings on racism and sexism. Then the far right tried to censor classroom instruction on racism and sexism. Next, they banned books about BIPOC and LGBTQ lives. Today, the extreme right’s latest attack is aimed at dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.

In 2023, the far right introduced at least 65 bills to limit DEI in higher education in 25 states and the U.S. Congress. Eight bills became law. If this assault on our constitutional rights feels familiar, that’s because it is. It was last seen in 2020 when Trump-aligned politicians fought to pass unconstitutional laws aimed at censoring student and faculty speech about race, racism, sex and sexism. The ACLU challenged these laws in three states, but today, anti-DEI efforts are the new frontier in the fight to end the erasure of marginalized communities.

DEI programs recruit and retain BIPOC, LGBTQ+, and other underrepresented faculty and students to repair decades of discriminatory policies and practices that excluded them from higher education. The far right, however, claims that DEI programs universally promote undeserving people who only advance because they check a box. Anti-DEI activists like Christopher Rufo consistently frame their attack as a strike against “identity politics,” and have weaponized the term “DEI” to reference any ideas and policies they disagree with, especially those that address systemic racism or sexism.

This attack on DEI is part of a larger backlash against racial justice efforts that ignited after the 2020 killings of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor. At the time, workplaces, schools, and other institutions announced plans to expand DEI efforts and to incorporate anti-racism principles in their communities. In response, far-right activists, led by Rufo and supported by right-wing think tanks such as The Manhattan Institute, The Claremont Institute, and The Heritage Foundation, went on the offensive.

Leveraging Fox News and other mainstream media outlets, Rufo and his supporters sought to manufacture hysteria around the inclusion of critical race theory in schools and workplaces. After a 2020 appearance on Fox News where Rufo misrepresented the nature of federal trainings on oppression, white privilege, and intersectionality as indoctrination of critical race theory in our public spaces, Rufo convinced former President Trump to end federal DEI training. Rufo’s goal was to limit discourse, instruction, and research that refuted the false assertion that racism is not real in America – and he succeeded. Just three weeks later, Trump issued Executive Order 13950, which banned federal trainings on systemic racism and sexism. This Executive Order served as the template for most of the educational gag orders, or bills introduced to limit instruction on systemic sexism and racism in 40 states, 20 of which are now law.

The ACLU has consistently opposed efforts to censor classroom instruction on racism and sexism, including in Florida where some of the most egregious attacks on DEI, critical race theory and inclusive education have been mounted. Following the far right’s “anti-wokeism” playbook, in April 2022, Florida Governor Ron Desantis signed the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, which seeks to ban training or instruction on systemic racism and sexism in workplaces, K-12 schools, and higher education. The ACLU, the ACLU of Florida and our co-counsel challenged the law, claiming it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on instructors and students in higher education, and fails to state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable. A federal judge has blocked it from being enforced in public universities across the state.

Instead of ceasing to censor free speech, the far right pivoted to target DEI programs. For example, Florida passed Senate Bill 266 in April 2023. This law would expand the Stop W.O.K.E. Act’s prohibition on training and instruction on racism and sexism, seeking to eliminate DEI programs and heavily restrict certain college majors related to DEI. Just last month, the Florida State Board of Education moved forward with regulations to limit the use of public funds for DEI efforts in Florida’s 28 state colleges. The State Board also replaced the Principles of Sociology course, which was previously required, with an American History course to avoid “radical woke ideologies.”

Led by the same far-right leaders, including Rufo and various think-tanks, these anti-DEI efforts utilize the same methods as the attack on critical race theory. They represent yet another attempt to re-whitewash America’s history of racial subjugation, and to reverse efforts to pursue racial justice—or any progress at all. Anti-DEI rhetoric has been used to invalidate immunological research supporting the COVID-19 vaccine, conclusions by economists on mass migration, and even the January 6 insurrection. But these false claims are not what DEI is about. By definition equity means levelling the playing field so qualified people from underrepresented backgrounds have a fair chance to succeed. We cannot let a loud fringe movement convince us otherwise.

In its attacks on DEI, the far right undermines not only racial justice efforts, but also violates our right to free speech and free association. Today, the ACLU is determined to push back on anti-DEI efforts just as we fought efforts to censor instruction on systemic racism and sexism from schools.

Donate today