Senators Warren & Graham Want To Create New Online Speech Police Commission

The regulation will continue until internet freedom improves, apparently. Last year we wrote about Senator Michael Bennet pushing a terrible “Digital Platform Commission” to be the new internet speech police, and now we have the bipartisan free speech hating duo of Senators Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey Graham with their proposal for a Digital Consumer Protection Commission.

Senators Warren & Graham Want To Create New Online Speech Police Commission

Wisconsin Senator Baldwin is No Friend of LGBT or Free Speech!

Wrote to Tammy Baldwin about how Republicans want to censor LGBT content with the KOSA bill that she is sponsoring! I included the following Techdirt article in my email! Not one word, about it, in her reply to me (which is just a form letter)! In fact, I didn’t bring up anything that she mentioned! As she is a LGBT person, I thought that she’d be concerned but I guess not?!

Related (previously blogged about):

Heritage Foundation Says That Of Course GOP Will Use KOSA To Censor LGBTQ Content

Meanwhile, Republicans are now freely admitting that they’re going to use KOSA to force websites to censor LGBTQ content. They’re literally proud of it. The Heritage Foundation, which at least used to have some principled stances before being taken over by culture warriors without any principles, is bragging about how it will use KOSA in this manner:

Biden Appeals Judge’s Ban on Government Asking for Social Media Takedowns

Biden Appeals Judge’s Ban on Government Asking for Social Media Takedowns

State Department officials, according to a Facebook employee speaking with The Washington Post, told the company all future monthly meetings to discuss content takedowns were “canceled pending further guidance.” The reported cancellation means government officials and trust and safety representatives at Facebook will no longer meet to discuss brewing political misinformation or foreign influence operations. It’s unclear whether other agencies have taken similar measures following the ruling or if Google or Twitter have canceled meetings. The State Department, Meta, and Google did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment. Twitter sent us a 💩 . …

Judge compares Biden’s admin’s meeting with tech companies to Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’

The Justice Department appealed Trump-appointed federal Judge Terry A. Doughty’s preliminary injunction hours after it landed, according to court documents filed Wednesday evening. Doughty’s preliminary injunction bars numerous government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) from contacting or asking social media companies about posts he said are protected by the First Amendment. The ruling does offer some exceptions for government communications with tech firms intended to warn them of national security threats, criminal activity, and voter suppression. Government officials maintain their content recommendations to social networks were merely suggestions, not legal demands. Doughty said numerous uncovered communications show Biden administration officials wielded threats of increased regulations or a stripping of Section 230 immunity protections to get its way.

Related:

State Dept. cancels Facebook meetings after judge’s ‘censorship’ ruling

When tech companies and State Department officials meet, “they talk about foreign influence, they compare notes. It gives them the opportunity to ask questions about foreign influence they are seeing,” this person said. “State will share Russian narratives, things they are seeing in state media in Russia about U.S. topics. They will ask whether Facebook is seeing things from known entities, such as the Chinese Communist Party or the Internet Research Agency,” the Russian entity thought responsible for much of the interference in the 2016 election. …

“The really tough question is when does the government cross the line from responding to speech — which it can and should do — to coercing platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech?” Kosseff said. “The judge here believes that line was crossed, and he certainly cited some persuasive examples,” such as administration officials suggesting antitrust actions against tech firms or changes to their liability protections while criticizing their content moderation efforts.

US Court Victory Against Online Censorship