Iran protesters mark anniversary of bloody crackdown in southeast

Fri, September 29, 2023 

(Reuters) -Protesters faced off with security forces in Iran's restive southeast on Friday to mark the anniversary of a Sept. 30, 2022, crackdown by security forces known as "Bloody Friday", according to rights groups and social media videos.

Videos posted on the X platform by the Iran Human Rights (IHR) group showed marchers confronting security forces in Zahedan, capital of the southeastern Sistan-Baluchistan province, as apparent sounds of shooting are heard.

IHR and the Baluch rights group Hal Vash said at least 23 people had been injured. Reuters could not verify the report or the authenticity of the videos.

Protests continued into the night, with several videos posted online purporting to show protesters setting fire to tyres to block streets in Zahedan.

Zahedan's prosecutor had earlier said the city was calm and videos showing the injured were old, the state news agency IRNA reported. The semi-official news agency Tasnim said police had used tear gas to disperse "a few people who had gathered and were throwing rocks at security forces".

In the Sept. 30 crackdown, security forces killed at least 66 people, according to Amnesty International. Authorities accused protesters, angered by the alleged rape of a girl from the Baluch minority by a police commander, of provoking the clashes.

Internet monitor Netblocks reported a "significant disruption" to the internet in Zahedan on Friday, saying authorities had "systematically shut down telecoms to suppress weekly anti-government protests."

Molavi Abdolhamid, Iran's most prominent Sunni cleric and a long-time critic of Tehran's Shi'ite leaders, demanded justice for the victims of the Sept. 30 crackdown.

"The people's demand in the past year has been that those who committed this crime be brought to Islamic justice ... but judges don't have independence in Iran," Abdolhamid said in a sermon posted online

Sistan-Baluchistan, which borders Pakistan and Afghanistan, is one of Iran's poorest provinces and a major drug trafficking route.

Human rights groups say the Baluch minority, estimated to number up to 2 million people, has faced discrimination and repression for decades. Iran says developing the region and resolving its problems is a "serious issue" for the government.

Zahedan has also been the scene of weekly protests since a wave of nationwide unrest triggered last year by the death of a young Kurdish woman in the custody of morality police that shook the Islamic Republic.

(Reporting by Dubai newsroom; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

Russia picked the Black Sea naval fight it's now losing to Ukraine, which doesn't even have a fleet of its own

Jake Epstein
Sat, September 30, 2023 

In this photo released by Russian Defense Ministry Press Service on Friday, July 21, 2023, warships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet sail while taking part in naval drills in the Black Sea.Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP

Russia in July militarized the Black Sea, threatening commercial ships and Ukraine's ports.


Lacking major warships, Ukraine has turned to sea drones and cruise missiles to respond.


Kyiv's forces have used these weapons to increase attacks on high-profile Black Sea Fleet targets.

When Russia announced its intentions to militarize the Black Sea in July, Moscow tried to dominate the waters by issuing a sweeping threat to civilian ships transiting the waters: proceed and we'll consider you party to the war.

Ukraine, on the other hand, doesn't have much of a navy, having scuttled its last major warship at the start of the conflict to keep it from falling into Russian hands. But in the weeks since Russia's proclamation, Ukraine has completely flipped the script on Moscow by ramping up attacks on its Black Sea Fleet, including cruise missile strikes on a key shipyard and the fleet's headquarters and sea drone assaults on warships in port. Collectively, these attacks have damaged and destroyed several vessels, killed and injured dozens of military personnel, and threatened to disrupt Russian naval logistics and operations.

"The recent strikes on the Black Sea Fleet are another example of how Ukraine retains the initiative," Adm. Tony Radakin, Britain's chief of the defense staff, said this week. Russian President Vladimir Putin "has lost control of the war he started."

After withdrawing from the United Nations-brokered Black Sea grain deal in July, Russia announced that it would consider any ships in the region as potential carriers of military cargo aiding Kyiv in the fight. Moscow then immediately started increasing attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets along the Black Sea, including the targeting of ports and food storage facilities.

"We believe that this is a coordinated effort to justify any attacks against civilian ships in the Black Sea and lay blame on Ukraine for these attacks," a top White House official said at the time.

Russia's Black Sea Fleet warships take part in the Navy Day celebrations in the port city of Novorossiysk on July 30, 2023.STRINGER/AFP via Getty Images

It was several weeks before Russia appeared to follow through on its threats when, in mid-August, it carried out a helicopter raid of a Palau-flagged cargo ship. Russian forces stormed the bridge and interrogated the crew, searching for what Moscow said was "prohibited goods," but ultimately the ship was allowed to keep sailing into a Ukrainian port.

In a tremendous escalation several days later, a missile carrier belonging to the Black Sea Fleet fired two Kalibr cruise missiles at a Liberian-flagged cargo ship moored at a port in Odesa. Britain's foreign office said Ukraine's air-defense systems "successfully shot down" the missiles, but the attempted strike, nevertheless, marked the most serious attack on a civilian vessel since Russia withdrew from the grain deal.

Ukraine, meanwhile, has taken the fight right back to Russia, and to compensate for its lack of a proper navy, it's turned to uncrewed surface vessels (USVs) — or sea drones — to wreak havoc on the Black Sea Fleet. Leadership in Kyiv has sought to prioritize developing what they call "the formation of the world's first naval fleet of drones."

Early August featured two major sea drone attacks: the first targeted the Russian port of Novorossiysk, which damaged the landing ship Olenegorsky Gornyak, and shortly after that, the Russian merchant tanker Sig was "attacked and disabled" near the Kerch Strait, according to intelligence shared by Britain's defense ministry. Experts have described these cheap, explosive, and remotely operated drones as being able to give Ukraine an "asymmetric advantage" against Russia, which hasn't yet figured out how to consistently stop the systems.

To complement the threat posed by its sea drones, Ukraine's military has also turned to its arsenal of long-range Western-made cruise missiles like the UK-provided Storm Shadow to pound targets belonging to the Black Sea Fleet in its home of Sevastopol, which is located on the southwestern edge of the occupied Crimean peninsula.

A Ukrainian surface drone called "Sea Baby."Screengrab via the Security Service of Ukraine Telegram

A September 13 attack on a shipyard there severely damaged a landing vessel and a submarine that were undergoing repairs at the time. Ukraine mocked Russia for losing a submarine to a country "without many warships" as experts said the strikes marked a tremendous blow to Russian maritime logistics and will for quite some time render the critical dry dock inoperable.Western intelligence assessed the damage will pose a maintenance challenge for the Black Sea Fleet, especially considering the lack of suitable alternative yards and backlogs elsewhere.

A little over a week after the shipyard attack, Ukraine bombarded the nearby headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet during a meeting of Russia's naval leadership. Ukraine's Special Operations Forces claimed nearly three dozen people were killed in the attack, and over 100 others were injured.

John Harvey Jr., a retired US Navy admiral who previously oversaw US Fleet Forces Command, said the Russians continue to show a lack of caution and awareness with where they place high-value targets like ships, aircraft, and personnel, and he said it was surprising to see Moscow hold an important meeting in such an obvious location.

The attack is "probably a pretty significant step backwards for them and their control of near-term operations in the Black Sea," he told Insider.

During the war, the Black Sea Fleet has been disrupting Ukrainian exports and launching missile attacks on military and civilian targets on land, but these missions have steadily become more complicated. Kyiv's military said it recently established a new shipping corridor in the Black Sea so it can avoid Russian blockades and move cargo, which is critical for its economy.

Photos and videos showed the Black Sea Fleet's headquarters up in flames after a devastating missile strike.Emergency Sevastopol/Telegram

Black Sea Fleet targets in Crimea have been within striking distance of some of Ukraine's Western-made cruise missiles for several months, and the problem could get worse for Moscow in the future. The Biden administration is reportedly slated to send Kyiv missiles that would extend the range and lethality of its arsenal of the US-provided High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) by way of the much-sought-after MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS. These could, however, be tasked with taking out other targets.

Harvey said it appears as though Russia has been "very slow to react to the growing compromise" of its overall force layout in Crimea and "what that means for them to be able to sustain a fleet at sea." He said that Moscow is either going to come up with a different fundamental plan of how to mitigate this exposure or just accept living with these losses.

Russia has also seemingly demonstrated poor judgment in assessing Ukraine's capacity to actually carry out such impactful strikes on Black Sea Fleet targets, Harvey said. In other words, Moscow has a "failure of imagination" that Kyiv can put several pieces together to stage successful attacks.

"The Ukrainians are learning to adapt to a maritime theater and having a significant impact on the Black Sea Fleet without having a fleet," he said. "What you're seeing is going to be just the tip of the iceberg here in terms of a campaign that will grow steadily — not just in importance, but also in size."

Brian May, best known as Queen's guitarist, helped NASA return its 1st asteroid sample to Earth

Eric Lagatta, USA TODAY
Fri, September 29, 2023 at 2:15 PM MDT·4 min read

When he's not rocking out on stage as a founding member of Queen, Brian May enjoys a healthy scientific interest in outer space.

But it's no mere hobby for the 76-year-old guitar legend to gaze upon the stars or research the nature of the universe. May, an accomplished scientist who has a doctorate in astrophysics, recently helped NASA return its first ever asteroid sample to Earth.

The sample consisting of rocks and dust was obtained from the asteroid Bennu and arrived Sunday back in Earth's orbit. May was an integral part of the mission, creating stereoscopic images that allowed the mission's leader and team to find a safe landing spot on the asteroid, which has the potential to crash into Earth sometime in the future.

"This box when it is opened of material from the surface of Bennu can tell us untold secret of the origins of the universe, the origins or our planet and the origins of life itself," May said Monday in a statement on his website. "What an incredibly exciting day."


Record-setting space flight: NASA astronaut returns to Earth after American record 371 days in space

Brian May was rehearsing for Queen tour when sample reached Earth

The result is a culmination of a nearly two-decades-long mission that in 2016 saw the launch of the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft bound for Bennu.

The sample itself was collected in 2020, two years after the asteroid became the smallest object ever to be orbited by a spacecraft, according to NASA. The journey of spacecraft OSIRIS-REx (Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security, Regolith Explorer) back to Earth then commenced in May 2021.

In addition to developing the stereoscopic images, May — who was knighted in March — also co-wrote a book about the mission with team leader Dante Lauretta called "Bennu 3-D: Anatomy of an Asteroid."

Sadly for May, he couldn't be in person when NASA received the sample because Queen is preparing for a U.S. tour that begins next week in Baltimore. But the guitarist congratulated the crew Sunday in a clip aired on NASA TV.

"My heart stays with you as this precious sample is recovered,” he said.

Why is the asteroid Bennu of scientific interest?

The sample from Bennu, which passes close to Earth about every six years, isn't just notable as the first American asteroid sample return in history.

It also offers scientists a window into the early solar system as it was first taking shape billions of years ago and flinging ingredients that could have even seeded life on Earth, NASA says.

The asteroid, which is more than 4.5 billion years old, is believed to have broken off from a much larger carbon-rich asteroid about 700 million to 2 billion years ago. Discovered in 1999, Bennu likely formed in the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter before it drifted much closer to Earth.

Studying it should help researchers make discoveries to better understand planet formation and the events that led to the creation of life on Earth. Scientists also anticipate being able to learn more about potentially hazardous asteroids, according to NASA.

"Bennu is a potentially hazardous asteroid, and what we learn from the sample will help us better understand the types of asteroids that could come our way,” NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said in a statement.

OSIRIS-REx dropped off a capsule containing the estimated 8.8-ounce sample Sunday morning and it harmlessly parachuted down to Earth, landing in Utah’s west desert near Salt Lake City where scientists were waiting for it.

It was then to be taken in its unopened canister to NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston on Monday. Once there, scientists planned to extract and weigh the sample, and create an inventory of the rocks and dust before preparing it for distribution in pieces to scientists worldwide.

OSIRIS-REx didn't land after dropping off the sample capsule in Utah, but instead departed on a new mission to study a different asteroid named Apophis that it's scheduled to reach in 2029, the space agency said.

Eric Lagatta covers breaking and trending news for USA TODAY. Reach him at elagatta@gannett.com

Senior Senate Democrat threatens to block military aid to Egypt on human rights grounds

Matt Spetalnick and Patricia Zengerle
Sat, September 30, 2023 

U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) speaks at a committee meeting after assuming the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the U.S. Capitol on Capitol Hill in Washington


By Matt Spetalnick and Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee vowed on Saturday to block military aid and arms sales to Egypt if it does not take concrete steps to improve human rights in the country.

Democratic U.S. Senator Ben Cardin issued the threat in a statement, saying "it is imperative that we continue to hold the government of Egypt, and all governments, accountable for their human rights violations."

The announcement came a day after U.S. Representative Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, said he had asked the State Department to pause a portion of military aid to Egypt conditioned on human rights criteria.

The stepped-up pressure follows the Sept. 22 federal indictment of the then-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, tied partly to allegations that he had accepted bribes in exchange for wielding his influence to aid Egypt's government.

Menendez denies wrongdoing and has pleaded not guilty.

The Egyptian embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Cardin's announcement.

Cardin, who replaced Menendez as head of the Senate panel, said Egypt must show progress in efforts to accelerate the release of political prisoners and "provide space" for human rights defenders, civil society advocates, political opposition and independent media.

"I intend to exercise fully the committee’s oversight responsibilities and my authorities to block future foreign military funds as well as sale of arms to the government of Egypt if it does not take concrete, meaningful, and sustainable steps to improve the human rights conditions in its country," he said.

Washington has long provided Egypt with large amounts of military and other aid, ever since the Arab world's most populous nation signed a peace deal with neighboring Israel in 1979.

Much of the aid has been withheld in recent years over concerns about human rights abuses under the government of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

But President Joe Biden's administration announced this month it had decided to waive human rights restrictions on $235 million of the aid, citing security benefits to the U.S. It is currently withholding $85 million of the aid, a fraction of the $1.3 billion a year allocated for Egypt.

(Reporting By Matt Spetalnick and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Daniel Wallis)


Top House Democrat on foreign affairs requests Biden pause aid to Egypt

Laura Kelly
Fri, September 29, 2023


The top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee requested the State Department pause a portion of military financing for Egypt over concerns that Cairo has failed to deliver on improving its human rights record.

Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.) said he is pushing for the Biden administration to withhold $320 million in military financing, saying that “Congress needs more clarity from the State Department on how concerns about treatment of political prisoners, journalists, as well as the rule of law are being tackled in our bilateral relationship.”

The request for a pause comes after Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) stepped down as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after a federal indictment unsealed last week accused him of accepting bribes in exchange for using his political influence to benefit Egypt’s government.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who took over as chair of the Foreign Relations panel, told reporters Thursday that he would speak with his foreign policy staff and the administration before making a decision on whether he would use his position to exercise a hold on U.S. military financing for Egypt.

The Biden administration announced earlier this month that it was moving forward on providing Egypt with $235 million in foreign military financing, issuing a waiver that allows for the money to proceed despite concerns over Egypt’s human rights record. The Biden administration withheld $85 million of the total military financing to express serious concerns about human rights abuses in Egypt.

Menendez Indictment Sparks Calls for Aid to Egypt to Be Suspended

Mathias Hammer
Fri, September 29, 2023 



Dozens of gold bars. Wads of cash. A black Mercedes-Benz convertible. These are just some of the bribes the Department of Justice alleges that Senator Bob Menendez received while illicitly aiding the Egyptian government of President Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi. Not surprisingly, the accusations are straining the relationship between the U.S. and Egypt, as Congress considers whether to hold the country accountable for purportedly bribing one of their own through various intermediaries.

After the news of Menendez’s indictment broke, prominent members of Congress called for a recently greenlit tranche of $235 million in military aid to Cairo to be put on ice. The funding was approved by the Biden administration via a national security waiver in spite of Congressional concerns about Egyptian human rights abuses.“I would hope that our committee would consider using any ability it has to put a pause on those dollars, pending an inquiry into what Egypt was doing,” Senator Chris Murphy, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters on Tuesday.

But despite the outrage on the Hill, Middle East experts doubt that the allegations will lead to a lasting shift in the close relationship between Egypt and the U.S. that has lasted for over 40 years. Egypt is the third-largest recipient of American military aid after Israel and Ukraine, receiving about $1.3 billion annually. “Egypt is in the dog house already with Congress on human rights and dalliances with Russia. The Menendez affair surely won’t help their image here,” says Aaron David Miller, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “But the administration will likely continue to do business as usual, which is to protect most of the military assistance and the bilateral relationship.”

The loudest calls for Egypt to face consequences are coming from the human rights community. “This money is tainted,” says Seth Binder, an official at the Project on Middle East Democracy in Washington. His organization is among the groups pressing lawmakers to withhold military aid to Egypt in light of the allegations of Egyptian inference in U.S. policymaking. “This is an Egyptian government that is meddling in U.S. politics and foreign policy in an illegal way.” Binder says that Congress should look at whether to make changes to the federal budget for 2024 in light of the allegations and Egypt’s human rights violations. “They could consider topline reductions, removing the national security waiver on the portion that's conditioned on human rights or increasing the portion that's conditioned on human rights.”

As ranking member and then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since 2021, Senator Menendez has been in a position to influence aid, weapons and diplomatic assistance to Egypt for years. According to the indictment, Menendez allegedly ghost wrote a letter for an Egyptian official to convince U.S. senators to approve $300 million in assistance to Egypt. He also reportedly passed on sensitive nonpublic information about the number and nationality of U.S. embassy personnel in Egypt, which could have been used for intelligence purposes. The indictment alleges that he repeatedly intervened in favor of Egypt on human rights issues, foreign military sales and Egypt’s dispute with Ethiopia about the Nile River’s waters.

On Sept. 27, Menendez pleaded not guilty to the charges. “If you look at my actions related to Egypt during the period described in this indictment, and throughout my whole career, my record is clear and consistent in holding Egypt accountable for its unjust detention of American citizens and others, its human rights abuses, its deepening relationship with Russia, and efforts that have eroded the independence of the nation’s judiciary,” Menendez said at a press conference on Sept. 25.

The backlash against Menendez and Egypt has come from both sides of the aisle. “The Biden administration should revisit its military assistance determination made earlier this month and withhold much more of that funding,” says Democratic Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia and “we will be having those conversations as we process the indictment and other information in the days and weeks ahead.” GOP Rep. Mike Lawler of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said in a statement that Congress should “immediately open a formal congressional investigation into Senator Menendez’s questionable conduct and his purported interactions with foreign agents from Egypt in an alleged quid pro quo scheme.” Some Republicans including Rep. George Santos, who is himself facing charges, offered Menendez rhetorical support, defending the politician’s right to continue to serve as long as he has not been found guilty.

For all the outrage, however, the administration may be reluctant to come down on Egypt too hard, experts say. “I don't imagine a sharp break at all. I just imagine a much scratchier relationship, which is what the Egyptians were trying to head off,” says Jon B. Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center For Strategic and International Studies. “The Biden administration doesn't want an adversarial relationship with Egypt. But it does want to send a message of displeasure and it does want to change Egypt’s behavior. I think things like meetings between the Presidents, which were never easy, are going to get much harder.”

The State Department declined to comment on the backlash against Egypt, citing the ongoing legal case against Menendez.

Mississippi activists ask to join water lawsuit and criticize Black judge's comments on race

MICHAEL GOLDBERG and EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS
Wed, September 27, 2023 




 Jackson residents and supporters hold signs as they march with members of the Poor People's Campaign of Mississippi to the Governor's Mansion in Jackson, Miss., to protest the ongoing water issues, poverty and other social ills, in the city, Oct. 10, 2022. Leaders of the Poor People's Campaign and other activists said Wednesday, Sept. 27, 2023, that Jackson residents need more input on how to improve the city's water system. 

(AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis, File)

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Activists in Mississippi’s majority-Black capital city are trying to join a federal lawsuit against the city for violating standards for clean drinking water, even as they say the Black judge presiding over the case is stirring racial division.

The activists from the Mississippi Poor People’s Campaign and People’s Advocacy Institute filed court papers Wednesday asking to intervene in the federal government’s lawsuit against Jackson. During a news conference Wednesday, activists said they spoke for residents in the 80% Black city who want more say over reforms to the water system.

“We feel like our lives are on the chopping block here in the city of Jackson," said Danyelle Holmes, an organizer with the Mississippi Poor People’s Campaign. "We could no longer sit by idly as government agencies allow residents to be told that it's OK to drink unclean water.”

The federal government has taken legal steps to scrutinize Jackson’s water quality for over a decade. But in November, the Justice Department accelerated its involvement after breakdowns in Jackson caused many in the city of about 150,000 residents to go days and weeks without safe running water. Last August and September, people waited in lines for water to drink, bathe, flush toilets and cook.

U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate appointed Ted Henifin, who had decades of experience running water systems in other states, to help fix Jackson's long-troubled water system. Henifin began working on several projects to improve the water infrastructure, such as repairing broken water lines and a plan to improve the city's ability to collect water bills.

Henifin said in June that he was not aware of any health risk in drinking Jackson water. In a statement to The Associated Press on Wednesday, Henifin said his team “is committed to public education that focuses on the people of Jackson and helping them understand what is happening with their water and the engineering science, not through the interpretive lens of activists, special interests or agendas.”

“We have been completely open and transparent with our water quality testing data and are in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act,” Henifin said.

He also pointed to water quality reports and the Mississippi Department of Health water testing data that are available online.

At a multi-day federal court hearing in July, activists said they had received mixed messages about whether Jackson's water was safe to drink. Some residents reported discolored water flowing from their pipes even after public health orders were lifted. Activists also said they were being kept in the dark about the status of reforms.

After Congress awarded Jackson $600 million for water repairs, some city leaders and activists also said they wanted Henifin to look for minority-owned firms when awarding contracts for infrastructure projects.

Henifin, who is white, said he had been transparent about the quality of Jackson's water and his work as the interim manager. He also mentioned plans to launch a minority contracting program that would employ Black-owned firms whenever possible, WLBT-TV reported.

In a July 21 ruling, Wingate, who is Black, said many of the concerns raised by the Black activists were without merit.

“They have no experience in water management, and no logical rationale why an African American would be better suited to fix a lingering problem which has gone unsolved for decades by past African American leadership,” Wingate wrote.

During Wednesday's news conference, activists lambasted the judge for his comments.

“When the judge made his statement that we just want someone Black to fix our water, that is very disingenuous. That's a disgrace," Holmes said. "You have a judge who is pitting Black against white, poor against the wealthy, and it's totally unfair. Whether you're Black, white or brown, we're all consuming the same water unless you're wealthy and have purchased a filtration system, which many of the residents who are predominantly Black cannot afford.”

Brooke Floyd, co-director of the Jackson People’s Assembly, said even those without expertise in water management should be able to voice concerns.

“I think it's just unconscionable that it was even brought up," Floyd said. "The race stuff was ridiculous, and it's also ridiculous to say that because we are upset our water is not safe to drink, that we should just go sit down and be quiet and take what is given to us.”

If they are allowed to join the federal lawsuit, Jackson community groups would have an “institutionalized role in settlement negotiations,” the activists said. They are asking for the installation of water filters in homes, more open meetings convened by the Environmental Protection Agency and a range of other demands.

Henifin had hoped to complete his work as Jackson's interim water manager in one year or less. Rukia Lumumba, executive director of the People’s Advocacy Institute and sister of Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba, said she wants the city to work cordially with Henifin while he is still in Jackson.

“As it relates to long-term, we want to see someone in Jackson that lives here,” Rukia Lumumba said. “We want to see the city have the resources to fully operate the water system itself where we don’t have to have another third-party operator.”

___

Michael Goldberg is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow him at @mikergoldberg.

The Supreme Court Will Decide if Texas Is Allowed to Kill the Internet

Timothy Zick

SLATE
Fri, September 29, 2023

Giving Texas what it wants may spell the beginning of the end of the internet as we currently know it. 

Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Getty Images Plus.

This is part of Opening Arguments, Slate’s coverage of the start of the latest Supreme Court term. We’re working to change the way the media covers the Supreme Court. Support our work when you join Slate Plus.

When social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube moderate content, are they engaged in protected speech? Or are they engaged in an invidious form of censorship? The answer, which lies at the heart of a pair of cases the Supreme Court agreed to hear on Friday, could fundamentally alter the nature and operation of social media platforms and the internet itself.

Reacting to complaints from the political right that large social media platforms including Facebook and YouTube actively censor conservative views, Texas and Florida enacted laws prohibiting the platforms from removing, deleting, or deplatforming speech or speakers based on viewpoint. The laws differ in some respects, but both create a legal cause of action against social media platforms that engage in any of the laws’ defined methods of “censorship.” They also require that platforms provide an explanation for any posts “censored” and publicly disclose their guidelines for removing speech or speakers from the platforms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit enjoined the Florida law, concluding it violated the First Amendment rights of the platforms to determine what content to display and which users to ban or temporarily exclude. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit came to the opposite conclusion regarding the Texas law, repeatedly characterizing social media content moderation as “censorship” and finding the platforms have no First Amendment “right to muzzle speech.”


When it comes to newer media, courts and lawyers often struggle to fit contemporary problems into preexisting First Amendment decisions and doctrines. The briefs and arguments in the cases will lean heavily on analogies from prior Supreme Court precedents. For example, the platforms will argue they are like newspapers, which the court has held have an established First Amendment right to engage in editorial judgment when deciding what content to publish. The states will counter that unlike newspapers, the platforms review almost none of what they allow users to post, either before or after publication. The states will argue the platforms are more like large public malls, which the court has held can be required by law to host some expressive activity. The platforms will respond they are like parade organizers, which the court has held have a First Amendment right to determine who marches in their inherently expressive events. Judge Andrew Oldham concluded in his 5th Circuit opinion that the platforms are more like “common carriers,” including electricity providers and trucking companies, which are prohibited from denying service based on the user’s viewpoints.

If you think none of these examples fits perfectly, you are in good company. As Judge Leslie Southwick wrote in a separate opinion in the 5th Circuit case: “We are in a new arena, a very extensive one, for speakers and for those who would moderate their speech. None of the precedents fit seamlessly.”

So much is at stake in these cases—for the platforms, their users, and the public. Platforms require members of their communities to accept terms of service that include, among other restrictions, content moderation rules. By moderating obscenity, hate speech, public health misinformation, and other content, platforms enforce specific site-based community standards and define online communities. They post disclaimers to certain posts and publish their own content. The platforms also respond to threats—to individual users, the online community, and the public.

The Texas and Florida laws would substantially undermine these prerogatives. If the 5th Circuit is correct, platforms that allow user posts or videos that are anti–white supremacy, anti-misogyny, and anti–domestic terrorism would be legally compelled to provide space for pro–white supremacy, pro-misogyny, and pro–domestic terrorism speech. Efforts to combat disinformation and misinformation, whether about elections, public health, or other subjects, would also in many cases lead to legal jeopardy for the platforms—or mire them in onerous lawsuits filed by disgruntled users who insist on the right to a platform for their speech. Governments could also chill the platforms’ right to host content they actively support—out of fear they will have to allow its antithesis.

Judge Southwick is correct that there is no perfect analogy. But as he concluded, the platforms do engage in editorial functions when they curate and collate content. As the 11th Circuit observed, the platforms aren’t just “dumb pipes.” They exercise editorial judgment over what content users see when they visit the site. The fact that they do not edit in the same manner as newspapers, which among other things have only so many columns to fill, should not be considered dispositive. The fundamental point is that they edit, or moderate, content.

Critically, a Supreme Court decision upholding these social media laws would be contrary to several significant First Amendment trends—all initiated and embraced by conservative justices. First, the court has recognized and protected corporate expression in the election and other regulatory environments. Consider, for example, Citizens United, which protected corporate electioneering. If Mark Zuckerberg has the right to donate unlimited amounts of his own money to a super PAC backing a candidate he supports, then the platforms he owns the majority stake in should be able to decide what appears on them. Second, the court has been keen to protect the rights of speakers to exclude or refuse service to those with whom they disagree or do not want to associate. In fact, just last term, the court held that a website designer could not be compelled to design a custom wedding website for gay customers, notwithstanding laws that forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court has also upheld the rights of parade organizers, the Boy Scouts, and other speakers to exclude speakers and speech with which they disagreed. Third, the court has characterized the internet as a “vast public library” and social media platforms as “the new public square.” Its decisions have warned lawmakers and regulators to tread very lightly, lest they chill expression and interfere with the development of a robust cyber-marketplace of ideas.

Giving governments the power to compel large social media platforms to host all manner of speakers and speech offends well-established First Amendment principles. It may also spell the beginning of the end of the internet as we currently know it. Right now, platforms can take down vile and harmful content when it offends their terms of service. But if the Texas and Florida laws stand, the platforms would become a virtual free-for-all. White supremacists, terrorists, and other harmful speakers would gain a legal right to communicate on the platforms. These and other speakers could effectively shut down the platforms by forcing them to defend countless lawsuits under the state laws.

It can be hard to muster sympathy for social media platforms and their principals, who have made inconsistent statements about their relationship to user content and have not always moderated responsibly. But the alternative offered by Texas and Florida—robbing the platforms of their editorial power—threatens mischief all out of proportion to the supposed evil those states have identified. The First Amendment does not allow government to ban private speakers from deciding what messages to disseminate or to level the playing field against what Florida Governor DeSantis has referred to as “Silicon Valley elites.”

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will accept this reality, as well as enforce its own precedents.


Supreme Court to decide if Florida, Texas laws limiting social media platforms violate Constitution

Mark Sherman,WFTV.com News Staff
Fri, September 29, 2023


The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether state laws that seek to regulate Facebook, TikTok, X and other social media platforms violate the Constitution.

The justices will review laws enacted by Republican-dominated legislatures and signed by Republican governors in Florida and Texas. While the details vary, both laws aim to prevent social media companies from censoring users based on their viewpoints.

The court’s announcement, three days before the start of its new term, comes as the justices continue to grapple with how laws written at the dawn of the digital age, or earlier, apply to the online world.

The justices had already agreed to decide whether public officials can block critics from commenting on their social media accounts, an issue that previously came up in a case involving then-President Donald Trump. The court dismissed the Trump case when his presidential term ended in January 2021.

Read: Florida government spent $30K on TikTok ads while calling app ‘security risk’

Separately, the high court also could consider a lower-court order limiting executive branch officials’ communications with social media companies about controversial online posts.

The new case follows conflicting rulings by two appeals courts, one of which upheld the Texas law, while the other struck down Florida’s statute. By a 5-4 vote, the justices kept the Texas law on hold while litigation over it continues.

Read: DeSantis signs bill banning TikTok in Florida schools

But the alignment was unusual. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted to grant the emergency request from two technology industry groups that challenged the law in federal court.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch would have allowed the law to remain in effect. In dissent, Alito wrote, “Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news.”

Read: UCF students react to campus TikTok ban

Proponents of the laws, including Republican elected officials in several states that have similar measures, have sought to portray social media companies as generally liberal in outlook and hostile to ideas outside of that viewpoint, especially from the political right.

The tech sector warned that the laws would prevent platforms from removing extremism and hate speech.

“Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit,” Chris Marchese, the litigation director for the industry group NetChoice, said in a statement. “The internet is a vital platform for free expression, and it must remain free from government censorship. We are confident the Court will agree.”

Read: University of Florida recommends students, faculty stop using TikTok

Without offering any explanation, the justices had put off consideration of the case even though both sides agreed the high court should step in.

The justices had other social media issues before them last year, including a plea the court did not embrace to soften legal protections tech companies have for posts by their users.

Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

The Supreme Court will decide if state laws limiting social media platforms violate the Constitution

MARK SHERMAN
Updated Fri, September 29, 2023 

The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, Sept. 25, 2023. The new term of the high court begins next Monday, Oct. 2. The Supreme Court, which begins its new term on Monday, is awash in ritual. So it’s no surprise that the lawyers have a few regular, if occasionally eccentric, observances of their own.

 (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether state laws that seek to regulate Facebook, TikTok, X and other social media platforms violate the Constitution.

The justices will review laws enacted by Republican-dominated legislatures and signed by Republican governors in Florida and Texas. While the details vary, both laws aim to prevent the social media companies from censoring users based on their viewpoints.

The court's announcement, three days before the start of its new term, comes as the justices continue to grapple with how laws written at the dawn of the digital age, or earlier, apply to the online world.

The justices had already agreed to decide whether public officials can block critics from commenting on their social media accounts, an issue that previously came up in a case involving then-President Donald Trump. The court dismissed the Trump case when his presidential term ended in January 2021.

Separately, the high court also could consider a lower-court order limiting executive branch officials’ communications with social media companies about controversial online posts.

In all, the justices added 12 cases Friday that will be argued during the winter. They include:

— A dispute over the FBI's no-fly list. The appeal came from the Biden administration in a case involving an Oregon man who once was on the list, but had been removed years ago. A federal appeals court said he could continue his lawsuit because the FBI never disavowed his initial inclusion.

— A copyright case that involves a hit for the hip-hop artist Flo Rida in which he made use of someone else's song from the 1980s. Music publishing companies that were sued for copyright infringement over the 2008 song “In the Ayer” are challenging a lower court ruling against them.

— A plea by landowners in southeast Texas who want the state to compensate them for effectively taking their property. Their lawsuit claims that a successful project to renovate Interstate 10 and ensure it remains passable in bad weather results in serious flooding on their properties in heavy rainfall.

The new social media cases follow conflicting rulings by two appeals courts, one of which upheld the Texas law, while the other struck down Florida's statute. By a 5-4 vote, the justices kept the Texas law on hold while litigation over it continues.

But the alignment was unusual. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted to grant the emergency request from two technology industry groups that challenged the law in federal court.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch would have allowed the law to remain in effect. In dissent, Alito wrote, “Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news.”

Proponents of the laws, including Republican elected officials in several states that have similar measures, have sought to portray social media companies as generally liberal in outlook and hostile to ideas outside of that viewpoint, especially from the political right.

The tech sector warned that the laws would prevent platforms from removing extremism and hate speech.

“Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit," Chris Marchese, the litigation director for the industry group NetChoice, said in a statement. "The internet is a vital platform for free expression, and it must remain free from government censorship. We are confident the Court will agree.”

Without offering any explanation, the justices had put off consideration of the case even though both sides agreed the high court should step in.

The justices had other social media issues before them last year, including a plea the court did not embrace to soften legal protections tech companies have for posts by their users.

Supreme Court will decide if Texas and Florida can regulate social media to protect

PROMOTE  'conservative speech'

David G. Savage
Fri, September 29, 2023

The Supreme Court said Friday it will rule on how the 1st Amendment applies to social media and decide whether Texas and Florida can impose heavy fines on Facebook, YouTube and other popular sites for allegedly discriminating against conservatives.

The justices said they would review the new and never-enforced laws from the two largest Republican-controlled states and decide whose rights to free speech are at stake.

Texas lawmakers said the social media sites were conspiring to censor conservative voices and views, sometimes at the behest of the Biden White House.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said "conservative speech" was under threat. "It's now the law that conservative viewpoints in Texas cannot be banned on social media," he said upon signing the bill in 2021.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said his state's law would hold accountable the "Big Tech censors" who "discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology."

The law, adopted before billionaire Elon Musk purchased Twitter and changed its name to "X," applies to social media sites with more than $100 million in annual revenue or more than 100 million users.

It authorizes suits for damages for "unfair censorship" and large fines if a social media site "deplatforms" a candidate for office, as happened for a time to former President Trump after he continued to spread false claims about the 2020 election.

Both state laws ran into 1st Amendment challenges from the tech industry, and the Supreme Court put them on hold last year in a 5-4 order.

"Throughout our nation’s history, the 1st Amendment’s freedoms of speech and press have protected private entities’ rights to choose whether and how to publish and disseminate speech generated by others," lawyers for the social media sites said in the Texas appeal.

At issue is the basic legal status of social media sites. Are they private companies with full free-speech rights to shape their content, similar to a newspaper or TV network?

Or are they are "common carriers," like telephone companies, with a duty to be equally open to all views and subject to government regulation?

Until now, the 1st Amendment and federal law have been understood to protect free speech online by forbidding regulation by the government or through lawsuits against social media platforms.

But Justice Clarence Thomas has suggested the "dominant digital platforms" sites should be seen as common carriers subject to regulation.

"There is a fair argument that some digital platforms are sufficiently akin to common carriers or places of accommodation to be regulated," he wrote when the court dismissed a case called Biden vs. Knight. Google and Facebook have an enormous reach, he said. "Much like with a communications utility, this concentration gives some digital platforms enormous control over speech."

Netchoice, a coalition of big internet firms that includes Amazon, Google and Meta, sued to block both laws along with the Computer & Communications Industry Assn.

The two federal appeals courts in the South, speaking through Trump appointees, divided on the free-speech issue.

U.S. Appellate Judge Kevin Newsom, speaking for the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, blocked most of Florida's law from taking effect on the grounds it was unconstitutional.

The 1st Amendment "constrains government actors and protects private actors," he said. Social media sites are private companies, and "put simply, with minor exceptions, the government can't tell a private person or entity what to say or how to say it."

Shortly after Florida adopted its law, Texas passed a measure that says a social media platform with more than 50 million users in the United States “may not censor ... or otherwise discriminate against expression” of users based on their viewpoint.

The targets of the law appear to include YouTube, Instagram and TikTok as well as Facebook and X, formerly Twitter. Violators could be subject to daily fines as well as suits brought by Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton.

U.S. Appellate Judge Andrew Oldham, speaking for the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans, upheld the Texas law on the grounds the state sought to protect the free speech rights of Texans.

A former counsel to Abbott and a law clerk to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Oldham said it is a "rather odd inversion of the 1st Amendment" to say the social media platforms have a "right to muzzle speech...We reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling 1st Amendment right to censor what people say."

Both state measures also require social media sites to disclose how they decide on removing information or users. That part of the Florida law was not blocked by the lower courts.

Last year, the Supreme Court appeared closely split on the issue. The justices put the Texas law on hold while the appeals continued.

Social media sites insist they are merely exercising "editorial judgment" to remove objectionable material.

They argued it was both unconstitutional and practically impossible for the website to give individualized explanations for every item that is removed.

During six months in 2018, "Facebook, Google, and Twitter took action on over 5 billion accounts or submissions—including 3 billion cases of spam, 57 million cases of pornography, 17 million cases of content regarding child safety, and 12 million cases of extremism, hate speech, and terrorist speech," they told the court.

On Friday, the justices said they had agreed to review both laws. They will hear arguments early next year. The Florida case is Moody vs. NetChoice while the Texas case is NetChoice vs. Paxton.

Trump and 16 Republican-led states filed friend-of-court briefs urging the justices to uphold the Florida law.

The concern over social media is not limited to conservative states.

Last year, the California Legislature adopted measures to protect children and teens online and to require social media sites to disclose their "content moderation practices" involving hate speech, racism, extremism, disinformation and harassment.

“California will not stand by as social media is weaponized to spread hate and disinformation that threaten our communities and foundational values as a country,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said when he signed the bill. “Californians deserve to know how these platforms are impacting our public discourse, and this action brings much-needed transparency and accountability to the policies that shape the social media content we consume every day.”


This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Supreme Court takes on social media: First Amendment fight over 'censorship' is on the docket

John Fritze, USA TODAY
Updated Fri, September 29, 2023

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that would limit the ability of platforms like Facebook, YouTube and X to moderate content – entering into a deeply partisan fray that could change the way millions of Americans interact with social media during an election year.

The state laws at issue in the cases, both of which have been temporarily blocked by federal courts, severely limit the ability of social media companies to kick users off their platforms or remove individual posts − even if those posts spread a foreign government's misinformation or provide false medical advice. Trade groups representing the nation's social media companies say the state laws would "transform speech on the internet as we know it today."

“These cases could completely reshape the digital public sphere," said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute. "It's difficult to think of any other recent First Amendment cases in which the stakes were so high.”

But Republican lawmakers in Texas and Florida − including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination − argue that social media companies have been too quick to throttle conservative viewpoints and too opaque in explaining how they decide what to remove. That argument reached a fever pitch in 2021, when Twitter and other major platforms suspended former President Donald Trump after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Trade groups representing the companies say the lawswould radically transform social media, making it impossible to cull foreign propaganda, harassment and misinformation. The First Amendment, they say, bars the government from compelling private entities – from newspapers to social networks – from publishing or not publishing content it favors.

“It is high time that the Supreme Court resolves whether governments can force websites to publish dangerous content," said Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association. "Telling private websites they must give equal treatment to extremist hate isn’t just unwise, it is unconstitutional, and we look forward to demonstrating that to the court.”

Ethics: Not just Clarence Thomas: Lower courts facing scrutiny over ethics, disclosures, too

But the dominant social networks have come under increasing scrutiny from some on the right and the left in recent years. Justice Clarence Thomas in 2021 compared Twitter, now known as X, and other large social media companies to communication utilities that could be regulated, asserting the concentration in the industry gives digital platforms "enormous control over speech." That interpretation, if it gains traction, could open the companies up to far greater government regulation.

Social media companies have generally denied their content moderation benefits liberals or conservatives. Elon Musk, who owns X, promoted a series of tweets last year that demonstrated how executives at the company struggled with handling posts about a report on Hunter Biden's laptop before the 2020 presidential election. Musk promoted the material in an effort to bolster claims of the political left's grip over Big Tech.

Musk's predecessor, Jack Dorsey, had acknowledged the controversy two years earlier and said the way the company handled the story was "wrong."

The cases put social media front and center on the high court's docket and will be among the closest watched this term. The court is already wrestling several other social media cases, including two that deal with whether elected officials may block voters from their social media accounts. A similar case involving Trump made its way up to the Supreme Court but was dismissed after he left office in 2021.

Decisions in the cases are expected next year.

At the the moment, neither the Florida nor the Texas law are in effect.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit blocked enforcement of most of Florida's law last year. But the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit backed the similar Texas law. That created a split in how appeals courts are interpreting the laws.

In May, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court blocked Texas from enforcing its law. The decision, on the court's emergency docket, was not accompanied by an opinion.

Impact: How the Supreme Court could alter the way Americans interact on the internet

Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissent joined by Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch in that emergency case, wrote that it is "not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies."

Contributing: Jessica Guynn

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court to decide if states can regulate Facebook, X


Supreme Court agrees to take social media content moderation First Amendment case

Doug Cunningham
Fri, September 29, 2023 

The U.S. Supreme Court Friday agreed to hear a social media First Amendment case involving Texas and Florida laws that ban social media companies from banning speech they deem objectionable. Photo by Eric Lee/UPI

Sept. 29 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday chose to take a case on whether Florida and Texas laws that ban social media companies from removing content violates the First Amendment protections of the companies to be free of government compelling speech.

It sets the stage for a potentially landmark social media First Amendment ruling on what limits, if any, companies have in moderating the kind of speech allowed on their platforms.

Tech groups NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association challenged the Texas and Florida laws as unconstitutional because they say the laws compel private speech.

"Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit," NetChoice Litigation Director Chris Marchese said in a statement. "The Internet is a vital platform for free expression, and it must remain free from government censorship. We are confident the court will agree."

The case arises from laws in Texas and Florida designed to stop social media companies from barring former President Donald Trump as some of them did after the Jan. 6, 2021, pro-Trump mob's violent attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Left to right, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts. Photo by Eric Lee/UPI

"It is high time that the Supreme Court resolves whether governments can force websites to publish dangerous content. Telling private websites they must give equal treatment to extremist hate isn't just unwise, it is unconstitutional, and we look forward to demonstrating that to the court," CCIA President Matt Schruers said in a statement.

He added that for 200 years courts have upheld First Amendment protections against government attempts to compel private speech.

At issue is the power of government to tell private companies what they can and can't do when it comes to political speech on platforms that are privately owned.

The First Amendment prohibits government from banning free speech but private companies have been largely free to govern the type of speech they allow on their platforms.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody said social media companies infringe on right-wing First Amendment rights by barring certain content for breaking company content moderation rules.

In May, the Supreme Court declined to rule on a law that protects Internet companies form lawsuits based on content posted by social media platform users.

The case in question then involved allegations that YouTube was liable for suggesting videos that promoted militant Islam.

U.S. Supreme Court to consider parts of Florida law restricting social media platforms

Jim Saunders
Fri, September 29, 2023 

Dreamstime/TNS


The U.S. Supreme Court said Friday it will take up a First Amendment fight about a 2021 Florida law that placed restrictions on major social-media companies.

The Supreme Court said it will hear cases involving the Florida law and a similar measure in Texas. Both sides in the Florida case, along with the U.S. solicitor general, had urged justices to take up the issues.

The industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association challenged the constitutionality of the Florida law, which placed restrictions on large social-media companies such as Facebook and Twitter, now known as X. Gov. Ron DeSantis made a priority of the issue after Twitter and Facebook blocked former President Donald Trump from their platforms after Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction against the measure, describing it as “riddled with imprecision and ambiguity.” The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year upheld much of the preliminary injunction, though it said parts of the law could take effect.

READ MORE: Federal judge blocks Florida’s new social media law targeting ‘big tech’ companies

“We are pleased the Supreme Court agreed to hear our landmark cases,” Chris Marchese, NetChoice’s litigation director, said in a statement Friday. “Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit. The internet is a vital platform for free expression, and it must remain free from government censorship. We are confident the court will agree.”

But in a filing last year at the Supreme Court, Florida’s attorneys said the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision “dealt a mortal blow to the power of governments, state and federal, to protect their citizens’ access to information in the modern public square.”

“Under the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning, social-media behemoths have a First Amendment right to cut any person out of the modern town square, for any reason, even when they do not follow their own rules or otherwise act in bad faith,” the filing said. “That ruling strips states of their historic power to protect their citizens’ access to information, implicating questions of nationwide importance.”

The Supreme Court’s order said justices would review two parts of the Florida law that the 11th Circuit blocked. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and other Department of Justice attorneys in August urged the court to consider those issues and to uphold the injunction.

One of those parts would place restrictions on content-moderation by the social-media companies. The law, for example, would prevent platforms from banning political candidates from their sites and require companies to publish — and apply consistently — standards about issues.

In contrast to the 11th Circuit, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals supported similar restrictions in the Texas law.

“When a social-media platform selects, edits, and arranges third-party speech for presentation to the public, it engages in activity protected by the First Amendment,” Justice Department attorneys wrote in a brief. “That activity, and the platforms’ business practices more generally, are not immune from regulation. But here, the states have not articulated interests that justify the burdens imposed by the content-moderation restrictions under any potentially applicable form of First Amendment scrutiny.”

The Justice Department also urged the Supreme Court to take up another part of the Florida law that the brief said “requires a platform to provide an individualized explanation to a user if it removes or alters her posts.” Like with the contrast on the content-moderation issue, the 5th Circuit upheld a similar requirement in the Texas law.

In saying it will focus on the two issues, the Supreme Court does not appear likely to go as far as the tech-industry groups wanted, which was to block the entire Florida law. It was not clear Friday when the Supreme Court will hold arguments.

Supreme Court to hear cases on Florida, Texas social media laws

Ella Lee
Fri, September 29, 2023 

Supreme Court to hear cases on Florida, Texas social media laws


The Supreme Court announced Friday it will hear two cases stemming from controversial laws in Texas and Florida regulating social media platforms’ content moderation decisions.

The laws aim to prohibit social media companies from banning users based on political views, even if users violate platform policies, essentially limiting companies from being able to enforce their policies.

The high court will consider whether the laws’ content moderation restrictions and their “individualized-explanation requirements” are compliant with the First Amendment.

Any outcome at the Supreme Court could have resounding implications for online speech after two lower courts, the 5th Circuit and 11th Circuit appeals courts, had conflicting opinions on blocking and upholding the two states’ similar laws.

The laws were challenged in court by two tech industry groups, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice. They said the social media laws violate private companies’ First Amendment right to decide what speech to host.

The tech groups cheered the court’s decision to hear the cases.

“This order is encouraging. It is high time that the Supreme Court resolves whether governments can force websites to publish dangerous content. Telling private websites they must give equal treatment to extremist hate isn’t just unwise, it is unconstitutional, and we look forward to demonstrating that to the Court,” CCIA President Matt Schruers said in a statement.

“Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit,” NetChoice litigation director Chris Marchese said in a statement. “The internet is a vital platform for free expression, and it must remain free from government censorship. We are confident the Court will agree.”

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to uphold a block on major provisions in Florida’s law, siding with the tech industry groups. The panel agreed that no matter the extent of technological advancement, the “basic principles of freedom of speech and the press” remain, including for private corporations.

But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion in the Texas case. Judge Andrew Stephen Oldham, an appointee of former President Trump, wrote in the panel’s opinion that the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee corporations the “unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”

In Florida’s petition to the Supreme Court to hear its case, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) said the 11th Circuit’s decision to block the state’s law “squarely conflicts” with the 5th Circuit’s ruling for Texas, which upheld the state’s similar law. The trade associations also appealed to the Supreme Court.

At least four of the nine justices had to agree to take up the cases, a decision that came with little surprise after several justices previously indicated interest.

Last May, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 to take emergency action, pausing enforcement of the Texas law until the 5th Circuit could more fully consider the case. Justice Samuel Alito — writing for himself, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch — said in a dissenting opinion that the case posed “novel legal questions” of “great importance that will plainly merit this Court’s review.” Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s liberals, did not join Alito’s opinion but indicated she agreed with the three conservative justices’ votes.

The justices’ request for the Biden administration to weigh in on the case also teased their interest in taking it up.

In August, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 5th Circuit’s decision to uphold the Texas law, suggesting the conflicting opinions warrant a Supreme Court review.

“Considering the two laws together would give the Court the fullest opportunity to address the relevant issues,” she wrote.

Zach Schonfeld contributed.

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M
Senate confirms Mississippi US Attorney, putting him in charge of welfare scandal prosecution

MICHAEL GOLDBERG
Fri, September 29, 2023

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — The U.S. Senate on Friday confirmed a U.S. attorney in Mississippi who will oversee the largest public corruption case in the state’s history.

President Joe Biden nominated Todd Gee for the post overseeing the Southern District of Mississippi in September 2022. His nomination stalled until April, when both of Mississippi’s Republican U.S. Senators, Roger Wicker and Cindy Hyde-Smith, had indicated they would support his nomination. Gee was confirmed Friday in an 82-8 vote, with all votes against him coming from other Republicans.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Mississippi has overseen prosecutions related to a sprawling corruption scandal in which $77 million of federal welfare funds intended to help some of the poorest people in the U.S. were instead diverted to the rich and powerful. The former head of Mississippi's Department of Human Services and former nonprofit leaders have pleaded guilty to state and federal charges for misspending money through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

The scandal has ensnared high-profile figures, including retired NFL quarterback Brett Favre, who is one of more than three dozen defendants in a lawsuit that the current Human Services director filed to try to recover some of the welfare money.

In a statement posted on social media Friday, Mississippi State Auditor Shad White, whose office investigated the scandal, said federal prosecutors decide whom to charge, and his relationship with them would not change.

“The appointment of Mr. Gee changes nothing in our posture," he wrote. "We will continue to work with federal prosecutors to bring the case to a conclusion.”

Since 2018, Gee has served as deputy chief of the Public Integrity Section of the United States Department of Justice, according to a White House news release. He was also an assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia from 2007 to 2015.

Darren LaMarca had been serving as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi since his predecessor, Mike Hurst, resigned after President Joe Biden's election in 2020. Hurst was appointed by former President Donald Trump. It’s common for federal prosecutors to resign when the administration changes.

___

Michael Goldberg is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow him at @mikergoldberg.