X challenges the constitutionality of New York law requiring social media companies to disclose how they deal with hate speech, extremism, and disinformation. Similar to the California law struck down by the Ninth Circuit, “[t]he law, which goes into effect this week, requires X and other major social media companies to file reports detailing how they define and moderate hate speech, racism, extremism, radicalization, disinformation and misinformation, harassment and foreign political interference. It’s part of a broader effort by states to mitigate what they see as the harmful effects of online platforms.”
Tag Archives: hate speech
New Article on Democracy and Political Assembly
At this time, when so many democratic norms and institutions of government and civil society are being challenged, I hope readers of this blog will be interested in my new article, A Right of Peaceable Assembly, forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review.
The development of an independent Assembly Clause doctrine is essential. It may once have been possible to dismiss the consequences of ignoring the textual right of assembly. This is no longer true. Our neglect of the right has significant contemporary consequences for political protests, as the campus protests since October 7, 2023, have demonstrated.
The functional absence of the Assembly Clause in First Amendment law and constitutional discourse fundamentally distorts our analysis of the proper scope of constitutional protection for political assemblies. This Symposium Piece develops a much-needed independent Assembly Clause doctrine. An independent Assembly Clause doctrine would not just be consistent with the text and original understanding of the Founders but also allow for a jurisprudence capable of distinguishing between protected and unprotected assemblies in relation to assembly’s distinct contribution to self-governance. The Piece recognizes that legal recognition of assembly as a textual right troubles the speech-conduct distinction that lies at the heart of contemporary First Amendment jurisprudence and upends existing determinations about the proper scope of constitutional protection for those who gather in public for political ends. The fact, however, is that the First Amendment explicitly protects a certain form of conduct (peaceable assembly), and it does so for good reasons (assemblies further liberal democracy in both instrumental and non-instrumental ways). This Piece, therefore, lays out a roadmap for an independent Assembly Clause doctrine capable of providing more appropriate constitutional protection, accounting for both assembly’s value and its social costs.
“FBI investigating post-election text threats sent to Latino, LGBTQ people”
In the immediate wake of the election various, mostly young, black people were targeted with texts and emails directing them to report to the plantation. Now, the Washington Post reports that similar threats were sent to the Latino and LGBTQ communities.
“‘Some recipients reported being told they were selected for deportation or to report to a reeducation camp,’” the agency said in a statement[.]”
The texts claimed to be from Trump supporters, but the campaign has denied any involvement.
“It was not immediately clear how many messages were sent by the anonymous users, but thousands more messages . . . were blocked by wireless carriers once they were made aware of the situation, according to Nick Ludlum, senior vice president of CTIA, a trade group for the U.S. wireless communications industry.”