Censorship

In the aftermath of [recent horrific mass shootings], some of the responses from internet companies include ideas that point in a disturbing direction: toward increasingly centralized and opaque censorship of the global internet. Facebook, for example, describes plans for an expanded role for the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, or GIFCT.

A global reckoning around the future of the internet is underway as autocratic regimes look to censor the internet in their countries, and races to develop new internet technologies, such as blockchain and 5G, heat up between the US and China. The next version of the internet could be split between countries that embrace an open web and isolationists that don't. It could also be fractured by different technologies that could fundamentally change the interconnected nature of the network and limit who can do business where.

A new executive order from the White House will aim to make federal research funding for colleges and universities contingent on their support for “free speech,” President Donald Trump said. The announcement, during Trump’s address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, appeared to target complaints by some university critics that institutions of higher education stifle right-wing viewpoints.

At the midpoint of his term, there remains little question that President Donald Trump exerts an influence on American politics that is straining our core values and testing the stability of our constitutional system. No president in living memory has shown less respect for its tenets, norms, and principles. President Trump has assailed essential institutions and traditions including the separation of powers, a free press, an independent judiciary, the impartial delivery of justice, safeguards against corruption, and most disturbingly, the legitimacy of elections.

An elected official in Virginia violated the First Amendment when she temporarily blocked a constituent on Facebook, a federal appeals court ruled Jan 7, in a novel case with implications for how government officials nationwide interact with constituents on social media. The unanimous ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is the first from an appeals court to answer the question of whether free speech protections prevent public officials from barring critics from their social media feeds. The 42-page opinion addresses the Facebook page of Phyllis J.

In a year-end report, the Committee to Protect Journalists counted 53 journalists killed between Jan 1 and Dec 14, including 34 targeted in reprisal for their work — nearly double the 18 such murders it recorded in 2017. The growing number of journalists jailed or attacked on that pretext [of dissemintating "false" or "fake" news] is one illustration of the deleterious influence that President Donald Trump has had on press freedom globally. His labeling of the US media as the “enemy of the people” and charges of “fake news” have been imitated by regimes around the world.

Only 29 percent of Americans agree the US government should prohibit political bias in online services such as Facebook and Google, according to a new survey from the Center for Data Innovation. Moreover, public support for a government prohibition of political bias online drops even further when respondents consider the potential impact of such rules. Only 21 percent agree the US government should prohibit political bias online if it would create a worse user experience—and that drops to just 19 percent if it would limit free speech.

As a staunch supporter of limited government and free speech, I have regularly objected to government attempts to own and control the nation’s communications networks. I have been a staunch critic of government projects to build and operate broadband networks. Beyond flirting with a perverse form of socialism, municipalities’ overbuilding of private providers creates market inefficiencies, distorts competitive outcomes, encourages regulatory favoritism towards state-owned networks, and can be a waste of taxpayer money. Even in instances where municipal, or muni, broadband reaches unserved a

CNN and the network’s chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta have asked a federal judge for an emergency hearing after the White House sent Acosta a letter saying it planned to suspend Acosta’s press pass again, just hours after the same judge ordered the White House to temporarily restore Acosta’s credentials Nov 16. Unless the judge extends that 14-day order, it will expire at the end of November.

Judge Timothy Kelly ruled in favor of CNN and reporter Jim Acosta in a dispute with President Donald Trump, ordering the White House to temporarily restore the press credentials that the Trump administration had taken away from Acosta. Judge Kelly granted CNN’s motion for a temporary restraining order that will prevent the administration from keeping Acosta off White House grounds. Judge Kelly ruled that Acosta’s First Amendment rights overruled the White House’s right to have orderly news conferences.