How Supreme Court arguments over social media laws and free speech defined social media itself – Quartz

The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday for two lawsuits about how social media giants should or should not be able to regulate speech on their platforms. Chief justices went back and forth with state solicitors general and their opposing party, making what may seem like far-fetched comparisons between social media and everything from bookstores to parade organizers and wedding planners.

Facebook's 2016 election problems will be the same in 2024 | What's Next for Meta?

The two cases in question one from Florida, one from Texas were brought by NetChoice, a trade association that represents social media sites like Metas Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and more. NetChoice said two state laws in Florida and Texas that ban companies from censoring content on their platforms are actually forms of censorship themselves. Paul Clement, the attorney for NetChoice, argued that the laws violate the First Amendment because they compel speech, forcing platforms to host posts that violate their policies.

At the heart of NetChoices argument is that social media platforms are like newspapers, so editorializing content is their First Amendment right.

But Florida solicitor general Henry Whitaker said social media is more like a telephone company (pdf): If Verizon asserted a First Amendment right to cancel disfavored subscribers at a whim, that claim would fail.

The design of the First Amendment is to prevent the suppression of speech not to enable it. That is why the telephone company and the delivery service have no First Amendment right to use their services as a chokepoint to silence those they disfavor, he said.

Texas solicitor general Aaron Nielson had a similar argument (pdf), but likened social media to a public square. [I]f platforms that passively host the speech of billions of people are themselves the speakers and can discriminate, there will be no public square to speak of.

One concern of chief justice Amy Coney Barrett is that the state laws would consider algorithms to be editors, meaning that states could ban how algorithms are applied by online sites or other businesses that sell content. Florida solicitor general Whitaker said algorithms are just a means of sites organizing content, not editorializing it.

That led to more concern, though. Could Florida enact a law telling bookstores that they have to put everything out by alphabetical order? Coney Barrett asked.

Whitaker said, no, the state laws prevent social media sites from censorship, not how they organize their content.

But NetChoices Clement argued that algorithms are editors: These algorithms dont spring from the ether. They are essentially computer programs designed by humans to try to do some of this editorial function. That means that a Supreme Court ruling allowing the state laws to remain would open the door for lawsuits against how algorithms function.

Were not quite sure who it covers, chief justice Ketanji Brown told Whitaker about the Florida law.

So Whitaker said the Florida law would apply to sites like Etsy and Uber, meaning those sites couldnt ban user-generated content unless they provide thorough rationale. Meanwhile, Nielson said the Texas state law, which is narrower than Floridas in scope, wouldnt apply to platforms outside of classic social media sites.

Read the original here:

How Supreme Court arguments over social media laws and free speech defined social media itself - Quartz

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Texas and Florida cases about free speech and social media platforms – Texas Standard

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in two cases related to some of the worlds biggest social media platforms.

Considered by many to be two of the hottest free speech cases of the internet age, one case is from Texas, the other from Florida. And though there are slight differences between the two state laws being challenged here, the cases appear to center on a central question: do social media companies have the right to independently decide what content appears on their platforms, amplifying or removing content as they see fit?

The social media companies say their First Amendment free speech rights are being violated with the Texas and Florida laws. The states say those social media companies arent entitled to First Amendment free speech protection. And it may come down to whether a majority of the court sees social media as more like a newspaper or more like a telephone company.

Charles Rocky Rhodes, a professor of law at South Texas College of Law in Houston, said both of these laws are on hold and have not yet gone into effect because of pending court cases.

They were a response to some of the social media platforms de-platforming Donald Trump and other politicians in the wake of the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, Rhodes said. And there was a concern from Texas and from Florida that [these politicians] were being targeted because of their conservative beliefs.

And so the idea of both of these laws was to try to keep social media platforms from banning individuals or discriminating against individuals based on the viewpoints of their speech. And it also placed some very onerous burdens on social media companies with respect to disclosure requirements of their terms and their policies with respect to data management and content, and the use policies that they would be using.

GET MORE NEWS FROM AROUND THE STATE:Sign up for Texas Standards weekly newsletters

The plaintiff in the case is NetChoice, an industry association that includes most of the big platforms we all think of Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, etc.

Theyre making the play that when they are deciding which messages to amplify and which messages that they want to remove from their platform, that they are acting as the modern editor of a newspaper, and there are good precedent for the United States Supreme Court saying that a state cant tell a newspaper what to print, Rhodes said.

Theyre arguing that the same principle applies to them, that they are allowed to make editorial decisions on their private platform. And this is something that people have to keep in mind that the social media companies, as big and important as they are, are not the government. They are actually privately-owned.

Texas and Florida, however, say these companies are acting as a common carrier and therefore do not have a claim to free speech.

Theyre trying to say that social media companies are a modern equivalent of what used to be a very familiar idea of the common carrier, that they dont have the ability to discriminate with respect to their service. They have to accept everyone, Rhodes said. And the social media companies come back and say, well, common carriers were different because they never engaged in their own expressive activities.

Common carriers did sometimes transmit the speech of others, like a telegraph would be the old example, or telephone But they did not actually engage in their own expressive activities. And the social media companies are claiming that we do because we are trying to communicate messages. Were creating news feeds for individuals. Were trying to increase, of course, advertising streams that we are engaged in expressive activities in a way that your internet service provider or in a way that your telephone company is not.

As this case goes forward, Rhodes said the states arguments are rooted in political ideology.

The Texas law has a specific exemption for companies under 50 million users. So it wouldnt cover conservative sites like Parler, he said. The Florida law had exemptions for Disney and for Universal that were then taken out once Disney and Universal started criticizing Florida [political leaders]. A big part of the underlying motivation for these laws was the political concern that conservatives thought that their voices were being removed from the site and the marketplace of ideas.

View original post here:

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Texas and Florida cases about free speech and social media platforms - Texas Standard

Free Speech or Hate Speech? | GW Today | The George Washington University – GW Today

What are the free speech rights of university students? That was the first question posed by moderator Jeffrey Rosen, GW Law professor and president of the National Constitution Center, to a panel of George Washington University faculty experts on the First Amendment.

The webinar, Free Speech v. Hate Speech: First Amendment Scholars Discuss Where to Draw the Line in the Context of Higher Education, was held as part of the universitys plan for strengthening the GW community in challenging times, with the goal of fostering civil conversations about complex issues and emphasizing university policies.

The incoming inaugural Burchfield Professor of First Amendment and Free Speech Law, Mary-Rose Papandrea, began by noting that the First Amendment applies to public and not private universities, but private universities often look to the First Amendment principles for guidance. Under the First Amendment, she explained, some categories of speech receive no First Amendment protection, such as incitement of unlawful conduct, threats of violence, or giving material support to terrorists. But offensive speech and bad words are not carved out from the First Amendment. In a public university setting, however, there is some leeway for penalizing speech that would be otherwise protected. She suggested classrooms provide the best example of this.

When I ask a student to tell me the holding of a case, I actually want the holding of the case, and there is a wrong answer, Papandrea said. And if the student doesnt give me the correct answer, that will result in a lower grade in the class. Outside in the town square you can engage in false speech, incorrect speech, or misrepresentations and cannot be, as a general matter, punished by the government.

Most of the tensions surrounding free speech on campuses today, she added, arise when universities attempt to regulate the speech of faculty and students outside of the classroom.

Universities are the quintessential marketplace of ideas, Papandrea said, and we should be really concerned when the university starts making viewpoint-based speech restrictions outside of the classroom.

First Amendment: Does everything go?

In the view of Mary Anne Franks, Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology and Civil Rights Law, free speech issues are clouded by unequal power relations, often resulting in protection of reckless speech for the majority but not for minorities. Franks proposes an alternative paradigm encouraging what she describes as fearless speech.

If we really want to talk about free speech, we actually need to get away from the First AmendmentI mean the kind of popularized version of the First Amendment which says everything goes, and you can never have any kind of intervention, Franks said.

People operating under this misconception, she added, argue that any kind of devaluation or nonplatforming constitutes censorship. That idea, she said, is pernicious.

When we think about what the First Amendment actually does, its not really telling us anything about free speech, Franks said. Its telling us about what the government cant do in certain contexts. And thats really useful to know, because the government has a lot of power that no individual has and because the kinds of measures it can take against you include the loss of your liberty. But I dont know that its such a good model for us as a private university. How much are we like a government? What we could be doing instead, and what I think successful universities do when they want to be marketplaces of ideas or spaces for intellectual, robust debate, is set standards. What are the good ideas? Whether an idea is controversial or noncontroversial is not the point.

Instead, Franks said, ideas should be well informed and argued eloquently. She argues in favor of a conscious curation of the best ideas that reflect the universitys values, expressed as persuasively as possible without threats of force or ad hominem attacks.

What is the kind of speech that a university could uniquely try to foster? she asked. What kind of space could it foster to become a forum where really difficult ideas get aired out in a way that is physically safe but also sophisticated? Im suggesting that we move toward fearless speech and critiques of current power structures, that we take notice of the fact that reality is a certain way. There are certain sensitivities to race and gender and class that we really need to have on our radar, if we want to make sure that people within the university space can speak equally.

Free speech at a private university

Dawn Nunziato, Pedas Family Professor of IP and Technology Law, agreed that the First Amendment is not necessarily the right one for every context.

At a private university like GW, we have the autonomy and the freedom and the duty to decide what kind of community we want to be, Nunziato said, and within certain bounds, what types of speech we want to protect and to not protect. Our speech policies are not governed by the First Amendment. So we dont need to protect hate speech in the same way that the First Amendment protects hate speech. We could draw the line very differently. And there are reasons why we should, and we should be very thoughtful about how we draw the line. We may choose to value inclusivity and belonging over the unfettered marketplace of ideas.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Nunziato noted, GW has a responsibility to provide an educational environment free of discrimination.

Robust discussion and respectful listening

The panels discussion touched on the recent congressional hearings at which the presidents of three elite universities were criticized for saying that whether speech could be considered hate speech depends on context.

After pointing out that she didnt view it as incorrect to say that the answer to questions of free speech v. hate speech can depend on context, Papandrea noted examples of speech that should be protected, such as an antisemitic line spoken by a character in a play meant to condemn antisemitism. The same line spoken by a student marching across campus could be viewed as creating a hostile environment.

Franks, too, was sympathetic to the trio of university presidents, who may have been reacting to the charge that universities are a woke paradise for snowflakes who require trigger warnings.

The most upsetting thing about the spectacle is not any of those presidents answers, Franks said. It was the fact that the spectacle was happening at alla real invocation and revitalization of a McCarthyesque kind of moment, with legislators who have made it clear that antisemitism and white supremacy are things that they either dont have a problem with or actively support. It was a really grotesque spectacle, she added, a bad faith attempt to attack diversity.

If we object to the First Amendments protection of vile speech in the public square, Nunziato said, we take that up with the Supreme Court, which defines the First Amendments protections. But whether vile speech should be restricted in the university environment is a different question, she added.

Balancing robust, sometimes caustic and heated discussion on issues of public importance against the legal obligations that we have to protect our community members from discriminatory harassment, Nunziato said, is an important part of what we do as a university.

Being part of a university community, Nunziato said, presents a unique opportunity to interact more thoughtfully than people do on social media.

Our University Yard and the quad are spaces where there may be protesters and counter-protesters, but we can be there together, Nunziato said, and engage in speech and counterspeech, unlike in some of the online environments where we have egregious problems of information silos and people going down rabbit holes. In the university environment, were all on our phones and on social media, but were also in spaces where we can engage with one another. Maybe were raising our voices, but we can listen to one another. One of the principles in our code of conduct is that members of the university community are urged to hear all sides of controversial issues.

In closing remarks, Rosen quoted Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who argued that the correct remedy for harmful speech is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression.

The concluding webinar, Rosen said, was a model of the kind of robust discussion and respectful listening that Brandeis advocated.

See the original post here:

Free Speech or Hate Speech? | GW Today | The George Washington University - GW Today

An Argument for Free Speech, the Lifeblood of Democracy – Tufts Now

You devote the first part of the book to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and his journey into skepticism about universal morality. To whom is that relevant today?

Many of todays students have a keen thirst for social justice, which I admire. When Holmes was their age, he shared that thirst, dropping out of college to enlist in the Union Army in a war against slavery, in which he was nearly killed several times.

He became very skeptical of people who believe they have unique access to universal, absolute truth, who view their adversaries as evil incarnate. That, he believed, leads ultimately to violence.

All of us today need to approach public debate with a bit of humility, recognizing that none of us is infallible and that rigid moral certitude leads down a dangerous path.

We know from centuries of experience, in many countries, that censorship inevitably backfires. It discredits the censors, who are seen as patronizing elites. It demeans listeners who are told they cant handle the truth. It makes martyrs and heroes out of the censored and drives their speech underground where its harder to rebut.

Suffragettes, civil rights leaders, and LGBTQ+ activists all have relied on free speech to get their messages out. Censorship alienates the public, generates distrust, fosters social division, and sparks political instability.

Its not that some speech isnt harmfulits that trying to suppress it causes greater harm.

Not all hateful speech is protected. Incitement to violence, fighting words, defamation, and true threats are all often hateful yet that speech is not protected. But other hateful speech is protected, for several reasons.

Hatred is a viewpoint. Its for the individual to think and feel as he or she wishes; its only when the individual crosses the line between thought and action to incite violence or defame or threaten someone that the state can intervene.

Hate speech laws are also invariably vague and overbroad, leading to arbitrary and abusive enforcement. In the real world, speech rarely gets punished because it hurts dominant majorities. It gets punished because it hurts disadvantaged minorities.

The ultimate problem with banning falsehoods is that to do so youd need an official Ministry of Truth, which could come up with an endless list of officially banned falsehoods. Not only would that list inevitably be self-serving, but it could be wrong.

Even when it comes to clear falsehoods, there are reasons to leave them up. [Former President Donald] Trump claimed, for example, that the size of the crowd at his inauguration was larger than [former President Barack] Obamas, which was indisputably false. But the statement had the effect of calling into question not only Trumps veracity but also his mental soundness, which is important for voters to assess.

They were wrong to apply a norm of international human rights law in banning hima supposed prohibition against glorifying violence. Thats a vague, overly broad standard that can pick up everything from praising Medal of Honor winners to producing Top Gun.

Were dealing here with an American president speaking from the White House to the American people, so I say the proper standard should have been the U.S. First Amendment and whether Trump intended to incite imminent violence and whether that violence was likely. Under that test, I think its a close case.

Justice Louis Brandeis [who served on the Supreme Court from 1916 to 1939] said that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.

If someone counsels drinking bleach to cure COVID, the remedy is not to suppress itits to point out why thats wrong. But over and over, the governments remedy for speech it didnt like was to strongarm social media platforms to take it down.

The government wouldnt have lost so much credibility if it had only said, This is our best guess based on available evidence. Instead, it spoke ex cathedra on masks, lockdowns, school closings, vaccine efficacy, infection rates, myocarditis, social distancing, you name itclaims that often turned out to be untenableand then it bullied the platforms to censor prominent experts who took issue with its misinformation.

The remedy for falsehoods is more speech, not enforced silence. If someone thinks a social media post contains altered imagery or audio, the initial solution is simply to say that and let the marketplace of ideas sort it out.

Obviously counter-speech isnt always the answer: You still run into eleventh-hour deep fakes that theres no time to rebut. People do have privacy rights and interference with elections undercuts democracy.

The trick is to write legislation that catches malign fakery but doesnt also pick up satire and humor that is obviously bogus. Thats not easy. Well-intended but sloppy laws often trigger serious unintended consequences.

See the original post here:

An Argument for Free Speech, the Lifeblood of Democracy - Tufts Now

VA’s money-squeezed free clinics offer a vital helping hand – Richmond Times-Dispatch

It was only after the death of her husband in 2018, a year after their children sponsored their immigration to the U.S. from Venezuela, that Tatijana Kowalchuk began paying attention to the dizziness that made walking a challenge and shaking hands that made her writing a mess.

And so did the staff at Richmonds Health Brigade free clinic, who found a nearly quarter-inch tumor pressing on her brain.

The staff at Richmonds Health Brigade free clinic found a nearly quarter-inch tumor pressing on Tatijana Kowalchuk's brain. The clinic continues to offer her care and support.

She did not have the money to do anything about it and these days, Virginias free clinics are short of the resources they need to help people who, like the Kowalchuks, fall between the many cracks in the American health care system, which is why Del. Betsy Carr, D-Richmond, and state Sen. Barbara Favola, D-Arlington, are asking the General Assembly to lend a hand.

At the clinic, once staff found treatment for the usual explanation of dizziness middle ear problems was not helping Kowalchuk, they quickly arranged for a neurologist to examine her, free of charge, as well as for the MRI scan that found the tumor.

It was big; the surgery would cost a lot, Kowalchuk said. Health Brigade stepped in again, working long-nurtured connections with surgeons and hospitals to arrange the operation, again free of charge, and to negotiate a discount and payment plan for Kowalchuk to afford follow-up scans.

Tatijana Kowalchuk and medical case manager Robert Key talk at Health Brigade in Richmond on Feb. 13 about how much they mean to each other. Kowalchuk calls Key her guardian angel.

As new, if elderly immigrants, sponsored by their children, the Kowalchuks could not get Medicare and from what they had heard about the cost of health care here, doing something about Wladimiro Kowalchuks cancer scare was a frightening prospect.

Robert was my husbands angel. His guardian angel. He is my angel, said Kowalchuk, referring to the clinics veteran medical case manager, Robert Key, who took the lead helping the couple navigate his cancer treatment and later her surgery.

Virginias 60-plus free clinics provide care to some 75,000 people a year, amounting to some $114 million in 2022. It is a distinctive kind of care, too: focused on all of the needs a patient might have including some that do not always come to mind when people feel they need to see a doctor.

Kowalchuk saw the difference several months after her surgery. She had come back from a trip to her attic with a painful rash on both hands.

I called dermatologists and they said they could give me an appointment in two or three months, she said. The pain is really strong, Id say, but it didnt make any difference.

A visit to a hospital emergency room prompted a suggestion to see a dermatologist. She stumped three doctors at a local doc-in-a-box.

I finally came to Health Brigade, she said.

The nurse looked at my hands and said; Thats an infection the ER doctor said it wasnt that, Kowalchuk said. She said, Ill give you an antibiotic; if it is not better in two days come back and well figure it out. The first day I was a little better; the second day, a lot better.

It is paying attention, maybe even more than being able to offer free access to care, that is the key to what free clinics provide, said Karen Legato, Health Brigades executive director.

We look at the whole person," said Karen Legato, the executive director of the Health Brigade free clinic. "Its not the transactional model."

We look at the whole person ... its not the transactional model, she said.

That means, for instance, making sure a patients electricity is on and that they have enough food. Health Brigade will arrange connection with food pantries, for instance, and can help people access emergency help with utilities to make sure they are warm enough in winter and not overheating in a summer hot spell. If transportation is a problem, case managers and social workers figure out ways to deal with that.

Health Brigades distinctive outreach efforts, like its syringe exchange program, take similar extra steps, when staffers offer COVID-19 and flu vaccinations, clothing in the winter, and assessments of other medical or dental needs as well as a path to getting them treated.

But that whole-person approach, especially in the wake of COVID-19, is swamping Virginias free clinic network.

Coverage through Medicaid was expanded, and all of a sudden, people who werent insured were coming in, Legato said. We had people who didnt know what they had, and we were finding complex, chronic conditions ... and now that Medicaid is going away for them, theyre on our rolls and were taking care of them.

The free clinics compete with hospitals and private practices for physicians, nurses and other medical staff. Staffing accounts for about 80% of Health Brigades budget, for instance free clinics do get a bit of a break on the biggest driver of medical cost increases in other parts of the health care system: prescription drugs.

It takes a big heart to do this, but people need to be paid, Legato said. Even so, a nurse practitioner here may be making 30% less than in private practice.

Theres been a squeeze, too, on the heart of the free clinic model: the volunteers.

COVID-19 kept many away, as clinics tried their best to make sure they did not become hotspots. Statewide shortages in some specialties behavioral health is a particular problem mean many volunteers who used to pitch in cannot find the time and relief from their own patients demand to spare.

That has meant larger paid staffs than had been the pre-pandemic pattern.

Rufus Phillips, CEO of the Virginia Association of Free and Charitable Clinics, said budget amendments proposed by Carr and Favola would offer some relief.

Virginias free and charitable clinics are the backbone of our Commonwealths health care safety net, Carr said in a statement.

With Medicaid unwinding and the end of pandemic relief as well as increased economic pressures disproportionately affecting underserved communities, the need to sustain free clinics has never been greater, she said.

The amendments call for a $5 million-a-year bump in state funds for the clinics, for an annual total of $10.3 million. The current $5.3 million a year was set in 2016, with the idea of covering about 30% of the clinics costs. It currently accounts for about 18%, Phillips said. The clinics operating costs since then have climbed 170%.

If you look at clinics in 2016 and now, youll see big differences, too, Phillips said. Theyre adding dental care, wraparound supports for the social determinants of health; food pantries, even delivering food and showing people how to cook unfamiliar food.

Tatijana Kowalchuk relies on a free clinic Richmonds Health Brigade for care and for support.

And in the end, it is the staff paid and volunteer and the way they see the people who need their services, that make a difference.

So in spotting a concern in Kowalchuks once-every-six-month lab tests for a kidney issue last December, her nurse asked her to come in for another test last month, and with that suggested an every-three-month schedule just to be sure my kidneys are still OK, Kowalchuck said.

You know, they also have a mental health service, she said. Theyve been a real help after my husband died ... I can get down ... I have my daughter and her husband, my neighbor shes very nice but I really dont know many people here.

Brianne Chapman, center, holds up sign near members of the Kekoa Virginia Militia during a Second Amendment Rights rally hosted by Virginia Citizens Defense League on Lobby Day at the state Capitol on Monday, Jan 15, 2024.

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, speaks during a Second Amendment Rights rally on Lobby Day at the state Capitol on Monday, Jan 15, 2024.

Demonstrators march toward the General Assembly building at the state Capitol in support of various bills on Lobby Day, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024. The march was organized by New Virginia Majority.

Demonstrators put down signs before entering the General Assembly building at the state Capitol in support of various bills on Lobby Day, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024. The march was organized by New Virginia Majority.

Demonstrators enter the General Assembly building at the state Capitol in support of various bills on Lobby Day, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024. The march was organized by New Virginia Majority.

Demonstrators enter the General Assembly building at the state Capitol in support of various bills on Lobby Day, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024. The march was organized by New Virginia Majority.

Demonstrators put down signs before entering the General Assembly building at the state Capitol in support of various bills on Lobby Day, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024. The march was organized by New Virginia Majority.

Demonstrators wait to enter the General Assembly building at the state Capitol in support of various bills on Lobby Day, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024. The march was organized by New Virginia Majority.

Assaddique Abdul-Rahman, and organizer with New Virginia Majority, leads a chant during a demonstration in support of various bills outside of the General Assembly building at the state Capitol on Lobby Day, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024.

Assaddique Abdul-Rahman, and organizer with New Virginia Majority, leads a chant during a demonstration in support of various bills outside of the General Assembly building at the state Capitol on Lobby Day, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024.

Demonstrators enter the General Assembly building at the state Capitol in support of various bills on Lobby Day, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024. The march was organized by New Virginia Majority.

Young demonstrators attend a gun safety rally at the state Capitol on Lobby Day, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024.

Demonstrators attend a gun safety rally at the state Capitol on Lobby Day, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024.

Speaker of the House Don Scott, D-Portsmith, speaks to a crowd during a gun safety rally at the state Capitol on Lobby Day, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024.

Demonstrators attend an afternoon gun safety rally at the Bell Tower in Capitol Square on Lobby Day on Monday.

Speaker of the House Don Scott, D-Portsmith, speaks to a crowd during a gun safety rally at the state Capitol on Lobby Day, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024.

Young demonstrators attend a gun safety rally at the state Capitol on Lobby Day, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024.

Demonstrators attend a gun safety rally at the state Capitol.

A demonstrator holds a sign at a gun safety rally at the state Capitol on Lobby Day, Monday, Jan. 15, 2024.

During the Omega Psi Phi Lobby Day session, Senate President Pro Tempore Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, responds to questions from Fairfax County resident Robert Fairchild, right, about her priorities for the 2024 General Assembly.

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, speaks during a Second Amendment Rights rally on Lobby Day at the state Capitol on Monday, Jan 15, 2024.

A flag is waved during a Second Amendment Rights rally hosted by Virginia Citizens Defense League on Lobby Day at the state Capitol on Monday, Jan 15, 2024.

Virginians on both sides of the gun debate make their case during Lobby Day at the state Capitol on Monday. Brianne Chapman holds up a sign near members of the Kekoa Virginia Militia during a Second Amendment rights rally hosted by the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

A demonstrator, who goes by Rustpit, stands in front of the Supreme Court of Virginia during a Second Amendment Rights rally hosted by Virginia Citizens Defense League on Lobby Day on Monday, Jan 15, 2024.

Cam Edwards of Farmville speaks at the state Capitol during a Second Amendment rights rally hosted by the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

Del. Delores Oates, R-Warren, speaks during a Second Amendment Rights rally hosted by Virginia Citizens Defense League on Lobby Day at the state Capitol on Monday, Jan 15, 2024.

Brianne Chapman holds up sign near members of the Kekoa Virginia Militia during a Second Amendment Rights rally hosted by Virginia Citizens Defense League on Lobby Day at the state Capitol on Monday, Jan 15, 2024.

A demonstrator holds up a sign during a Second Amendment Rights rally hosted by Virginia Citizens Defense League on Lobby Day at the state Capitol on Monday, Jan 15, 2024.

Members of the Kekoa Virginia Militia hold guns during a Second Amendment Rights rally hosted by Virginia Citizens Defense League on Lobby Day at the state Capitol on Monday, Jan 15, 2024.

Demonstrators hold flags in front of the Supreme Court of Virginia during a Second Amendment Rights rally hosted by Virginia Citizens Defense League on Lobby Day on Monday, Jan 15, 2024.

Demonstrators stands in front of the Supreme Court of Virginia during a Second Amendment Rights rally hosted by Virginia Citizens Defense League on Lobby Day on Monday, Jan 15, 2024.

A demonstrator holds up a sign at the state Capitol on Lobby Day during a gun rights rally hosted by the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

Jason Hazelwood holds a flag in front of the Supreme Court of Virginia during a Second Amendment Rights rally hosted by Virginia Citizens Defense League on Lobby Day on Monday, Jan 15, 2024.

Eddir Garcia, a Republican Senate candidate, speaks to demonstrators in front of the Supreme Court of Virginia during a Second Amendment Rights rally hosted by Virginia Citizens Defense League on Lobby Day on Monday, Jan 15, 2024.

A demonstrator, who goes by Rustpit, stands in front of the Supreme Court of Virginia on Monday during a Second Amendment rights rally hosted by Virginia Citizens Defense League.

Jason Hazelwood holds a flag in front of the Supreme Court of Virginia during a Second Amendment Rights rally hosted by Virginia Citizens Defense League on Lobby Day on Monday, Jan 15, 2024.

Jess Bookout, left, and Leslie Floyd attend Lobby Day to talk about early childhood education.

Virginians stand in the lobby of the General Assembly Building on Monday.

Virginians gathered for Lobby Day at the Virginia General Assembly include People wearing Guns Save Lives stickers in the lobby of the General Assembly Building.

On Lobby Day, Madison Brumbaugh, second from left, vice president of the Speech-Language-Hearing Association of Virginia, speaks with lawmakers, including Del. Michael Jones, D-Richmond, left; Del. Chris Obenshain, R-Montgomery; and Del. Wendell Walker, R-Lynchburg.

Here is the original post:

VA's money-squeezed free clinics offer a vital helping hand - Richmond Times-Dispatch

Starlink Mini Dish Coming Later This Year, Elon Musk Says – PCMag

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says a portable version of Starlink is set to arrive in the coming months.

Well be introducing the Starlink mini later this year, which can fit in a backpack, he said in a speech to SpaceX employees.

On Friday, SpaceX took to Twitter/X to post Musks speech, which provided an update on the companys businesses, including the progress in expanding Starlink, its satellite internet service.

Back in September, the FCC approved SpaceXs application to operate the Starlink mini dish, which is supposed to be the size of a MacBook. But the company had been quiet about the product until now.

No pricing, specs, or image were provided. But Musk said the model will be "pretty cool for anyone who wants a very portable Starlink.

In his speech, Musk also talked about the companys next-generation standard Starlink dish, which the company began inviting users to order in November. The hardware itself costs $599, the same price as the current second-generation dish. However, Musk signaled that the new Standard dish costs less for SpaceX to manufacture.

Weve now shipped our next-gen hardware. Thats version four of the user terminal. So that allows us to lower the cost of Starlink, he said.(Meanwhile, users have told PCMag the next-generation dish seems to excel at delivering more consistent higher download speeds and better upload rates.)

(Credit: SpaceX)

Previously, a single Starlink dish cost $3,000 to produce, but the company has been steadily driving down the manufacturing costs. This has involved opening a new Starlink factory in Texas, which Musk referred to in his speech.

The companys other major goal is to operate a cellular version of Starlink that can beam data to phones on the ground, giving a way for consumers to digitally communicate even in the most remote regions. On Thursday, SpaceX demonstrated that the technology works, successfully relaying text messages from a batch of newly launched Direct to Cell Starlink satellites to unmodified phones on the ground.

(Credit: SpaceX)

In his speech, Musk said the cellular Starlink system is designed to supply about 7Mbps per cell. And the cells are hundreds of square miles, kilometers in size. So its good for text messages, he said. You could technically do video if youre the only one, or if theres only a few people in that cell, like if youre in the middle of the Pacific.

The company plans on launching the cellular Starlink service through T-Mobile later this year to support text messages. Voice and data support are scheduled to arrive later in 2025. However, SpaceX is still waiting for FCC approval to operate the service commercially in the US.

As for the regular Starlink service, Musk said a major goal is to reduce the systems latency to under 20 milliseconds. To do so, the company is building more gateway stations connected to fiber networks on the ground. These ground stations can then beam the high-speed internet to Starlink satellites in orbit.

(Credit: SpaceX)

Sign up for What's New Now to get our top stories delivered to your inbox every morning.

This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletters at any time.

Go here to read the rest:

Starlink Mini Dish Coming Later This Year, Elon Musk Says - PCMag