Protesters gather in front of the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse in downtown Portland, where some demonstrators have been arrested and others released from jail on the condition that they not attend any more protests. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption

Protesters gather in front of the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse in downtown Portland, where some demonstrators have been arrested and others released from jail on the condition that they not attend any more protests.

A number of people arrested at demonstrations in Portland, Ore., say the terms of their release prevent them from attending protests going forward, a stipulation First Amendment experts have called cause for concern.

ProPublica reported on Tuesday that at least a dozen protesters arrested in recent weeks are prohibited from attending demonstrations within city or state limits, or in general, while they await trials on federal misdemeanor charges. Protesters say this was one of several conditions including abiding by a curfew, avoiding the area surrounding the federal courthouse and appearing for court dates that they had to agree to in order to leave jail.

Bailey Dreibelbis, 23, is one such protester. He told NPR's Vanessa Romo that he was arrested on the evening of July 22 and released the following afternoon on certain conditions, including that he would not attend any more protests in Portland.

Of the terms of his release, Dreibelbis said his public defender was "pretty clear that if I wanted to be out of there that day, that I would have to take them."

"She kind of chuckled with me, because I didn't do anything illegal upon arrest," he added. "I did not assault an officer, I did not set anything on fire."

Dreibelbis said he entered an open fence outside the federal courthouse, noting he did not see signs or hear announcements about that area being off limits. A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office said Dreibelbis was charged with failing to comply with a lawful order, which is a class c misdemeanor.

Like Dreibelbis, other protesters are facing charges in connection with petty offenses that took place on federal grounds.

According to ProPublica, 18 of the 50 protesters charged in Portland are accused of only minor offenses under federal law that criminalizes certain actions when they happen on federal property or against people on that property. These behaviors include "failure to obey a lawful order" and "disorderly conduct."

Fourteen protesters were charged with "failing to obey a lawful order" between July 21 and July 24 alone, ProPublica found.

Orders setting conditions for release, reviewed by ProPublica, were signed by a federal magistrate in Portland. Kevin Sonoff of the U.S. Attorney's Office said in an email to NPR that the prosecutors didn't seek the "no protest" restriction, that it was added by the court. He said the office did ask for those released to be barred from a five-block limit around the federal courthouse.

"This morning, we joined the Federal Public Defender's Office in jointly recommending to the court that these additional release conditions be modified," Sonoff said.

Dreibelbis told NPR he hadn't initially planned to attend a protest that night he said he roller skates after work and ended up in that part of town and is now barred from attending any other protests.

Legal experts told NPR that such a stipulation almost certainly violates individuals' First Amendment rights to free assembly.

"These conditions are deeply troubling and likely unconstitutional," Ramya Krishnan, staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, wrote in an email. "A blanket ban on attending future protests in the city seriously infringes on the First Amendment right to free assembly, and isn't reasonably related to any legitimate goal of pretrial release."

Enrique Armijo, a law professor at Elon University, explained that it is not uncommon for criminal defendants to give up certain rights as a condition of their release, but those conditions are typically very narrow, in the interest of public safety and tightly connected to the basis of prosecution.

The agreements in Portland, he said, are overly broad in that they do not show a clear public safety connection between the right the person is being asked to give up and the harm that person is alleged to have committed.

"There's no way you can say that because of something you may have done with respect to federal property, a federal court is going to say you cannot engage in First Amendment-protected activity in the entire city in which that federal property is located," Armijo said. "That's just the definition of what First Amendment law considers overbreadth: What you're being asked to give up is much, much greater from a constitutional perspective than that which you are alleged to have done."

Elizabeth Goitein, who codirects the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty & National Security Program, said this kind of "blanket First Amendment restriction" violates one of the most core constitutional rights.

"The fact that these people may or may not have committed a misdemeanor is irrelevant, they certainly haven't been tried or convicted of any such offense and they are presumed innocent until proven guilty," she said. "Even after someone has been convicted of an offense, that does not mean that the government can require them to give up First Amendment freedoms going forward."

Goitein also noted that this practice raises red flags even beyond Portland because it could potentially happen in other cities.

"It's a problem if it happens once," she said. "And if it's happening systemically across a major city in this country, we need to be extremely concerned."

People have gathered for demonstrations against racism and police violence in Portland every night since the death of George Floyd in May, with tensions escalating after the Trump administration deployed federal agents to the city to protect the federal courthouse there earlier this month. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said federal agents will begin a phased withdrawal on Thursday.

See the original post:

For Some Arrested At Portland Protests, Release Is Conditional On Not Attending More - NPR

A federal appeals court has upheld a $400,000 jury award to an Illinois school superintendent whose contract was not renewed amid turmoil that started with her effort to have an audit of district finances.

The superintendent, Denean Adams of the 2,200-student Harvey school district in suburban Chicago, alleged in court papers that after she started the process for the audit in 2015, one school board member phoned her and said Adams was "itching for an ass-kicking."

Adams filed a complaint with the police, and after a period of further discord in which the superintendent suspended the business manager for alleged financial irregularities, the board informed Adams that her contract would not be renewed. She took medical leave in 2016 and did not return.

Adams sued the board, alleging retaliation for exercising her First Amendment free speech rights. A federal district court jury ruled for Adams and awarded $400,000 in damages. The trial judge added some $190,000 in attorneys' fees.

The school board appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Chicago, arguing that a police report is a personal grievance, and not a matter of public concern, and thus was outside the scope of First Amendment protection.

In its Aug. 3 decision in Adams v. Board of Education of Harvey School District No. 152, a three-judge panel of the court ruled unanimously that Adams's report to the police was protected by the First Amendment and that the jury reasonably concluded that the report played a role in ending her employment.

While a police report might normally be considered a personal grievance, the court said, Adams's report was not a straightforward report of a crime.

"It was a report by the superintendent of a school district that she had been threatened with violence by a member of the school board," the opinion said, adding that "a potential for physical altercations between public officials (the superintendent and an elected member) implies that an important public institution was not working properly. This is a legitimate subject of public concern."

Further, the discord began when Adams proposed a forensic audit, and that idea "seems to have unsettled at least one member of the board."

The appeals court opinion suggests that much of Adams's speech during the episode was related to her job, and under Supreme Court precedent the board could have argued the speech was unprotected by the First Amendment on that basis.

"Almost everything that happened in this dispute is on-the-job speech within the scope of the superintendent's and members' duties," the appeals court said. But the board had failed to raise an argument under the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos until it was too late, the appeals court said.

The appeals panel rejected a cross-appeal from Adams seeking an increase in attorney's fees from the $190,000 that was awarded to $485,000, calling the request "outlandish."

Visit link:

Court Upholds $400000 Jury Award to Superintendent Ousted Amid Discord - Education Week

As we transition to a new team of fellows this fall, and celebrate almost one year of publishing this newsletter, wed love to learn more about you and get your feedback on how we can improve This Week in Technology and Press Freedom. Please take a few moments tofill out this surveyto help us understand what content you want to see, when you want to hear from us, and more. The survey should take about five minutes, and well keep it open until 5 p.m. ET on Aug. 24. We really appreciate your feedback!

Heres what the staff of the Technology and Press Freedom Project at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is tracking this week.

On July 23, TPFPs Linda Moon joined author and digital strategist Tim Schwartz for a presentation titled Press Rights and Digital Safety During Pandemic and Protest.

During the virtual discussion hosted by Alley, a digital consulting firm, Moon and Schwartz discussed source protection, the right to record police and protests, and collaborating with colleagues safely while working from home.

All the legal protections for journalists and sources do not change because youre working remotely or outside of your newsroom, Moon said. Everything that applied before still applies in the remote setting.

The protections do vary, however, depending on where you are and who is interested in the materials you want to keep confidential. California and New York, for example, have strongshield laws, but there is no federal shield law that applies to federal law enforcement just federal case law, which varies by jurisdiction, and the Justice Departments internal media policy.

The pandemic and the Black Lives Matter protests have also raised questions about the legal right of reporters to travel and report during coronavirus lockdown orders and protest-related curfews, althoughmost orders have included exemptionsfor newsgathering. Courts have not squarely addressed whether such orders are required to exempt journalists, but Moon said a lockdown order without a media exemption may violate the First Amendment.

Working from home highlights the risk that law enforcement can seize a journalists communication records from electronic service providers without the journalist knowing about it.Thats becausegag orderscan prevent the service providers from informing the reporter that their information has been shared.

Law enforcement tools and discovery orsubpoenasin civil suits can be used to compel disclosure of sensitive information, and journalists have also beensubject to malware attacks.

In the face of these challenges, Schwartz, author of A Public Service: Whistleblowing, Disclosure and Anonymity, said that information control is key to preserving source confidentiality.

For communicating securely with sources, Schwartz recommended using systems, like Signal or Wire, that have end-to-end encryption, limit logging, and have a track record of publicizing any requests they receive from law enforcement.

Finally, Schwartz encouraged people to think about the security of their phones when they are at a protest, including how it unlocks (it is easier to forcefully unlock a phone that uses facial recognition than one with a passcode) and whether to leave metadata on or use a burner.

The most important thing, though, is to think about security ahead of time and practice it.

Make it a priority to talk about security with those you work with, whether its sources or those you collaborate with at work, Schwartz said. Make it a top-down and bottom-up priority.

Register hereto watch the entire webinar.

Abe Kenmore

On July 23, a Superior Court judge in King County, Washington, ruled that the Seattle Times and four local TV stationsmust comply with a Seattle Police Department subpoenafor unpublished photos and video taken during a May 30 protest against police brutality. The news organizations argued that the subpoena would harm journalists by making them seem like an extension of law enforcement rather than neutral observers. Attorneys for the Reporters Committee filed afriend-of-the-court briefarguing the subpoena would violate the First Amendment and state law in addition to putting reporters at risk.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorseyapologized on July 23for a security breach that allowed hackers, as part of a bitcoin scam, to access 130 accounts and tweet from 45 of them. The hackers also viewed private messages for 36 of the accounts. Dorsey said the company is cooperating with the FBI to investigate the incident, which allegedly occurred after the manipulation of several Twitter employees.

Seventeen internet freedom organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Wikimedia, filed afriend-of-the-court briefin a case againstMichael Pack, the newly appointed head of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, for exceeding his authority when he fired the directors of the Open Technology Fund. Their brief emphasizes the importance of OTFs independence from the government to ensure it can fulfill its anti-censorship mission worldwide.

According to Department of Justice emailsreleasedin response to a Freedom of Information Act request, a DOJ official told Neil McCabe, a One America News Network reporter, that McCabe should reach out to FBI in response to McCabes email asking if the DOJ was cool with National Public Radio hosting an encrypted tip line. How is it then, that federal government employees could be running their own private silo for information about crimes or national security risks? McCabe asked in one email to the DOJ, mistakenly referring to NPR reporters as government employees.

A federal judge issued atemporary restraining orderbarring federal law enforcement in Portland from arresting and enforcing dispersal orders against journalists and legal observers. As Judge Michael Simon wrote, Without journalists and legal observers, there is only the governments side of the story to explain why a riot was declared and the public streets were closed and whether law enforcement acted properly in effectuating that order.

Filipino journalist Maria Ressa, who has critically covered President Rodrigo Dutertes war on drugs, moved to dismiss asecond cyber libel complaintfollowing her conviction for an initial cyber libel charge in June, both filed by the same business executive. The basis for the second complaint is a tweet Ressa posted, after being arrested for the first charge, linking to a 2002 news story about the executive that alleged he was involved in a murder. The Reporters Committee has previouslydetailedthe problematic implications when governments invoke cybercrime laws like the one here to silence reporters and their sources.

In written testimony submitted ahead of a House Natural Resources Committee hearing, Major Adam DeMarco of the D.C. National Guard said thatpolice sped up clearing efforts and used excessive forceon protesters in Lafayette Square on June 1. Contradicting statements from Park Police and Attorney General William Barr,DeMarco said the planwas initially to clear out protesters after the 7 p.m. curfew, but was carried out earlier for President Trumps photo op. The Reporters Committeesent a letterto the committee in connection with an earlier hearing, expressing concern about the Park Polices attack against an Australian news crew.

Smart read

Speaking of legal protections for journalists, thisarticleargues that in cases implicating First Amendment concerns similar to those in leak prosecutions, those considerations have historically been a mitigating factor at sentencing.

Gif of the Week:Trying to explain some of this social media news to our older relatives.

Like what youve read?Sign up to get This Week in Technology + Press Freedom delivered straight to your inbox!

The Technology and Press Freedom Project at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press uses integrated advocacy combining the law, policy analysis, and public education to defend and promote press rights on issues at the intersection of technology and press freedom, such as reporter-source confidentiality protections, electronic surveillance law and policy, and content regulation online and in other media. TPFP is directed by Reporters Committee Attorney Gabe Rottman. He works with Stanton Foundation National Security/Free Press Fellow Linda Moon, Legal Fellows Jordan Murov-Goodman and Lyndsey Wajert, Policy Interns Abe Kenmore and Joey Oteng, and Legal Intern Sasha Peters.

Read more:

This Week in Technology + Press Freedom: Aug. 2, 2020 - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

False or misleading information in the media is not a new phenomenon but during the coronavirus pandemic, governments around the world have sought to enact new laws and regulations, or to strengthen existing rules, in order to address it. Here, we compare the rules governing print and broadcast news media (as distinct from social media) in the United States of America and Australia (the jurisdiction in which the authors write). Although laws and regulations often aim to strike a fair balance between upholding a right to communicate ideas[1] and a right to make informed decisions based on fact,[2] regulation and freedom of speech are uneasy bedfellows. Lawmakers must be ever mindful to ensure that intervention is reasonably adapted to achieving its stated aims.

The United States of America: First Amendment protects false speech in marketplace of ideas

In the United States, any attempt to govern the information marketplace will inevitably come up against First Amendment protections and a relatively weak regulatory framework. Despite concerns over false information arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, content-based speech regulation that survives the scrutiny of judicial review remains thin on the ground.

FOX News early downplaying of COVID-19 sparked debate in the United States. FOX presenters Sean Hannity and Trish Regan claimed the danger posed by the coronavirus was being overblown by critics of the Trump administration. On April 2, a not-for-profit organization called the Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics (WASHLITE) sued FOX News Media in Washington State Court.

WASHLITE argued that FOX News Channel, FOX Business, and other cable television companies were liable under state consumer protection legislation and had committed the tort of outrage by intentionally and recklessly inflicting emotional distress. WASHLITE also sought an injunction to prohibit FOX from interfering with reasonable and necessary measures to contain the virus by publishing further false and deceptive content.

FOX News General Counsel Lily Fu Clafee was quoted in the Times of San Diego as saying [w]rong on the facts, frivolous on the law. We will defend vigorously and seek sanctions as appropriate.[3] FOX News was supported by an amicus brief filed by the Internet and Television Association, an organization that represents cable programmers and distributors including their rivals, along with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. WASHLITE made the radical argument that First Amendment protections didnt extend to FOX News because they were a cable television channel. Georgetown Professor of Law Erin Carroll wrote in Just Security that despite any visceral appeal to this suit (or the others that could follow), it is unlikely to be legally successful.

As predicted, the claim against FOX News ran up against the gold standard of positive free speech protection. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bars liability against publishers even if it was foreseeable that the information they disseminated might be used in a negligent or dangerous manner. Superior Court Judge Brian McDonald labelled the lawsuit laudable but ultimately struck out WASHLITES claim, noting that:

if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

Free speech protections are not the only thing standing in the way of the success of claims like WASHLITEs. These claims will also fail in tort where they seek to establish a duty of care to the public at large or fail to make out the requirement of causation.[4] Other regulations in the United States would also be of little use in similar circumstances. The Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) broadcast hoax rule and a news distortion policy may be used to target broadcasting false information in a pandemic. In adopting the broadcast hoax rule in 1992, the agency noted that the First Amendment does not preclude civil liability for broadcasts that create a foreseeable risk of personal injury.[5] However, in practice, the context or disclaimers suggested by the broadcast hoax rule are rarely followed and the FCC has been criticised for its inaction relative to other regulators. In her piece for Just Security, Carroll notes that:[6]

[T]he FCC has no direct authority over network news providers like FOX, ABC, NBC, or CBS. Any legal action under the broadcast hoax rule would need to be taken against the stations that carry FOX News, making such an action more difficult. The news distortion policy is just that, a policy, and while violation of it can inform the FCCs licensing decisions, it otherwise has limited bite.

Australia: Self and co-regulation without equivalent free speech protection

Australia is different to the United States as we lack constitutional protection for free speech that is equivalent to a positive personal right. Although we also have a regulatory framework that is not overly interventionist, future attempts to govern the field of false information may have the potential to alter the delicate relationship between the press and the State.

Similar claims to the FOX News suit would also fail in the current legal and regulatory landscape in Australia. This is true in tort law for the same reasons explained above, and also in consumer law. Although we have a robust consumer protection framework, practically speaking, unless false or misleading representations were made in advertisements or self-promotions, the media would be able to defend such claims.

The U.S. Constitution was referred to by the framers of the Australian Constitution, and our High Court has been influenced by American constitutional jurisprudence and free speech tradition.[7] Our system of law and regulation has evolved without a personal right of free speech equivalent to the First Amendment but the High Court has recognised that an implied freedom of communication exists under the Australian Constitution in relation to political and government matters.[8] The lack of personal free speech protection has generally allowed firmer constraints on speech and freedom of the press than in the United States, but the accuracy of print and broadcast reporting has not been heavily regulated.

The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliances (MEAA) Journalist Code of Ethics is an instrument which informs journalists ethical practice and more formal accountability schemes are found in the codes of practice of the Australian Press Council (APC) and the Independent Media Council (IMC) for print and online publishers, and in the broadcasting codes of practice registered with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Television and radio broadcasting have historically been burdened with more regulation than the publishing sectors.[9] Insofar as false or misleading information is concerned, reporting errors of news publishers are generally self-regulated by the APC and complaints about news broadcasts on television and radio are subject to co-regulation through an industry code overseen by ACMA. Neither the APC nor ACMA have the power to order compensation, fines or other financial sanctions for false or misleading statements in the news.

The kinds of actions taken by regulators are minimal and center mainly on the compliance pull of censuring media organizations. For instance, in March 2020 ACMA ruled that Seven News in Queensland misled viewers when it said a local council member was cleared of allegations made against him when in actual fact the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission decided not to investigate the council member.[10] Seven will circulate a copy of ACMAs investigation report to its Queensland editorial staff and include the decision in future training sessions to ensure compliance.[11] In-house counsel at media companies view these rulings as a form of moral or reputational hazard, rather than legal hazard.

ACMAs website claims that accuracy and accessibility of news and other critical information broadcast on commercial and national broadcasters remains essential during the pandemic and promises to prioritise investigating allegations of inaccuracy of news content that directly relate to COVID-19 during this time.[12] Despite ACMAs undoubted readiness to look into the problem of false information during the pandemic, the outcomes of their accuracy and impartiality investigations into television[13] and radio broadcasting[14] have not yet cited any COVID-19 related content. Australian Press Council adjudications in 2020 have similarly not cited any COVID-19 related content.[15] It must be noted regarding ACMA that complaints may only be made after first complaining to the broadcaster and either not receiving a satisfactory response or not receiving a response within 60 days.[16] With respect to the APC, complaints may be made directly to the Council but in some circumstances, the Council may ask the complainant to raise the complaint directly with the publication and then come back to the Council if its further involvement is sought.[17] Plainly, it does not necessarily follow that a lack of adjudications on COVID-19 means there has been no misleading or inaccurate reportage of the pandemic in Australia. However, grievances that are in the public domain (whether the subject of an adjudication or not) appear to be on the lower end of the scale of severity or unrelated to public health.[18] That very few complaints have attracted regulatory or public attention would seem to suggest that Australian media (like the government on which it reports) have largely avoided disseminating false information that would attract citation.

Self-regulation has historically been the object of some derision in Australia as a toothless tiger beholden to industry. The APC was first established in 1976 on a purely voluntary basis and is funded by its members. The media mogul Kerry Packer said before the House of Representatives Committee into the Print Media in 1991 that the APC was a complete and absolute piece of window-dressing. It has, however, in recent years greatly strengthened its capacity and independence by increasing its funding and membership, requiring members to enter into contracts which require commitment and funding for three years, and requiring members to prominently advertise APC complaints procedures and publish APC adjudication decisions that exactly conform to required words and placement.[19]

Like other governments, Australia has undertaken a number of reviews into media regulation in recent years. In 2012, the Finkelstein Review called for a government funded super regulator, the News Media Council, to be created in order to set and enforce journalistic standards across all media.[20] In 2013, then Communications Minster Steven Conroy attempted unsuccessfully to establish more government control over independent bodies regulating the media, including through the introduction of a Public Interest Media Advocate that would have been responsible for overseeing self-regulatory bodies.[21] More recently, the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) examined digital platforms and their impact on the supply of news and journalistic content and recommended that digital platforms with more than 1 million monthly active users in Australia should implement an industry code of conduct to govern the handling of complaints about disinformation in relation to news and journalism.[22]

Calls for more regulation will continue to surface but the model for print and broadcast regulation has thus far endured due to concern over government interference or oversight. Recent legislative attention has focused not on print or broadcast media but on ensuring greater transparency about who is behind a political message[23] and on the vexed issue of false information on social media,[24] including that disseminated by foreign actors.[25] In a recent position paper, ACMA supported an industry code to govern online misinformation on the basis that false and misleading information has been shown to have real-world consequences, including personal illness and damage to property.[26] This is true as a general statement about attendant harm, but this position paper, like many other writings on the subject, appears to conflate the potential harm of misinformation with its mooted impact on the broader Australian community.[27] Surveys, examples of fertile circumstances for the spread of misinformation, and the language of an infodemic may not be sufficient to convince Australians of the acute and chronic harms that require a particular remedy.[28]

Of course, we should avoid complacency on false information, most notably on digital platforms due to their distributed and networked nature, and their inherent vulnerability to foreign actors who may seek to disrupt Australias democracy and values. We should not, however, imagine that the potential harm of false information is exactly the same the world over, or forget that Australia has, by global standards, an educated and engaged population and a less partisan print and broadcast media than other countries.

Judges and bureaucrats are not experts at the difficult fact finding mission that may be required under more expansive regulatory frameworks, and while nobody is suggesting that we would follow countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Russia and Fiji and enact fake news legislation that could be used to severely curtail free speech, Australia is not immune to restrictive laws. This is evidenced by a raft of legislation introduced in recent years which undermines protections for journalists, whistle-blowers and confidential sources. We must be aware of the possibility that intervention with noble intentions may have unintended consequences. For instance, in Germany, fake news laws implemented in 2018 led to difficulties with enforcement and unintentionally targeted legitimate content, prompting a government review and complaints from the German Federation of Journalists.[29] Unlike in the United States, the impact of any regulatory encroachment on freedom of speech could be magnified in Australia in the absence of comparable constitutional safeguards.

The regulation of our media has always been an intensely political question on which reasonable minds may differ. It is the authors view that a multifaceted approach that supports existing self and co-regulatory schemes, education and independent fact checking organizations can help to ensure that we are all able to make informed decisions in the marketplace of ideas. Whatever the threat, we must not trespass on the more sensitive aspects of relations between the press and the State without first examining whether the cure may be worse than the disease.

***

[1] Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869.

[2] Kant, Immanuel, James W. Ellington, and Immanuel Kant. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals ; with, On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1993.

[3] See https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2020/04/02/washington-state-group-is-1st-to-sue-FOX-news-for-calling-coronavirus-a-hoax/.

[4] See Carroll, Erin. Lawsuit against FOX News over Coronavirus Coverage: Can it succeed? Should it?, Just Security 10 April 2020. Available at https://www.justsecurity.org/69556/lawsuit-against-FOX-news-over-coronavirus-coverage-can-it-succeed-should-it/.

[5] Amendment of Part 73 Regarding Broadcast Hoaxes, MM Docket No. 91-314, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 4106, 10 11 (1992), Available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-92-208A1.pdf.

[6] See Carroll, Erin. Lawsuit against FOX News over Coronavirus Coverage: Can it succeed? Should it?, Just Security 10 April 2020. Available at https://www.justsecurity.org/69556/lawsuit-against-FOX-news-over-coronavirus-coverage-can-it-succeed-should-it/.

[7] For a detailed exposition, see Stone, Adrienne. Freedom of Political Communication, the Constitution and the Common Law [1998] UMelbLRS 1. Available at http://138.25.65.17/au/journals/UMelbLRS/1998/1.html#fn3.

[8] Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1. See also see Stone, Adrienne. Freedom of Political Communication, the Constitution and the Common Law [1998] UMelbLRS 1. Available at http://138.25.65.17/au/journals/UMelbLRS/1998/1.html#fn3.

[9] ACMAs industry responsibilities in television and radio are governed respectively by the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 (Cth). This more extensive regulation was formerly justified on the basis of the airwaves being a scarce public resource and due to the special power of broadcast media to influence public attitudes, but this distinction is becoming less relevant over time. Broadcasters must obtain licences and comply with complex, sector-specific rules under a co-regulatory regime.

For more information, see Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Digital Platforms Inquiry, Final Report, June 2019. Available at https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries/digital-platforms-inquiry/final-report-executive-summary.

[10] Investigation Report no. BI-521 5 March 2020, the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Available at https://www.acma.gov.au/publications/2020-03/report/bi-521-investigation-report.

[11] See https://mumbrella.com.au/acma-rules-seven-news-queensland-misled-viewers-620009.

[12] See Investigations into TV broadcasters, Australian Communications and Media Authority, accessed 15 June 2020. Available at https://www.acma.gov.au/investigations-tv-broadcasters.

[13] Investigations into TV broadcasters, Australian Communications and Media Authority, accessed 15 June 2020. Available at https://www.acma.gov.au/investigations-tv-broadcasters.

[14] Investigations into radio broadcasters, Australian Communications and Media Authority, accessed 15 June 2020. Available at https://www.acma.gov.au/investigations-radio-broadcasters.

[15] Adjudications and other outcomes, Australian Press Council, accessed 15 June 2020. Available at https://www.presscouncil.org.au/adjudications-other-outcomes/.

[16] See https://www.acma.gov.au/complain-about-program-tv-or-radio.

[17] See https://www.presscouncil.org.au/making-a-complaint/.

[18] See e.g. this post about a Sky News Headline https://twitter.com/beneltham/status/1248423674987679745. The Sky News headline discussed was promoting the following story https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6148457238001. See also the Murray Darling Basin Authority have written to Nine Entertainment complaining about alleged factual errors in reportage about water management in the pandemic, Available at https://www.mdba.gov.au/media/mr/complaint-60-minutes-coronavirus-growing-pain.

[19] Podger, Andrew. Fake News: Could Self-Regulation of Media Help to Protect the Public? The Experience of the Australian Press Council. Public Integrity Volume 21, 2019. Available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10999922.2018.1549341.

[20] Finkelstein, Ray. Report to Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation, 28 February 2012.

[21] See https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-12/conroy-announces-media-reforms/4567550?nw=0.

[22] See Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Digital Platforms Inquiry, Final Report, June 2019. Available at https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries/digital-platforms-inquiry/final-report-executive-summary. Recommendation 15

suggests that such codes should be registered with and enforced by an independent regulator, such as the

Australian Communications and Media Authority.

[23] For example, under the Commonwealth Electoral (Authorisation of Voter Communication) Determination 2018 (Cth), all online advertisements that deal with electoral matters must include the name and address of a person responsible for the advertisement.

[24] See Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Digital Platforms Inquiry, Final Report, June 2019. Available at https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries/digital-platforms-inquiry/final-report-executive-summary. See also the Australian Governments response to the Digital Platforms Inquiry at https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2019-41708.

[25] See https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jun/11/home-affairs-flags-steps-to-help-australians-identify-fake-news-by-foreign-powers. See also https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/alarm-sounds-over-foreign-social-media-platforms-20200318-p54b78.

[26] Misinformation and news quality on digital platforms in Australia A position paper to guide code development, Australian Communications and Media Authority, June 2020. Available at https://www.acma.gov.au/australian-voluntary-codes-practice-online-misinformation.

[27] Misinformation and news quality on digital platforms in Australia A position paper to guide code development, Australian Communications and Media Authority, June 2020. Available at https://www.acma.gov.au/australian-voluntary-codes-practice-online-misinformation.

[28] Misinformation and news quality on digital platforms in Australia A position paper to guide code development, Australian Communications and Media Authority, June 2020. Available at https://www.acma.gov.au/australian-voluntary-codes-practice-online-misinformation.

[29] See https://www.djv.de/startseite/profil/der-djv/information-in-english.html.

See the original post here:

False Information in the Time of Coronavirus: Law and Regulation in the U.S. and Australia - Just Security

TOPLINE

The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday blocked an amendment to its Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal 2021 that would have barred the U.S. military from recruiting on video game streaming sites like Amazon's Twitch, with the amendment's author Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) saying on the floor, "War is not a game."

NEW YORK, NY - APRIL 14: Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) speaks at a press conference ... [+] at Corona Plaza in Queens on April 14, 2020 in New York City. Ocasio-Cortez was joined by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at the conference, where both called for the Federal Emergency Management Administration to fund funeral costs in low-income communities of color during the ongoing amid the coronavirus pandemic. (Photo by Scott Heins/Getty Images)

"This amendment is specifically to block recruitment practices and funding for recruitment practices on platforms such as Twitch.tv, which are live-streaming platforms which are largely populated by children well under the age of military recruitment rules," Ocasio-Cortez said.

While Republicans unanimously opposed the measure, Democrats were split, with Ocasio-Cortez taking to Twitter during the vote to say, "Imagine trying to explain to your colleagues who are members of Congress what Twitch is."

The U.S. Airforce, Army and Navy all sponsor esports teams with members streaming to Twitch, but recent controversies prompted concerns over the recruitment practice.

Twitch stepped in to stop the Army from using a faux giveaway to redirect viewers to a recruitment form, and lawyers from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University demanded that the Army and Navy reverse bans on their Twitch channels against a user who asked about U.S. war crimes in the channels' chats.

Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), who chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, spoke out against the amendment during debate, saying, "The United States Military is a very special place...we oughta cast a very wide net to encourage young Americans to serve their country in the military."

Visclosky argued the military conducts educational programs for young people, but Ocasio-Cortez responded, "Children on platforms such as Twitch are bombarded with banner ads that link to recruitment sign up forms that can be submitted by children as young as 12 years old. These are not educational outreach programs but recruitment forms."

Referencing first-person shooter games popular with military members streaming on Twitch, like Call of Duty, Ocasio-Cortez said, "We cannot conflate war and military service with this kind of gamified format." She later tweeted, "Its totally fine if you dont know what Twitch is, but tech literacy is becoming an [sic] growing need in Congress so we can legislate to protect peoples privacy."

Using games as a means to recruit young people into the U.S. military isnt new. In 2002, the Army launched the America's Army series of video games, the latest being the free-to-play America's Army: Proving Grounds. "Funded by the Army Marketing and Research Group, America's Army, the official game of the U.S. Army, delivers an authentic and entertaining Army experience by reflecting the values, training, technology, skills and career advancement of a United States Army Soldier," the official video game page reads. Proving Grounds is rated Teen, meaning the content in the game is suitable for people ages 13 and older.

Following the accusations that the U.S. Army violated the first amendment right to free speech by banning a Twitch user from its channeljust as President Trump is restricted from blocking Twitter usersthe military branch told GameSpot that it would pause activities on the platform and "review internal policies and procedures, as well as all platform-specific policies, to ensure those participating in the space are clear before streaming resumes. The "About" page for the Navy's esports channel reads, "Other people will tell you not to stay up all night staring at a screen. Well pay you to do it."

Continued here:

House Blocks AOC's Amendment To Bar U.S. Military From Recruiting On Video Game Streaming Sites Like Twitch - Forbes

PORT NECHES, Texas A screenshot showing a code of conduct policy for Port Neches-Groves ISD parents is getting a lot of attention online.

12News Investigates looked into the origins of the policy.

Is the PNGISD parent code of conduct a new policy?

Our source is PNG ISD assistant superintendent Julie Gauthier.

She says the policy has been in place since 2018, and sent 12News a copy of the code of conduct dated 2018.

It's the same parent code of conduct parents are being asked to sign this year.

Do other school districts have a parent code of conduct?

Beaumont ISD's parent code of conduct is very similar, and can be found on the district's website. Hamshire Fannett also has a code of conduct.

While it's hard to say exactly how many schools have adopted a parent code of conduct, 12News can verify that several Southeast Texas schools do implement them.Will this infringe on parent's first amendment rights if they choose to post something negative about the school on social media?

Gauthier says the policy isn't meant to take away anyone's freedom. Instead, it's a proactive approach the school district has adopted to make sure the district and parents are working in the best interest of the child.

Also on 12NewsNow.com

See the article here:

VERIFY: Is the Port Neches-Groves ISD parent code of conduct new this year? - 12newsnow.com KBMT-KJAC