Monthly Archives: March 2024

In Supreme Court, Texas and Florida’s Argument Against Big Tech Content Moderation Runs Afoul of First Amendment – Free Press

Posted: March 2, 2024 at 2:27 pm

WASHINGTON On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over state governments role in dictating how Big Tech companies like Google and Meta moderate speech on their social-media platforms. The cases before the court (NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC) are in response to Republican-led Texas and Florida state laws that forbid platforms from taking down or even deemphasizing any posts based on their viewpoints.

Lawyers representing the technology companies argued that these laws infringe on platforms First Amendment rights by forcing a site like Facebook to host content and users that violate the platforms terms of service, including posts that violate company rules against hate speech and election disinformation. Lawyers representing Texas and Florida countered with the novel and untested idea that platforms that serve hundreds of millions of U.S. residents should be considered common carriers. As such, the government lawyers say, they should be subject to content-moderation restrictions.

Free Press Senior Counsel and Director of Digital Justice and Civil Rights Nora Benavidez said:

In this pivotal election year, social media is already having a significant impact on our democracy. There is plenty of room to critique social-media companies failure to keep platform policies and adequate staffing in place to maintain integrity on their services, particularly at a time when dozens of countries around the world are holding elections.

While we believe that the platforms should strengthen their content-moderation policies, the First Amendment is clear: Its not the governments role to impose rules on how companies like Meta and Google should accomplish this. Getting government involved in this way would cause far more problems than it would cure. It would ratchet up the amount of hate and disinformation online instead of reducing it and would undermine both the meaning and the intent of the First Amendment.

From fanning the flames of extremism ahead of January 6, 2021, to entrenching polarization around issues like the ongoing violence in Gaza, social-media companies have a crucial role in shaping public attitudes. But regulation that places control of private companies content-moderation decisions in the hands of state officials runs afoul of the First Amendment and risks forcing platforms to keep lies and other violative content up. As we head into one of the most significant election years in recent memory, regulatory schemes to force platforms to keep false and harmful content up are not the answer, especially when those unconstitutional mandates are predicated on penalties that state actors impose for decisions concerning private speech.

One of the fundamental values underpinning the First Amendment is that our government cannot dictate the terms of public debate. Thats exactly what Texas and Florida have tried to do in bolstering state authority to intervene into private speech. The potential future we see is troubling: State officials would be able to mandate that platforms keep dangerous content online under the guise of protecting free expression. The natural byproduct wouldnt be a flourishing of free speech; the result would be more misinformation, more extremism and more hate that platforms would leave up to avoid being punished. It would offer a convenient excuse for inaction for platforms that already have a track record of negligence in leaving up harmful content. That failure to moderate sufficiently is even worse in non-English languages, and harmful content is left up longer when it targets LGBTQIA+ communities and other vulnerable user groups.

Tech companies must commit to platform integrity especially in light of how online lies and calls for violence frequently lead to real-world harms. But an unconstitutional effort to regulate platforms into becoming free-for-alls of hate and political disinformation is the wrong path forward.

Background: In December, Free Press released Big Tech Backslide: How Social-Media Rollbacks Endanger Democracy Ahead of the 2024 Elections, a report that documents the retreat of Meta, Twitter and YouTube from earlier pledges to protect election integrity.

Read the original post:
In Supreme Court, Texas and Florida's Argument Against Big Tech Content Moderation Runs Afoul of First Amendment - Free Press

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on In Supreme Court, Texas and Florida’s Argument Against Big Tech Content Moderation Runs Afoul of First Amendment – Free Press

Supreme Court social media cases could put some First Amendment claims in the firing line – Freedom of the Press Foundation

Posted: at 2:27 pm

Should the online platform Substack be allowed to ban Nazis? Not should it ban Nazis. But should it be legally allowed to ban Nazis?

Im asking on behalf of nine justices of the Supreme Court, not to mention the billions of people who use the internet. On Monday, the court heard oral arguments in two cases, NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, that could dramatically reshape online speech by determining whether the First Amendment protects the content moderation decisions of social media platforms.

At issue in the cases are two state laws one from Florida and one from Texas that constrain online content moderation decisions. Roughly speaking, the Florida law prohibits social media companies from permanently banning politicians and journalistic enterprises, while the Texas law prohibits them from banning users on the basis of viewpoint.

That means, for example, that the Florida law would prohibit a platform from permanently banning a politician running for office in the state as a literal Nazi. The Texas law would bar a platform from banning pro-Nazi speech as long as it allowed anti-Nazi speech.

In addition to impacting online speech, the NetChoice cases could reshape First Amendment law in ways that matter to the press. Based on Mondays argument, journalists should watch the courts decisions for two things: First, to see if the court limits the ability to challenge laws that violate First Amendment rights as facially invalid, that is, unconstitutional in all circumstances; and second, how it treats a landmark press freedom decision, Miami Herald v. Tornillo.

First Amendment faceoff

Several justices unexpectedly raised a legal issue during Mondays arguments about the plaintiffs facial challenge to the Florida law that could have implications for the press.

In a facial challenge, a plaintiff argues that a law can never be applied in a way that is constitutional. But the justices asked whether the Florida law might have some applications that are actually constitutional. If so, the justices asked, should the court reject the plaintiffs claim and require it to bring an as-applied challenge, arguing that the law is unconstitutional in more specific ways?

The problem with that is that its easy to think of potential constitutional applications of broad and ambiguous laws, precisely because no one understands exactly what they mean.

A decision rewarding bad statutory drafting by allowing otherwise unconstitutional laws to survive based on hypothetical scenarios could, as the lawyer for the platforms argued, be the worst First Amendment case in this Court's history. It would allow legislatures to put one constitutional provision in an otherwise totally unconstitutional law and avoid having the law struck down wholesale.

For example, an Oklahoma lawmaker recently proposed a totally unconstitutional law that would require journalists to be licensed and subjected to criminal background tests and drug tests. Theres nothing constitutional about this bill. But a more shrewd lawmaker in a state intent on harming the press could cause mischief by writing ambiguous and possibly constitutional provisions into an otherwise completely unconstitutional bill, just to make it harder for courts to strike it down. Imagine, for instance, that the Oklahoma law required drug testing not just for reporters and editors, but also for delivery truck drivers.

Its not clear if the court plans to go down this road in its decisions in NetChoice. But based on the questions at oral argument, journalists should at least be concerned that the court may be thinking about creating barriers to First Amendment facial challenges that could impact cases involving the press in the future.

Press precedent holds up

In contrast, journalists can be reassured by the courts treatment during Mondays argument of Miami Herald v. Tornillo. In Tornillo, the court held that the First Amendment protects newspapers choices about what to publish or not publish, also known as the exercise of editorial discretion or judgment. In the NetChoice cases, the social media platforms argue that their content moderation decisions are the exercise of editorial discretion and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

It may seem odd for the platforms to rely on a press freedom decision to make their case before a Supreme Court that talks about the news media in increasingly hostile terms. But thankfully, most discussion of Tornillo during Mondays oral argument was positive. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, in particular, returned again and again to the First Amendments protections for the editorial discretion exercised by news outlets. Even justices that seemed hostile to the social media companies, like Justice Alito, seemed to accept that the First Amendment protects newspapers editorial judgments.

However, the devil may be in the details of whatever opinion the court ultimately writes. Even if the court applies Tornillo to content moderation, theres a risk that it could weaken the First Amendment protection for editorial discretion by saying that the government has to meet only a low or middling burden to overcome it. Theres no specific indication from the oral argument that the court plans to do that, but journalists should watch out for any tinkering with Tornillo in the courts decisions here.

Whatever the outcome of the NetChoice cases, states will almost certainly persist in trying to punish social media companies for hosting content that lawmakers dislike. Journalists should be wary. While social media is the political punching bag for now, there are plenty of politicians who want to go after the press using similar legal theories and complaints. If First Amendment precedent falls in social media cases, it will make it easier for lawmakers to target journalists next.

See the original post here:
Supreme Court social media cases could put some First Amendment claims in the firing line - Freedom of the Press Foundation

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Supreme Court social media cases could put some First Amendment claims in the firing line – Freedom of the Press Foundation

One-third of adults say the First Amendment ‘goes too far’ – Washington Times

Posted: at 2:27 pm

Americans have a constitutional right to express themselves freely, but a newpoll finds that many want to limit that freedom to those who offend them.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Dartmouth Colleges Polarization Research Lab reported Tuesday that 31% of adults surveyed said the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.

Nearly a third of Republicans and a third of Democrats said they completely or mostly agreed with the statement.

The survey also found that most respondents wanted to ban public speeches and college professors from expressing the ideas that most offend them.

Responding to a list of controversial statements that the First Amendment protects, 19% of respondents described All whites are racist oppressors as the most offensive, making it the one they most wished to censor.

Several other expressions followed close behind this one on the most offensive list: 18% named America got what it deserved on 9/11, 12% flagged January 6th was a peaceful protest and 11% chose Abortion should be completely illegal.

Farther down the list, 4% picked From the river to the sea Palestine will be free a slogan in recent pro-Palestinian protests against Israel that some Jewish groups have condemned as antisemitic.

The survey found that 52% of respondents said their community should ban public speeches promoting the statement they deemed most offensive. Another 69% said their local college should not allow a professor who promoted the idea to teach classes.

Those results were disappointing, but not exactly surprising, said Sean Stevens, FIREs chief research adviser. Here at FIRE, weve long observed that many people who say theyre concerned about free speech waver when it comes to beliefs they personally find offensive. But the best way to protect your speech in the future is to defend the right to controversial and offensive speech today.

Mr. Stevens said the Philadelphia advocacy group could not explain what drove respondents to favor censoring offensive views. He noted its the first time FIRE and Dartmouth have administered the survey.

Other key findings:

Asked whether people are able to freely express their views, 69% said free speech in America is heading in the wrong direction, compared to 31% who believe it is on the right track.

Just 25% of adults described the right to free speech today as either very or completely secure, compared to 29% who said it is not at all secure.

Nearly half of Democrats and 26% of Republicans described free speech as heading in the right direction. More than a third of Republicans said free speech is already secure, compared to 17% of Democrats.

However, respondents expressed greater hesitation about suppressing written expression and livelihood.

The survey found that 59% of respondents opposed removing public library books containing the idea they found most offensive. Another 72% said employers should not fire people who express such beliefs from their jobs.

According to researchers who conducted the survey, partisan animosity toward free speech threatens the stability of the U.S. political system.

Polarization not only divides Americans on policy, but it fractures our assessments of the stability of the bedrock features of our democracy, said Sean Westwood, the director of Dartmouths Polarization Research Lab.

Dartmouths lab and FIRE conducted the poll online Jan. 12-19, surveying 1,000 members of a YouGov panel. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Read the original here:
One-third of adults say the First Amendment 'goes too far' - Washington Times

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on One-third of adults say the First Amendment ‘goes too far’ – Washington Times

Supreme Court digs into Big Tech censorship and First Amendment – Washington Times

Posted: at 2:27 pm

The Supreme Court on Monday waded into the thorny intersection of social media companies and free speech, struggling to figure out whether state laws seeking to stop the tech giants censorship is worse than the censorship itself.

Justices seemed skeptical of the states cases that they can control how Facebook and YouTube police their pages, but they were troubled by the tech companies claims that they should be able to censor emails sent through Gmail or direct messages and WhatsApp based on the political beliefs of users.

The companies said they would have to rethink their operations, depending on how the justices rule.

Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of NetChoice, a group of internet firms challenging the state laws, said companies might have to err on the side of more suppression.

That could mean companies would take down pro-Israel speech because they dont want to allow antisemitic speech and would have to take down suicide prevention messages because they dont want to carry self-harm messages.

Wed basically have to eliminate certain areas of speech entirely, he said.

Many of the justices were sympathetic to those arguments, particularly to the point that its better to have the companies policing their forums with their own rules than to have government agencies step in.

Do you want to leave it with the government, with the state, or do you want to leave it with the platforms? said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The First Amendment has a thumb on the scale when that questions asked.

The battle involves laws Florida and Texas enacted in 2021 in the wake of the 2020 election and amid the censorship battles of the pandemics early years when Twitter, Facebook and YouTube were scouring their sites for content they deemed inappropriate, inaccurate or harmful.

Egged on by the federal government, the social media giants limited the reach of posts questioning the push for COVID-19 vaccination and wondered whether the coronavirus had escaped from a Chinese lab. Twitter blocked access to a New York Post article revealing the Hunter Biden laptop, wrongly claiming it was Russian disinformation.

Texas law prohibits social media companies from removing and moderating content some might find offensive or hateful. It also requires disclosure of some business practices, such as algorithms used to promote content.

Floridas law calls for fines of up to $250,000 per day for large social media companies that deplatform political candidates.

One federal appeals court upheld Texas law, and another ruled against Floridas legislation. Both laws are on hold pending Supreme Court action.

The case underscored the central role of the internet in the 21st century and poked at several areas where the law is struggling for answers.

What do you do with the fact that now, today, the internet is the public square? said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The Biden administrations attorney and the attorney for the internet companies told the justices during lengthy arguments that if the government did what the companies are doing, it would be censorship.

When its done by private actors, its not censorship because the companies have their own First Amendment speech rights that the state laws trample.

When I think of Orwellian, I think of the state. Not private sector, not private individuals, said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

The problem, said Justice Clarence Thomas, is that Congress in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gave the tech companies special liability protections over what people post on their sites, but with the understanding that the companies werent policing those posts over viewpoints.

Now you are saying that you are engaged in editorial discretion and expressive conduct. Doesnt that seem to undermine your Section 230 argument? Justice Thomas prodded.

Mr. Clement said Congress wanted freedom from liability but also robust experimentation, which includes setting rules for companies forums.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that sounded like a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose proposition.

Its your message when you want to escape state regulation, but its not your message when you want to escape liability under tort law, Justice Alito said.

The states attorneys pushed the justices to recognize the tech platforms as common carriers, akin to delivery or telephone companies, which are not allowed to alter service based on a customers viewpoint.

Henry Whitaker, solicitor general of Florida, said the companies dont have a message, so theres no First Amendment violation for the platforms.

Internet platforms today control the way millions of Americans today communicate with each other and the world, he said.

Chief Justice Roberts was skeptical, saying the other businesses operated as monopolies and users didnt have alternatives.

I am not sure the same thing applies with respect to social platforms, he said.

Justice Elena Kagan noted that the companies have their own rules for monitoring speech.

They do seem to take them seriously, she said. They are making content judgments about the kind of speech they think they want on the site.

Part of the problem was the way the cases came to the high court.

Both state laws were challenged on their face, which means the internet companies were saying they were unconstitutional in nearly every application. That also meant many key questions werent answered, including which companies and platforms are covered.

I think thats a problem in this case, Justice Jackson said. Were not all aware of the facts of whats happening.

The cases are Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton. Ashley Moody is Floridas attorney general, and Ken Paxton is Texas attorney general.

Decisions are expected by the end of June.

Link:
Supreme Court digs into Big Tech censorship and First Amendment - Washington Times

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Supreme Court digs into Big Tech censorship and First Amendment – Washington Times

The Supreme Court’s sticky web: The First Amendment protects social media – Shelbynews

Posted: at 2:27 pm

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Read this article:
The Supreme Court's sticky web: The First Amendment protects social media - Shelbynews

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on The Supreme Court’s sticky web: The First Amendment protects social media – Shelbynews

Supreme Court to decide how the First Amendment applies to social media – redlakenationnews.com

Posted: at 2:27 pm

WASHINGTON - The most important First Amendment cases of the internet era, to be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday, may turn on a single question: Do platforms like Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and X, formerly Twitter, most closely resemble newspapers or shopping centers or phone companies?

The two cases arrive at the court garbed in politics, as they concern laws in Florida and Texas aimed at protecting conservative speech by forbidding leading social media sites from removing posts based on the views they express.

But the outsize question the cases present transcends ideology. It is whether tech platforms have free speech rights to make editorial judgments. Picking the apt analogy from the court's precedents could decide the matter, but none of the available ones is a perfect fit.

https://www.startribune.com/supreme-court-to-decide-how-the-first-amendment-applies-to-social-media/600346014/?refresh=true

See the rest here:
Supreme Court to decide how the First Amendment applies to social media - redlakenationnews.com

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Supreme Court to decide how the First Amendment applies to social media – redlakenationnews.com

Proposed bill strives to clarify legal vaping products in Georgia – The Atlanta Journal Constitution

Posted: at 2:26 pm

Georgia may adopt a directory of vaping products that can be sold in the state, a move that supporters say will help businesses know what they can sell and help authorities enforce the law.

Vape shop owners, however, have said the bill would significantly hurt their businesses and remove vapes that help people quit smoking.

Rep. Houston Gaines, R-Athens, said House Bill 1260, known as the Georgia Nicotine Vapor Products Directory Act, is aimed at getting the vape marketplace in Georgia under control. The House passed the bill Thursday, and its now headed to the Senate.

Lawmakers referred to the vape industry in Georgia as the wild, Wild West during committee discussions.

Right now, we have no enforcement of vapes that are on the shelves in Georgia, and I believe it is imperative we get a handle on whats happening in our state, Gaines said, adding that many of the most popular products are produced in China and specifically appeal to youths.

There are countless examples of young people in Georgia who have vaped just one time, and its changed their lives, Gaines said. Sometimes, its a flavored vape that gets them hooked. Other times, its a fentanyl-laced vape that puts them in the hospital or worse.

School and health officials have spoken similarly about youth vaping, and many Georgia districts have created specific discipline policies about vaping.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administrations Youth Tobacco Survey estimated 2.1 million middle and high school students used e-cigarettes in 2023, a decline from the prior year. Georgia schools, however, saw an increase in vaping discipline over the past two school years from 18,724 incidents to 22,204.

Along with creating a registry, the bill would set fines for violations and expectations for inspections.

Credit: TNS

Credit: TNS

Dillon Gilbert, who owns nine vape stores in Columbus and Savannah, said the bill would be a death blow to our industry. He and other vape shop owners and industry representatives who testified in House committee meetings said the bill would take their most effective and popular products off of shelves.

Gaines said the bill doesnt make any legal products illegal. Items on the registry would include the 23 vaping products that have received approval from the FDA and products that can be marketed because theyre awaiting approval. The FDA has specifically cracked down on fruit- and candy-flavored products because of their popularity among youths.

Gilbert said the FDAs system is broken with a massive backlog of products awaiting judgment. He pointed out that the products approved are connected to major tobacco producers and have higher concentrations of nicotine than hed recommend to most customers.

Limiting selection wouldnt just lead to shuttered stores, vape shop owners said. It would lead people back to tobacco.

Excerpt from:

Proposed bill strives to clarify legal vaping products in Georgia - The Atlanta Journal Constitution

Posted in Vaping | Comments Off on Proposed bill strives to clarify legal vaping products in Georgia – The Atlanta Journal Constitution

Local teen shares story after nearly dying due to vaping – KOKI FOX 23 TULSA

Posted: at 2:26 pm

COPAN, Okla. If you walk into Copan High Schools basketball gym, you will see a poster of 17-year-old Addie Hunter.

Theres also a good chance, she may be there shooting some hoops.

By the looks of her now, it's hard to believe that about four months ago she was in the hospital fighting for her life.

Addie said she used to vape, and according to her, doctors said the habit caused blisters to form on her lungs causing the left one to collapse, nearly killing her.

It was Oct. 14, 2023.

I remember sitting on the couch, and I text my mom and said, Mom, I can't breathe," Addie recounted.

Addie has severe asthma, so they've had trips to the hospital before, but Scott and Andrea Hunter sensed this time was different.

In fact, they were headed to Tulsa but knew they couldn't make it and stopped at Bailey Medical Center in Owasso.

"About 30 seconds before we got there, she couldn't breathe any more at all, Andrea said. She said, Mom, I can't feel my legs, and I cant see."

"Everything went into slow motion, Addie said. Pitch went way down, and it justlike everything went black, and I passed out. I remember passing out in my dad's arms cause I was leaned up against the door, and he opened it.

It frightens you because you have no idea what is going on, and she has never been this way before," Scott said.

Andrea explained what the doctors told them.

"Her oxygen in her blood was 50 percent, and she was about a minute and a half from death at that point, Andrea said.

Oxygen and steroids helped her to get past that episode, but as she was being transferred to St. Francis Childrens Hospital, she had another.

She was stabilized from that, and then she had a third episode.

That's when doctors put Addie in a paralytic coma.

Three hours later, Andrea was allowed to see her.

"And so umwalking in that moment was the hardest moment of my life because she couldn't communicate, she couldn't talk, she was intubated, she was paralyzed. She was there, but not there and that broke me. It broke my heart," Andrea said tearing up.

You just kind of lay there, Addie said about being in the coma. You don't care about anything; you don't think about anything and you're just kind of there."

On day three, the family got some bad news.

Andrea said the doctors felt Addie wouldnt make it as the treatments werent working, but the Hunters said they knew God was bigger, and that Addie had a testimony to share.

We stood firm on holy ground the entire time, had thousands of people praying for us and her," Andrea remembered.

That was also the day Andrea found a vape in Addie's bag.

I gave it to them [doctors] immediately and they kind of changed course at that point, Andrea said, then explaining what doctors later told her about Addies condition due to vaping.

When it went down into her lungs, it turned back into vegetable oil and Vitamin E oil, and it set on her lungs. Then it heated up with thermal energy and created blisters on her lungs, Andrea told FOX23.

Doctors said the blisters caused one of Addies lungs to collapse.

According to The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, one in ten high schoolers across the country reported using vapes in 2023.

In Oklahoma, that number was double at close to 22 percent.

Like Addie, many of them are addicted.

I would try to quit like a lot, Addie told FOX23. I remember being at work and setting a 15-minute timer and being like, Okay, now I need it, how long can I go without it? Then I would just set 15-minute timers over and over again, and I genuinely think the longest I went without it was like two hours."

The trend is growing among middle schoolers too, especially with the marketing of flavored vape.

The Centers for Disease Control said in the United States in 2023, one out of every 22 middle schoolers, so close to five percent, used vapes.

Addie said she's not surprised because that's when she started.

"You are like a sponge when you are a middle schooler, Addie said. You literally suck up everything that you are told to do, that you think would look cool."

Furthermore, with some vapes being the size of a flash drive, she said they are easy to hide.

Addie and her parents hope her story will reach others.

Twelve days after going into the coma, doctors were able to bring Addie out of it.

For her to open those eyes and look around, that was the best moment of our lives, Andrea said smiling.

Twenty days later, Addie was released from the hospital, already starting vigorous physical therapy.

You have to learn how to talk again, Addie said. I had to relearn how to move my hands and motor skills. I couldn't move my fingers."

By January, as if one miracle wasn't enough, Addie Hunter stepped back on to the court to finish out her high school basketball career.

What's it like stepping foot on the court knowing everything you've gone through," FOX23 Evening Anchor Sara Whaley asked her.

I felt normal because for so long I didn't feel normal, Addie answered. In all honesty, I came back better than I was before.

The Hunters have a message for other parents.

Talk to your kids about it. We even talked to our kids about it, but keep talking to them," Scott said.

And check on anxiety, Andrea added. Being in high school is hard, especially today, so check on their anxiety levels and depression. I think she was dealing with a lot of anxiety and we had no idea, and she was turning towards the vape thinking it was helping her."

Addie has advice for other teens as well.

It's not worth it. Really. It's just.don't skip out on your life," Addie said.

Addie is figuring out where she'd like to go to college.

She said she would like to walk on a basketball team somewhere.

FOX23 has compiled a list of resources to help you educate yourself and your children about vaping and the effects it can have:

Continue reading here:

Local teen shares story after nearly dying due to vaping - KOKI FOX 23 TULSA

Posted in Vaping | Comments Off on Local teen shares story after nearly dying due to vaping – KOKI FOX 23 TULSA

Vaping can increase susceptibility to infection by SARS-CoV-2 – UC Riverside

Posted: at 2:26 pm

Vapers are susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that spreads COVID-19 and continues to infect people around the world, a University of California, Riverside, study has found.

The liquid used in electronic cigarettes, called e-liquid, typically contains nicotine, propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and flavor chemicals. The researchers found propylene glycol/vegetable glycerin alone or along with nicotine enhanced COVID-19 infection through different mechanisms.

Study results appear in the American Journal of Physiology.

The researchers also found that the addition of benzoic acid to e-liquids prevents the infection caused by propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and nicotine.

Users who vape aerosols produced from propylene glycol/vegetable glycerin alone or e-liquids with a neutral to basic pH are more likely to be infected by the virus, while users who vape aerosols made from e-liquids with benzoic acid an acidic pH will have the same viral susceptibility as individuals who do not vape, said Rattapol Phandthong, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Molecular, Cell and Systems Biology and the research papers first author.

The researchers obtained airway stem cells from human donors to produce a 3D tissue model of human bronchial epithelium. They then exposed the tissues to JUUL and BLU electronic cigarette aerosols to study the effect on SARS-CoV-2 infection. They found all tissues showed an increase in the amount of ACE2, a host cell receptor for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Further, TMPRSS2, an enzyme essential for the virus to infect cells, was found to show increased activity in tissues exposed to aerosols with nicotine.

Prue Talbot, a professor of the graduate division and Phandthongs advisor, said e-cigarette users should be cautious about vaping as some products will increase their susceptibility to SARs-CoV-2 infection.

It would probably be best for vapers to quit vaping for the protection of their health and to stop nicotine dependency, she said. If they cannot stop vaping, it is better to vape aerosols produced from an e-liquid with acidic pH or with benzoic acid to prevent the enhanced SARS-CoV-2 infection caused by nicotine, propylene glycol, and vegetable glycerin. However, inhalation of benzoic acid has its own risk, and data is still limited on this topic.

The researchers acknowledge that the relationship between e-cigarettes and SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility is complex.

The complexity is attributed to a wide range of available e-liquids, the chemical composition of each e-liquid, and different models of e-cigarettes, Phandthong said. Our study only used Classic Tobacco Flavor JUUL e-cigarette and BLU Classic Tobacco e-cigarette. Even with just these two e-cigarettes, we found the aerosols and individual ingredients produced different effects on SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Phandthong and Talbot hope the Food and Drug Administration will use their findings to implement regulatory laws on e-cigarette products.

Our findings could also help improve the design of clinical trials involving the use of tobacco products and SARS-CoV-2 infection, Phandthong said. In the meantime, it is worth bearing in mind that the scientific literature has shown that a vaper who contracted SARS-CoV-2 has more complications during the recovery period and is more likely to develop long COVID-19, which can be serious and last many months post-infection. We hope our findings encourage vapers to stop vaping and discourage non-users from starting to vape.

Phandthong acknowledged the team only investigated the initial stage of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

There are many later stages involved in infection, such as viral replication, he said. It is likely that these additional stages can also be affected by inhalation of e-cigarette aerosols.

Phandthong and Talbot were joined in the study by Man Wong, Ann Song, and Teresa Martinez.

The research was funded by grants from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Center for Tobacco Products of the Food and Drug Administration, and California Institute of Regenerative Medicine.

The research paper is titled Does vaping increase the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection? Paradoxically yes and no.

Read the original:

Vaping can increase susceptibility to infection by SARS-CoV-2 - UC Riverside

Posted in Vaping | Comments Off on Vaping can increase susceptibility to infection by SARS-CoV-2 – UC Riverside

As youth vaping skyrockets, SC bill aims to crack down on sales of illegal e-cigs – News From The States

Posted: at 2:26 pm

COLUMBIA In Oconee County, dozens of illegal e-cigarettes are confiscated from students weekly, tallying to potentially thousands in the past three years, estimates school security director Evie Hughes.

I dont believe you can go into a bathroom in a middle or high school and not get a vape, Hughes told the SC Daily Gazette. It is an epidemic among kids.

A bipartisan proposal sent Thursday to the Senate floor aims to cut down on the number of vapes being sold to children, who could be inhaling much more than nicotine.

The fruity- or candy-flavored e-cigarettes that have caused vaping by youth to skyrocket are already illegal. Only e-cigarettes that taste like tobacco or menthol are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and theyre generally marketed as a way to help adults quit smoking.

The problem is that the colorful, disposable vapes made in China (and often disguised as something else) have poured into the United States since shortly before Chinese regulators banned selling the flavors there in 2022.

U.S. authorities cant keep up. The FDA announced its first seizure of illegal e-cigarette shipments in December. The 1.4 million products seized at the Los Angeles airport all from China were worth $18 million, according to the announcement.

South Carolina is among states acting on their own to try to stop the escalating flow to youth in their borders.

This is about the children and their futures, said Senate President Thomas Alexander, R-Walhalla.

His bill, which received a rare unanimous vote by all 17 senators on the Medical Affairs Committee, would create a registry of vapes that are legal to sell in South Carolina. Products not on the registry, created and maintained by the attorney generals office, could be seized from wholesalers and retailers.

Makers and distributors of vapes not on the approved list must remove them from stores statewide or face fines of $1,000 per day per product.

The sweet-smelling, brightly colored vapes senators are trying to get off shelves come in flavors like wild cherry, bubblegum and cotton candy. The packing can look like makeup brushes, highlighters and flash drives, making them easy to conceal in a students book bag or pockets, said Senate Minority Leader Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg.

Its clear from the colors and shapes of these that these are being marketed to children, said Hutto, among 15 co-sponsors of the bill.

As a show-and-tell of the problem, Alexander brought dozens of e-cigarettes confiscated from Oconee County students over the past several weeks.

Hughes said 30 to 50 vapes are taken from students in the districts 18 schools each week.

In South Carolina, 47% of high school students reported vaping in 2020, according to the latest stats available from the Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services. It could be much higher now.

Nationwide, theres been a 2,600% rocket-fueled-like surge since 2019 in high schoolers who vape choosing disposables, with fruity flavors being by far the most popular, followed by candy flavors, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions 2023 National Youth Tobacco Survey.

Like regular cigarettes, e-cigarettes contain nicotine. And disposable vapes generally have a high nicotine content. The addictive drug is particularly harmful to young people whose brains are still developing, as it can affect their attention spans, mood, impulse control and ability to learn, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The vapor has also been linked to lung damage and seizures, according to the FDA.

And thats what can happen with regulated vapes.

Theres no telling whats in illegal, unregulated vapes coming from China, senators said.

Some have THC, the psychoactive drug found in marijuana. Senators said they worry many could be laced with highly deadly drugs like fentanyl, a synthetic opioid 100 times more potent than morphine thats also pouring in from China. Fentanyl-laced vapes have already been reported in other states.

Under South Carolinas bill, the registry would have to be in place by Sept. 1.

Four other states Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin already have similar registries. Virginia is expected to be the fifth with a bill passed by its Legislature this week.

Alexanders bill has the backing of not only legislators of both parties but educators and law enforcement.

It would put the State Law Enforcement Division, the attorney generals office and the Department of Revenue in charge of enforcement.

Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott said his deputies are busy with murders, break-ins and other serious crimes. They dont have time to check what products stores have on their shelves, he said.

We could spend all our time going to stores, Lott said.

The registry would make it easier for the state to crack down on sales, said Columbia Mayor Daniel Rickenmann, who spoke in support of the bill at a recent subcommittee meeting.

Getting enforcement into place is key, said Rickenmann, adding hes heard from parents and teachers.

In Oconee County, students caught with vapes have to go through an eight-week course on the dangers of drugs and alcohol.

Instead of deterring students, though, the strict punishments have led to teens getting sneakier about hiding their vapes, Hughes said.

It feels like were fighting a war, but right now were losing the battle, Hughes said.

Read the original here:

As youth vaping skyrockets, SC bill aims to crack down on sales of illegal e-cigs - News From The States

Posted in Vaping | Comments Off on As youth vaping skyrockets, SC bill aims to crack down on sales of illegal e-cigs – News From The States