Sec. 3. Findings
852 words·~4 min read·
/bill/118/s/2425/is/section-3·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
Congress finds the following: The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees— freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and petition of the government; the freedom of expression by prohibiting the government from restricting the press or the right of an individual to speak freely; and the right of an individual to assemble peaceably and to petition the government. Freedom of speech is an essential element of liberty that restrains tyranny and empowers individuals.
Writing in support of a Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson stated that [t]here are rights which it is useless to surrender to the government, and which yet, governments have always been fond to invade. These are the rights of thinking and publishing our thoughts by speaking or writing. . The Supreme Court of the United States (referred to in this section as the Court ) has upheld the right to speak free from governmental interference as a fundamental right. The Court, in Palko v.
Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), wrote that freedom of thought and speech is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom . In Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), the Court stated the following: At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal.
Government action that stifles speech on account of its message, or that requires the utterance of a particular message favored by the Government, contravenes this essential right . . . [and poses] the inherent risk that Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion. These restrictions ‘rais[e] the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.’ For these reasons, the First Amendment, subject only to narrow and well-understood exceptions, does not countenance government control over the content of messages expressed by private individuals. .
In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Court explained that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States generally prevents government from proscribing speech, or even expressive conduct, because of disapproval of the ideas expressed. Content-based restrictions are presumptively invalid. . The case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), stands for the proposition that speech can be suppressed only if the speech is intended, and is likely to produce, imminent lawless action.
Justice William Brennan, in his majority opinion for the Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), asserted that [i]f 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. . Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his majority opinion for the Court in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, ___ U.S. ___ (2023), stated, The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. .
As evidenced in disclosures from various social media companies, Federal officials in recent years have sought to censor legal speech on platforms operated by those companies by using the power of their offices to influence what opinions, views, and other content that users of those platforms may disseminate. White House officials and officials of Executive agencies sought to silence narratives on social media platforms on issues relating to the COVID–19 pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention engaged with officials at Facebook and Twitter to request that certain posts be flagged as disinformation and held regular meetings with those companies to share instances of what government officials determined to be misinformation about the COVID–19 pandemic that had been spread on the platforms operated by those companies.
In the midst of the 2020 election cycle, the Federal Bureau of Investigation communicated with high-level technology company executives and suggested that a New York Post story regarding the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop were part of a hack and leak operation. On April 27, 2022, the Department of Homeland Security announced the creation of a Disinformation Governance Board (referred to in this paragraph as the Board ). The Director of the Board, Nina Jankowicz, sought to establish an analytic exchange with industry partners .
In congressional testimony, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas provided misleading testimony about the actions of the Board. Since 2020, 2 nonprofit organizations affiliated with the Global Disinformation Index (referred to in this paragraph as GDI ) have received a total of $330,000 in grants from Federal agencies. GDI maintains a list of global news publications rated high risk for disinformation . Major advertising companies seek guidance from this purported nonpartisan group to determine where advertising money should be spent.
Despite the self-proclaimed nonpartisan nature of the list, GDI includes a host of reputable media outlets, such as Reason, RealClearPolitics, and the New York Post.
Connections5 off-index
5 references not yet in our index
- 302 U.S. 319
- 512 U.S. 622
- 505 U.S. 377
- 395 U.S. 444
- 491 U.S. 397
Citation graph
cites case law
Sec. 3
Findings
Cites 5Cited by 0 across 0 sources