Media
Supreme Court leans against limiting Biden administration contacts with social media platforms
WASHINGTON — A majority of Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared highly skeptical about claims the Biden administration crossed the line from persuasion to coercion when it told social media platforms to remove problematic content.
At issue is an injunction imposed by a federal judge, currently on hold, that would limit contacts between government officials and social media companies on a wide range of issues.
During oral arguments, justices across the ideological spectrum questioned whether the conduct of government officials was unlawful and whether plaintiffs that brought the lawsuit could even show they were directly harmed. Among the issues raised was the lack of evidence that government officials threatened punitive action if the social media companies failed to cooperate.
The case was one of two the court heard on Monday about the practice known as “jawboning,” in which the government leans on private parties to do what it wants, sometimes with the implicit threat of adverse consequences if demands are not met. Those challenging the government actions say that in each case there was a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment, which protects free speech rights.
The second case involves claims that a New York state official inappropriately pressured companies to end ties with the National Rifle Association, the leading gun rights group.
In the social media case, Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, along with five social media users, filed the underlying lawsuit alleging that U.S. government officials went too far in putting pressure on platforms to moderate content. The individual plaintiffs include Covid lockdown opponents and Jim Hoft, the owner of the right-wing website Gateway Pundit.
The lawsuit makes various claims relating to activities that occurred in 2020 and before, including efforts to deter the spread of false information about Covid and the presidential election. Donald Trump was president at the time, but the district court ruling focused on actions taken by the government after President Joe Biden took office in January 2021.
Several justices questioned whether the nature of the communications was problematic, with liberal Justice Elena Kagan noting that officials sometimes have fraught communications with journalists.
“This happens literally thousands of times a day in the federal government,” she said.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, similarly pointed out that the federal government is “not monolithic,” meaning that a complaint from one department is not necessarily a sign that another agency would take action if a post was not removed.
“That has to dilute the concept of coercion significantly doesn’t it?” he said.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another conservative, indicated that the argument made by Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga that mere encouragement by the government could constitute unlawful conduct “would sweep in an awful lot” of routine activity.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Aguiñaga whether, under his interpretation of the law, it could be potentially unlawful for the government to ask social media platforms to take down a viral post encouraging teens to jump out of windows.
“Is it your view that the government authorities could not declare those circumstances a public emergency and encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem?” she said.
Aguiñaga said the government’s conduct could cross the line if it goes beyond expressing concerns about content and then asks for posts to be removed.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh also appeared skeptical of the plaintiffs’ arguments that there was coercion involved.
“What do you do with the fact that the platforms say no all the time to the government?” he said.
The justice who appeared most sympathetic to the plaintiffs was conservative Samuel Alito.
The evidence showed that White House officials and others suggested they were on the “same team” as the social media companies, demanded answers and “cursed them out” when they did not get the responses they wanted, Alito said.
“There is constant pestering of Facebook and some of the other platforms,” he added.
Alito also referred to reporters present in the courtroom.
“I cannot imagine federal officials taking that approach to the print media representatives over there. If you did that to them, what do you think the reaction would be?” he said.
Last July, Louisiana-based Judge Terry Doughty barred officials from “communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the scope of Doughty’s injunction. But the appeals court still required the White House, the FBI and top health officials not to “coerce or significantly encourage” social media companies to remove content the Biden administration considers misinformation.
When agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court in October blocked the appeals court ruling, with three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — noting they disagreed with that decision.
In the NRA case, the gun rights group claims that its free speech rights were violated by the actions of Maria Vullo, then-superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services.
Based questions asked during those oral arguments, the court could find that Vullo inappropriately pressured insurance companies to end their business relationships with NRA.
Vullo’s office had been investigating insurance companies that the NRA had worked with to provide coverage for members. The NRA alleged that Vullo, in meetings with insurance companies, made “back channel threats that they cease providing services to the NRA.”
Speaking out after the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in which 17 people were killed, Vullo also urged insurance companies and banks to reconsider any relationships they had with gun rights-affiliated groups.
Alito indicated that the only difference between the two cases is that Vullo was not subtle enough in her interactions with the companies.
“Does that mean that really the New York officials could have achieved what they wanted to achieve if they hadn’t done it in such a ham-handed manner?” he asked.
Another key distinction between the two cases is that the Biden administration, while defending its own conduct in the social media cases, filed a brief mostly backing the NRA in the other case, saying it had made a plausible free speech allegation.
Justice Department lawyer Ephraim McDowell told the justices that in the NRA case there was a “specific coercive threat” that was not present in the social media case.
The NRA is appealing a 2022 ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Vullo’s actions did not constitute unlawful conduct.
Vullo argued in her defense that it was part of her job to warn companies about the “reputational risk” of doing business with the NRA.
The case attracted additional attention after the American Civil Liberties Union, which often backs liberal causes, signed on to represent the NRA. The ACLU said that while it disagrees with the NRA’s positions, it would defend the gun rights group’s right to speak.
Former President Donald Trump is on the brink of a significant financial decision that could have far-reaching implications for both his personal wealth and the future of his fledgling social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). As the lockup period on his shares in TMTG, which owns Truth Social, nears its end, Trump could soon be free to sell his substantial stake in the company. However, the potential payday, which makes up a large portion of his net worth, comes with considerable risks for Trump and his supporters.
Trump’s stake in TMTG comprises nearly 59% of the company, amounting to 114,750,000 shares. As of now, this holding is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. These shares are currently under a lockup agreement, a common feature of initial public offerings (IPOs), designed to prevent company insiders from immediately selling their shares and potentially destabilizing the stock. The lockup, which began after TMTG’s merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), is set to expire on September 25, though it could end earlier if certain conditions are met.
Should Trump decide to sell his shares after the lockup expires, the market could respond in unpredictable ways. The sale of a substantial number of shares by a major stakeholder like Trump could flood the market, potentially driving down the stock price. Daniel Bradley, a finance professor at the University of South Florida, suggests that the market might react negatively to such a large sale, particularly if there aren’t enough buyers to absorb the supply. This could lead to a sharp decline in the stock’s value, impacting both Trump’s personal wealth and the company’s market standing.
Moreover, Trump’s involvement in Truth Social has been a key driver of investor interest. The platform, marketed as a free speech alternative to mainstream social media, has attracted a loyal user base largely due to Trump’s presence. If Trump were to sell his stake, it might signal a lack of confidence in the company, potentially shaking investor confidence and further depressing the stock price.
Trump’s decision is also influenced by his ongoing legal battles, which have already cost him over $100 million in legal fees. Selling his shares could provide a significant financial boost, helping him cover these mounting expenses. However, this move could also have political ramifications, especially as he continues his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race.
Trump Media’s success is closely tied to Trump’s political fortunes. The company’s stock has shown volatility in response to developments in the presidential race, with Trump’s chances of winning having a direct impact on the stock’s value. If Trump sells his stake, it could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in his own political future, potentially undermining both his campaign and the company’s prospects.
Truth Social, the flagship product of TMTG, has faced challenges in generating traffic and advertising revenue, especially compared to established social media giants like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Despite this, the company’s valuation has remained high, fueled by investor speculation on Trump’s political future. If Trump remains in the race and manages to secure the presidency, the value of his shares could increase. Conversely, any missteps on the campaign trail could have the opposite effect, further destabilizing the stock.
As the lockup period comes to an end, Trump faces a critical decision that could shape the future of both his personal finances and Truth Social. Whether he chooses to hold onto his shares or cash out, the outcome will likely have significant consequences for the company, its investors, and Trump’s political aspirations.
Cochise County, AZ — Law enforcement officials in Arizona have apprehended Ronald Lee Syvrud, a 66-year-old resident of Cochise County, after a manhunt was launched following alleged death threats he made against former President Donald Trump. The threats reportedly surfaced in social media posts over the past two weeks, as Trump visited the US-Mexico border in Cochise County on Thursday.
Syvrud, who hails from Benson, Arizona, located about 50 miles southeast of Tucson, was captured by the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday afternoon. The Sheriff’s Office confirmed his arrest, stating, “This subject has been taken into custody without incident.”
In addition to the alleged threats against Trump, Syvrud is wanted for multiple offences, including failure to register as a sex offender. He also faces several warrants in both Wisconsin and Arizona, including charges for driving under the influence and a felony hit-and-run.
The timing of the arrest coincided with Trump’s visit to Cochise County, where he toured the US-Mexico border. During his visit, Trump addressed the ongoing border issues and criticized his political rival, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, for what he described as lax immigration policies. When asked by reporters about the ongoing manhunt for Syvrud, Trump responded, “No, I have not heard that, but I am not that surprised and the reason is because I want to do things that are very bad for the bad guys.”
This incident marks the latest in a series of threats against political figures during the current election cycle. Just earlier this month, a 66-year-old Virginia man was arrested on suspicion of making death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris and other public officials.
Media
Trump Media & Technology Group Faces Declining Stock Amid Financial Struggles and Increased Competition
Trump Media & Technology Group’s stock has taken a significant hit, dropping more than 11% this week following a disappointing earnings report and the return of former U.S. President Donald Trump to the rival social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. This decline is part of a broader downward trend for the parent company of Truth Social, with the stock plummeting nearly 43% since mid-July. Despite the sharp decline, some investors remain unfazed, expressing continued optimism for the company’s financial future or standing by their investment as a show of political support for Trump.
One such investor, Todd Schlanger, an interior designer from West Palm Beach, explained his commitment to the stock, stating, “I’m a Republican, so I supported him. When I found out about the stock, I got involved because I support the company and believe in free speech.” Schlanger, who owns around 1,000 shares, is a regular user of Truth Social and is excited about the company’s future, particularly its plans to expand its streaming services. He believes Truth Social has the potential to be as strong as Facebook or X, despite the stock’s recent struggles.
However, Truth Social’s stock performance is deeply tied to Trump’s political influence and the company’s ability to generate sustainable revenue, which has proven challenging. An earnings report released last Friday showed the company lost over $16 million in the three-month period ending in June. Revenue dropped by 30%, down to approximately $836,000 compared to $1.2 million during the same period last year.
In response to the earnings report, Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes emphasized the company’s strong cash position, highlighting $344 million in cash reserves and no debt. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to free speech, stating, “From the beginning, it was our intention to make Truth Social an impenetrable beachhead of free speech, and by taking extraordinary steps to minimize our reliance on Big Tech, that is exactly what we are doing.”
Despite these assurances, investors reacted negatively to the quarterly report, leading to a steep drop in stock price. The situation was further complicated by Trump’s return to X, where he posted for the first time in a year. Trump’s exclusivity agreement with Trump Media & Technology Group mandates that he posts personal content first on Truth Social. However, he is allowed to make politically related posts on other social media platforms, which he did earlier this week, potentially drawing users away from Truth Social.
For investors like Teri Lynn Roberson, who purchased shares near the company’s peak after it went public in March, the decline in stock value has been disheartening. However, Roberson remains unbothered by the poor performance, saying her investment was more about supporting Trump than making money. “I’m way at a loss, but I am OK with that. I am just watching it for fun,” Roberson said, adding that she sees Trump’s return to X as a positive move that could expand his reach beyond Truth Social’s “echo chamber.”
The stock’s performance holds significant financial implications for Trump himself, as he owns a 65% stake in Trump Media & Technology Group. According to Fortune, this stake represents a substantial portion of his net worth, which could be vulnerable if the company continues to struggle financially.
Analysts have described Truth Social as a “meme stock,” similar to companies like GameStop and AMC that saw their stock prices driven by ideological investments rather than business fundamentals. Tyler Richey, an analyst at Sevens Report Research, noted that the stock has ebbed and flowed based on sentiment toward Trump. He pointed out that the recent decline coincided with the rise of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, which may have dampened perceptions of Trump’s 2024 election prospects.
Jay Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida, offered a grim long-term outlook for Truth Social, suggesting that the stock would likely remain volatile, but with an overall downward trend. “What’s lacking for the true believer in the company story is, ‘OK, where is the business strategy that will be generating revenue?'” Ritter said, highlighting the company’s struggle to produce a sustainable business model.
Still, for some investors, like Michael Rogers, a masonry company owner in North Carolina, their support for Trump Media & Technology Group is unwavering. Rogers, who owns over 10,000 shares, said he invested in the company both as a show of support for Trump and because of his belief in the company’s financial future. Despite concerns about the company’s revenue challenges, Rogers expressed confidence in the business, stating, “I’m in it for the long haul.”
Not all investors are as confident. Mitchell Standley, who made a significant return on his investment earlier this year by capitalizing on the hype surrounding Trump Media’s planned merger with Digital World Acquisition Corporation, has since moved on. “It was basically just a pump and dump,” Standley told ABC News. “I knew that once they merged, all of his supporters were going to dump a bunch of money into it and buy it up.” Now, Standley is staying away from the company, citing the lack of business fundamentals as the reason for his exit.
Truth Social’s future remains uncertain as it continues to struggle with financial losses and faces stiff competition from established social media platforms. While its user base and investor sentiment are bolstered by Trump’s political following, the company’s long-term viability will depend on its ability to create a sustainable revenue stream and maintain relevance in a crowded digital landscape.
As the company seeks to stabilize, the question remains whether its appeal to Trump’s supporters can translate into financial success or whether it will remain a volatile stock driven more by ideology than business fundamentals.
Alouettes receiver Philpot announces he’ll be out for the rest of season
David Lipsky shoots 65 to take 1st-round lead at Silverado in FedEx Cup Fall opener
Canada’s Marina Stakusic advances to quarterfinals at Guadalajara Open
12 Bizarre Things People Did Just To Make Social Media Content
dynaCERT Inc. Invites You to Join Us at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference | INN – Investing News Network
AP source: Bears acquiring quarterback Nick Foles from Jaguars – Sportsnet.ca
-
News7 hours agoB.C. to scrap consumer carbon tax if federal government drops legal requirement: Eby
-
News7 hours agoA linebacker at West Virginia State is fatally shot on the eve of a game against his old school
-
Sports8 hours agoLawyer says Chinese doping case handled ‘reasonably’ but calls WADA’s lack of action “curious”
-
News18 hours agoReggie Bush was at his LA-area home when 3 male suspects attempted to break in
-
Sports2 hours agoCanada’s Marina Stakusic advances to quarterfinals at Guadalajara Open
-
News7 hours agoHall of Famer Joe Schmidt, who helped Detroit Lions win 2 NFL titles, dies at 92
-
News8 hours agoRCMP say 3 dead, suspects at large in targeted attack at home in Lloydminster, Sask.
-
News8 hours agoBad weather and boat modifications led to capsizing off Haida Gwaii, TSB says
