The Supreme Court seemed prepared Monday to reject a Republican-led effort to sharply limit the federal government from pressuring social media companies to remove harmful posts and misinformation from their platforms.
Media
Supreme Court likely to reject limits on White House social media contacts
A majority of justices from across the ideological spectrum expressed concern about hamstringing White House officials and other federal employees from communicating with tech giants about posts the government deems problematic that are related to public health, national security and elections, among other topics.
The case involves a lawsuit initiated by two Republican-led states — Missouri and Louisiana — and individual social media users. They accuse the Biden administration of violating the First Amendment by operating a sprawling federal “censorship enterprise” to influence platforms to modify or take down posts.
Justices Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh, who previously worked as lawyers in Democratic and Republican administrations, respectively, suggested that government exchanges with the platforms and media outlets were routine occurrences and did not amount to censorship or coercion in violation of the constitutional right to free speech.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seemed to agree, noting that the federal government has numerous agencies that do not always speak with a single voice.
“It’s not monolithic,” he said in an exchange with the attorney representing Louisiana. “That has to dilute the concept of coercion significantly. Doesn’t it?”
The case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to shape how government officials interact with social media companies and communicate with the public online at a time when such platforms play an increasingly important role in elections and public debate. The justices are reviewing a lower-court ruling that sharply limited such interactions, and they must clarify when government attempts to combat misinformation cross the line from permissible persuasion to unconstitutional coercion.
End of carousel
The dispute is one of several before the justices this term testing Republican-backed claims that social media companies are working with Democratic allies to silence conservative voices online. The outcome could have sweeping implications for the U.S. government’s efforts to combat foreign disinformation during a critical election year when nearly half of the world’s population will go to the polls.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned during a meeting in Seoul on Monday of a “flood of falsehoods that suffocate serious civic debate.” Social media and artificial intelligence, he said, “created an accelerant for disinformation.”
The high court on Monday appeared ready to embrace a narrow ruling, with several justices suggesting that the states and individuals behind the lawsuit did not have sufficient legal grounds to sue the Biden administration. Some said the individuals could not show a direct link between the government’s pressure on the platforms and the tech companies’ removal of posts that the government deemed problematic.
Kagan pressed Louisiana’s lawyer for evidence that the government — not the social media companies — was responsible for taking down the posts at issue: “How do you decide that it’s government action as opposed to platform action?”
The First Amendment prevents the government from censoring speech and punishing people for expressing different views. But the Biden administration says officials are entitled to share information, participate in public debate and urge action, as long as their requests are not accompanied by threats.
Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher, representing the Biden administration, said government officials have long-standing authority to use the bully pulpit to inform and persuade. The lower-court ruling, he said, would prevent thousands of government officials, including FBI agents and presidential aides, from addressing threats to national security and public health.
The attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana argued that the federal government went too far by coercing social media companies to suppress speech of individual users and by becoming deeply involved in the companies’ decisions to remove certain content. Tech companies, they said, cannot act on behalf of the government to remove speech the government doesn’t like.
Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga said the Biden administration had subjected the platforms to unrelenting pressure, using profanity and badgering — not the bully pulpit. “That’s just being a bully,” he told the court.
The record before the Supreme Court includes email messages between Biden administration officials and social media companies, including Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and Twitter, showing tense conversations in 2021 as the White House and public health officials campaigned for Americans to get the coronavirus vaccine. Several justices pushed back Monday on the states’ characterizations of those messages and pointed out inaccuracies in their filings.
“I have such a problem with your brief, counselor,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. “You omit information that changes the context of some of your claims. You attribute things to people who it didn’t happen to.”
Aguiñaga apologized and took responsibility “if any aspect of our brief was not as forthcoming as it should have been.”
The toughest questions for the Biden administration came from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas, who, along with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented earlier this term when the majority temporarily blocked the lower-court ruling allowing contacts with social media companies to continue.
Alito said the intense back-and-forth and constant demands from the Biden administration at the height of the vaccination campaign in 2021 suggested the government was impermissibly coordinating with, and coercing, social media companies.
The administration was “treating Facebook and these other platforms like they’re subordinates,” he said, noting that he could not imagine government officials making similar demands of news outlets.
“Do you think that the print media regards themselves as being on the same team as the federal government, partners with the federal government?” Alito asked the government’s lawyer, pointing to the dozens of journalists sitting inside the courtroom.
Gorsuch asked Fletcher whether accusing a company of “killing people” crossed the line into coercion. The question referred to President Biden’s response in July 2021 to questions about how Facebook and other tech platforms were handling misinformation about the coronavirus vaccine.
Fletcher said Biden’s statement was “off the cuff” and meant as an “exhortation, not a threat.” Biden clarified three days later that he was referring to the people spreading misinformation, not the platforms, the attorney said.
Kavanaugh, who worked in the George W. Bush White House, said it’s not uncommon for government officials to warn media companies that articles about surveillance or other military policies could harm war efforts and put Americans at risk.
The initial ruling in the lawsuit came from a conservative district court judge in Louisiana who said that the Biden administration appeared to have operated “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” The court’s order barred thousands of federal employees from improperly influencing tech companies to remove certain content.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit narrowed the decision to a smaller set of government officials and agencies, including the surgeon general’s office, the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FBI. A three-judge panel of the appeals court said the White House probably “coerced the platforms to make their moderation decisions by way of intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences.” The panel also found that the White House “significantly encouraged the platforms’ decisions by commandeering their decision-making processes, both in violation of the First Amendment.”
In October, the Supreme Court intervened and allowed the Biden administration to resume communications with social media companies while the litigation continued. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented, saying that “government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government.”
Separate from the lawsuit, House Republicans are investigating how tech companies handle requests from Biden administration officials and demanding thousands of documents from internet platforms. Conservative activists have also filed lawsuits and records requests for private correspondence between tech companies and academic researchers studying election- and health-related conspiracies.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who has led the probe of the tech industry and supported the lawsuit by the Republican attorneys general against the Biden administration, attended the argument Monday.
The justices are also set to decide this term whether state laws passed in Texas and Florida can prohibit social media companies from removing certain political posts. The court is expected to reach a decision in those cases, as well as the case involving the Biden administration, by the end of its term, probably in June or early July.
Until then, tech companies probably will not make major changes to their programs to counter disinformation, even as the U.S. presidential election approaches, said David Greene, the civil liberties director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The cases, Greene said, “leave the platforms in a position of great uncertainty.”
Continue Reading
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.
News1 hour ago
RCMP investigating after three found dead in Lloydminster, Sask.
News1 hour ago
Three injured in Kingston, Ont., assault, police negotiating suspect’s surrender
News1 hour ago
Government intervention in Air Canada talks a threat to competition: Transat CEO
Media1 year ago
12 Bizarre Things People Did Just To Make Social Media Content
Investment5 years ago
dynaCERT Inc. Invites You to Join Us at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference | INN – Investing News Network
Sports4 years ago
AP source: Bears acquiring quarterback Nick Foles from Jaguars – Sportsnet.ca
-
News18 hours agoSingh claps back at Poilievre ahead of House return
-
News23 hours agoArrest made in death of man whose body was found four years ago: police
-
News18 hours agoMore than 67 million people watched Donald Trump and Kamala Harris debate. That’s way up from June
-
News18 hours agoTaxi driver suspected in fatal B.C. hit-and-run has left Canada: RCMP
-
News18 hours agoThe ancient jar smashed by a 4-year-old is back on display at an Israeli museum after repair
-
News7 hours agoReggie Bush was at his LA-area home when 3 male suspects attempted to break in
-
News18 hours agoMounties say there’s no evidence Lytton, B.C., wildfire was arson; cause unknown
-
News17 hours agoSouthern Baptist trustees back agency president but warn against needless controversy
