The Conservative Party of Canada demanded that the House of Commons hold an emergency debate on the pro-censorship Bill C-11 over concerns that the Liberal government might use it to force platforms to take down “misinformation” and offensive content. The request was shot down. Conservative MP Rachel Thomas wrote a letter to House Speaker Anthony Rota asking for the emergency debate. https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/rachel-thomas-censorship-debate.mp4 Thomas posted the letter on Twitter, writing that the government is, “pressuring social media platforms to remove news stories they don’t want ppl to see.” “Bill C-11 will make this type of gov censorship legal,” she added. Thomas’ letter referenced how the government responded to a March Inquiry of the Ministry, which said that several federal agencies and departments have previously asked social media platforms to remove content and accounts for reasons such as impersonation, offensive language, and hate speech. One of the examples given was the Immigrations and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) director of communications requesting that Twitter and Facebook remove an article by the Toronto Sun. In the letter, Thomas further argued that the bill would “greatly diminish the ability of media companies and social media platforms to ignore government commands concerning what information can and cannot be made available to the Canadian public.” “News and cultural content will be at the mercy of government oversight and approvals,” she wrote. The Liberal government insists that the purpose of the bill is to make sure streaming platforms like Netflix and YouTube prioritize Canadian content. If you’re…Canada’s Liberals shut down debate over online censorship plans
Texas State University is sued over speech restrictions
Free speech nonprofit Speech First has sued Texas State University over its “harassment” and computer policies, alleging they violate students’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here. The university’s harassment policy bans “unwelcome verbal, written, graphic, or physical conduct” deemed “sufficiently severe or pervasive” targeted at people based on factors like sex, gender, and race. The lawsuit argues that the policy chills the speech of students by discouraging them from “expressing views that are outside the mainstream about the political and social issues of the day.” The computer policy bans students from using “informational resources” provided by the university to “affect the result of a local, state, or national election.” The lawsuit argues that the policy bans students from using university email accounts to send political emails, and describes it as a “vague, content-based, and overbroad restriction of protected speech.” The lawsuit claims that three students are suffering “concrete injuries” as a result of the harassment policy and they fear that the expression of their deeply held views is prohibited. The students also cannot send political emails for fear of punishment, the lawsuit alleges. If you’re tired of censorship, cancel culture, and the erosion of civil liberties subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Texas State University is sued over speech restrictions appeared first on Reclaim The Net.Texas State University is sued over speech restrictions
SEC commissioner Hester Peirce says proposed Exchange Act changes threaten free speech
Securities and Exchange Commission’s commissioner Hester Peirce has criticized the regulator’s proposed amendment to the Exchange Act, aimed at amending the definition of the term “exchange.” In a statement, Peirce said that the “Commission aggressively expands its regulatory reach to solve problems that do not exist.” From the statement: “The release’s ambiguity undermines fundamental First Amendment protections. “Because the release makes everybody involved in the relevant blockchain ecosystem part of a ‘group,’ it creates significant ambiguity around what speech requires government pre-approval, which will unavoidably chill constitutionally-protected speech. The reopener suggests that an individual, who, ‘acting independently and separate from an organization’ and without any agreement for that code to be used in a trading venue, publishes code ‘may be less likely’ to be part of a group for these purposes. On the other hand, an organization that ‘deploys’ such code likely would be part of a group that would trigger registration requirements. And if you are a paid developer, you ‘could be acting in concert with a group of persons to provide a market place or facilities for bringing together buyers and sellers.’ “What does all of this mean? Do First Amendment protections extend only to code published by hobbyist coders? Does a university professor who, as part of her research publishes such code, risk triggering the exchange definition merely because she is paid for that research? Is a non-profit organization subject to First Amendment protections different from those available to individuals? Is such an organization that deploys experimental…SEC commissioner Hester Peirce says proposed Exchange Act changes threaten free speech
Netflix’s Beef actor David Choe uses copyright strikes in an attempt to kill criticism
Actor David Choe, featured in Netflix Series Beef, is using copyright takedown notices to remove from social media clips of a podcast episode where he alleged he had previously engaged in “rapey behavior.” In 2014, in an episode of his podcast DVDASA, Choe detailed a story of how he sexually assaulted a masseuse – something he later said was a joke. They clips have started resurfacing now that Choe has been featured in the popular Netflix series Beef. The clip features Choe telling porn star and podcast co-host Asa Akira about his experience at a massage parlor. In the past few days, clips of the comments have gone viral on Twitter. Several people who posted the clips were sent notice that their tweets had been taken down for copyright infringement, putting their accounts at risk. According to a screenshot posted by writer Aura Bogado, the take down notices were sent by the “David Young Choe Foundation,” a nonprofit created by Choe in 2015. Writer Meecham Whitson tweeted that her account was suspended after posting a clip of the podcast. After the podcast episode was published in April 2014, Choe released a statement on the podcast’s website clarifying that he is not a rapist. He insisted the masseuse story was not “a representation of my reality.” Choe appears to be taking advantage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown process to protect his reputation. Related: How the DMCA has become one of the biggest threats to online speech If you’re tired…Netflix’s Beef actor David Choe uses copyright strikes in an attempt to kill criticism
Big Tech companies are scooping up former DOJ-employees as antitrust fight continues
The “revolving door” practice in the US – considered as shady at best by many critics – involves government officials and execs and employees from corporations, notably Big Tech, “switching” jobs by joining the other sector. They inevitably take a lot of knowledge about the one they left with them, and now an analysis by the American Accountability Foundation (AAF) is revealing the sheer scale of some of these “revolving door” instances. When it comes to the Department of Justice (DoJ) alone – and that’s the one that is spearheading legal initiatives around alleged Big Tech antitrust and other unlawful policies – at least 360 of its former employees have found (past and present) roles with Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and HP, and this has been documented to have been going on since 2000. The analysis, reported Washington Examiner, is based on information found on LinkedIn and public records. It, among other things, shows that only in the time since the Biden administration took over, Google hired 40 ex-DoJ employees, while during the same period, Amazon took in 61 and Microsoft 26 people formerly working for the department. On the other side of the “door” are at least 41 DoJ employees who used to have notable roles in Big Tech corporations. AFF President Tom Jones says that while people moving from government agencies to various industries can be completely innocuous and driven by purely professional reasons, the same doesn’t apply when ideology is involved. And according to Jones, who…Big Tech companies are scooping up former DOJ-employees as antitrust fight continues
Judges and Magistrates in Peru and Mexico Have ChatGPT Fever
Juan David Gutiérrez is an associate professor at Universidad del Rosario (Colombia) where researches and teaches on public policy and artificial intelligence. Shutterstock In the last week of March, a judge in Peru and a magistrate in Mexico claimed that they used OpenAI’s ChatGPT to motivate a second instance ruling and to illustrate their arguments in a court hearing, respectively. Peruvian and Mexican news reports framed the use of ChatGPT in judicial proceedings as a positive innovation and did not raise concerns about how the chatbot was used. The Peruvian judge and the Mexican magistrate are not the first judicial officials in Latin America who have turned to ChatGPT to draft and/or motivate part of their decisions. In February, I reported about a judge and a magistrate in Colombia that used ChatGPT to draft judicial decisions (Maia Levy Daniel also reported on the cases in Tech Policy Press). Moreover, at the beginning of March, five of the ten Court of Appeals Judges that participated in the process to fill one of the vacancies of the Supreme Court of Chile discussed the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the judiciary. One of them even referred to the case of the Colombian judge who transcribed four prompts and answers from ChatGPT to motivate his ruling. The new cases in Peru and Mexico demonstrate why the judges should have taken greater care when using large language models (LLMs) in their work. Peruvian judge uses ChatGPT to decide how to do mathematical calculations In…Judges and Magistrates in Peru and Mexico Have ChatGPT Fever
Generative AI and Copyright Policy From the Creator-User’s Perspective
Derek Slater is a founding partner of Proteus Strategies, a boutique tech policy strategy and advocacy firm. He has worked actively in online media and copyright policy issues for over two decades. Shutterstock Over the last year, generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools have become increasingly accessible to people, allowing people to create different types of media in new ways. It’s also catalyzed new debates about the future of creativity and copyright. Some artists and content creators worry that these tools will not only generate works that threaten their livelihoods, but also that they were developed in ways that unfairly exploit their original works. The debate thus tends to take on a frame familiar to discussions of copyright and digital technology for the last several decades – it pits artists and content creators versus technology developers. That frame is far too limited. After all, copyright’s purpose is to promote creativity and knowledge sharing for the public’s benefit, which demands a consideration of technology’s users as well. More specifically, many artists and content creators are users and beneficiaries of these tools, and the way these tools are regulated will impact them, too. The fact that these creator-users have interests at stake too doesn’t dictate a specific policy outcome in all cases, and, indeed, the umbrella term “generative AI” hides that there are a wide variety of tools and uses. But their interests can and should inform how we think about copyright policy in this context, and that’s what I elaborate on below….Generative AI and Copyright Policy From the Creator-User’s Perspective
Regulatory Capture Breaks Tech Here’s How
An example of tings that are incredibly upsetting, but only surprising because of how normal they have became. How tech does regulatory capture My “favorite” example of horrible regulatory capture is from 2019, when Dow Chemical – working through the West Virginia Manufacturers Association – convinced the state of West Virginia to relax the limits on how much toxic runoff from chemical processing could be present in the state’s drinking water. Dow argued that the national safe levels reflected a different kind of person from the typical West Virginian. Specifically, Dow argued, the people of West Virginia were much fatter than other Americans, so their bodies could absorb more poison without sickening. And besides, Dow concluded, West Virginians drink beer, not water, so poisoning their drinking water wouldn’t affect them:Cory Doctorow, April 18, 2023, pluralistic.net The post Regulatory Capture Breaks Tech Here’s How appeared first on Mason Pelt.Regulatory Capture Breaks Tech Here’s How
Ice-T Has A Podcasts Motivational Podcast
On iHeart Radio Ice-T has a daily podcast of short motivational quotes with a huge amount of his personality and persona. Honestly it’s freaking incredible. The post Ice-T Has A Podcasts Motivational Podcast appeared first on Mason Pelt.Ice-T Has A Podcasts Motivational Podcast
Taylor Swift Cares About Unregistered Securities
Adam Moskowitz a lawyer leading several class action lawsuits against celebrities who promoted FTX including Shaq & Tom Brady, said Taylor Swift was one of few celebrities doing due diligence on FTX’s reputation. Taylor Swift did her homework on FTX, dodged a bullet, says lawyer suing Tom Brady, Shaq Moskowitz is seeking $5 billion in the lawsuit, he said during an episode of The Scoop podcast with Frank Chaparro. He claims the exchange’s celebrity boosters didn’t do their due diligence to check whether they may be breaking the law before cutting TV and digital ads for FTX. Stephanie Murray and Frank Chaparro, April 18, 2023, theblock.co The post Taylor Swift Cares About Unregistered Securities appeared first on Mason Pelt.Taylor Swift Cares About Unregistered Securities