US Censorship News

The US has taken down dozens of Iranian and Iran-linked news sites which it accuses of spreading disinformation.

The sites were replaced on Tuesday with notices saying they had been seized as part of a law enforcement action. They included Iran's state-run English-language propaganda channel, Press TV.

The US Department of Justice said in a statement that it had seized 33 websites used by the Iranian Islamic Radio and Television Union (IRTVU) and another three run by the Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia in Iraq in violation of US sanctions. The sites had been used by components of the Iranian government disguised as news organizations or media outlets to target the US with disinformation campaigns and malign influence operations, it alleged.

Several were back online within hours with new domain addresses.

Iran criticised the seizures and warned that they were not constructive for talks aimed at reviving a nuclear deal.

President Joe Biden has issued an executive order mandating a vast review of apps controlled by foreign adversaries in order to assess national security and privacy issues.

The executive order extends and replaces an earlier order by Donald Trump that only specifically targeted China's TikTok and WeChat.

Biden revoked that narrow order and expanded the scope of the analysis to include all foreign-based companies, which include many in the adult space.

According to the White House, Biden's Commerce Department was authorized to begin that review immediately.

The executive order's wording targets apps developed, manufactured or supplied by persons that are owned or controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign adversary, including the People's Republic of China, that may present an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and the American people.

It also directs the Department of Commerce, in consultation with other U.S. departments and agencies, to make recommendations to protect against harm from the sale, transfer of, or access to sensitive personal data, including personally identifiable information and genetic information to persons owned or controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of, foreign adversaries.

Last month, the Oversight Board upheld Facebook's suspension of former US President Donald Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts following his praise for people engaged in violence at the Capitol on January 6. But in doing so, the board criticized the open-ended nature of the suspension, stating that it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose the indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension. The board instructed us to review the decision and respond in a way that is clear and proportionate, and made a number of recommendations on how to improve our policies and processes.

We are today announcing new enforcement protocols to be applied in exceptional cases such as this, and we are confirming the time-bound penalty consistent with those protocols which we are applying to Mr. Trump's accounts. Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr. Trump's suspension, we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols. We are suspending his accounts for two years, effective from the date of the initial suspension on January 7 this year.

At the end of this period, we will look to experts to assess whether the risk to public safety has receded. We will evaluate external factors, including instances of violence, restrictions on peaceful assembly and other markers of civil unrest. If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to re-evaluate until that risk has receded.

44 US states have come out against Instagram's idea for version of the social networking site for under 13s.

In an open letter, the National Association of Attorneys General called on Facebook to abandon plans for an Instagram platform focused on children under the age of 13. The letter is signed by 44 different state-level attorneys generals. The attourneys said:

It appears that Facebook is not responding to a need, but instead creating one, as this platform appeals primarily to children who otherwise do not or would not have an Instagram account, the letter reads. The attorneys general urge Facebook to abandon its plans to launch this new platform.

While the letter has no formal legal power, it emphasizes the significant legal risk Facebook will face in undertaking the project. In the US, children under 13 are subject to enhanced legal protections under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (or COPPA), which places particularly stringent rules against data collection.

Facebook said it would not sell ads on any Instagram app targeted at young children but did not back off on its interest in developing the app.

Facebook's ban of Donald Trump has been upheld by Facebook's Oversight Board.

Though the board did criticise the permanent nature of the ban as beyond the scope of Facebook's normal penalties.  The board said the initial decision to permanently suspend Trump was indeterminate and standardless, and that the correct response should be consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform. Facebook must respond within six months, it said.

The former president was banned from both sites in January following the Capitol Hill riots.

Meanwhile Trump has launched a new website to update supporters with his thoughts. In a post published following the Facebook ruling, he claimed there had been fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election, and encouraged his supporters to never give up. What did the Board say?

The Oversight Board criticised Facebook for offloading the question of political censorship to the board. The Board argued that Facebook had essentially issued a vague, standardless penalty and then [referred] this case to the Board to resolve. It said doing so meant Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities - and sent the decision back to Facebook.

The Biden administration is considering using outside firms to track social media chatter by Americans online, an effort that would expand the government's ability to gather intelligence but could draw criticism over surveillance of US citizens.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is legally limited in how it can monitor citizens online without justification and is banned from activities like assuming false identities to gain access to private messaging apps used by extremist groups. Instead, federal authorities can only browse through unprotected information on social media sites like Twitter and Facebook and other open online platforms. A source familiar with the effort said it is not about decrypting data but rather using outside entities who can legally access these private groups to gather large amounts of information that could help DHS identify key narratives as they emerge.

The plan being discussed inside DHS, according to multiple sources, would, in effect, allow the department to circumvent those limits. The DHS has denied the claim saying it is not partnering with private firms to surveil suspected domestic terrorists online and it is blatantly false to suggest that the department is using outside firms to circumvent its legal limits.

However the DHS statement  said that the department has considered partnering with research firms who have more visibility in this space, though it has not done so to this point. If that ultimately happens, DHS could produce information that would likely be beneficial to both it and the FBI, which can't monitor US citizens in this way without first getting a warrant or having the pretext of an ongoing investigation.

US Senator Bill Hagerty proposes bill to make platforms with over 100 million users common carriers and so end their powers to censor speech on grounds of wrong think political opinion.

Hagerty's bill draws from a recommendation by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas , who said the censorship on Big Tech platforms could be ended if they were treated as common carriers.

In an article published by the Wall Street Journal, Hagerty argued that, like phone networks and trains, online platforms are essential to everyday goings-on, therefore, should be treated as common carriers, which are subject to special regulations, including a general requirement to serve all comers without discrimination.

The bill, called the 21st Century Free Speech Act , will apply to online platforms that have more than 100 million monthly active users. It would remove the protections online platforms enjoy under Section 230, which allows platforms to avoid liability for the content of their users.

For platforms to continue being family-friendly, some content moderation would be allowed. Online platforms would also have to make public their content moderation techniques. Additionally, users would have a private right action against tech corporations, so that they would be able to sue if they feel a company has unfairly censored them.

The Texas Senate has passed a measure that would prohibit large social media companies like Facebook and Twitter from censoring political and religious viewpoints of Texas citizens. The bill now awaits a vote in the Texas House.

Senate Bill 12 was introduced by State Senator Bryan Hughes. Titled Relating to the censorship of users' expressions by an interactive computer service , the bill would not only prohibit censorship, but would require social media companies to disclose their moderation policies, publish reports about any blocked content, and create a legal route for people to appeal any censoring or deplatforming decisions.

Senator Hughes announced the passage on Twitter:

I think we all have to acknowledge that social media companies are the new town square and a small group of people in San Francisco can't dictate free speech for the rest of us.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott is expected to sign the bill if it passes the House. Abbott gave his hearty approval of the bill from the beginning, appearing alongside Senator Hughes at a press conference in March to announce the legislation.

Previous editions of the American Library Association list have been dominated by complaints about books attempting to normalise gay or transgender relationships to children. This year marks a dramatic change and now most books have received complaints about racism issues and about divisive racial politics.

Top 10 Most Challenged Books of 2020

The American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom tracked 156 challenges to library, school, and university materials and services in 2020. Of the 273 books that were targeted, here are the most challenged, along with the reasons cited for censoring the books:

• George by Alex Gino
  Reasons: Challenged, banned, and restricted for LGBTQIA+ content, conflicting with a religious viewpoint, and not reflecting "the values of our community"

• Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You by Ibram X. Kendi and Jason Reynolds
  Reasons: Banned and challenged because of author's public statements, and because of claims that the book contains "selective storytelling incidents" and does not encompass racism against all people

• All American Boys by Jason Reynolds and Brendan Kiely
  Reasons: Banned and challenged for profanity, drug use, and alcoholism, and because it was thought to promote anti-police views, contain divisive topics, and be "too much of a sensitive matter right now"

• Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson
  Reasons: Banned, challenged, and restricted because it was thought to contain a political viewpoint and it was claimed to be biased against male students, and for the novel's inclusion of rape and profanity

• The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie
  Reasons: Banned and challenged for profanity, sexual references, and allegations of sexual misconduct by the author

• Something Happened in Our Town: A Child's Story About Racial Injustice by Marianne Celano, Marietta Collins, and Ann Hazzard, illustrated by Jennifer Zivoin
  Reasons: Challenged for "divisive language" and because it was thought to promote anti-police views

• To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
  Reasons: Banned and challenged for racial slurs and their negative effect on students, featuring a "white savior" character, and its perception of the Black experience

• Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
  Reasons: Banned and challenged for racial slurs and racist stereotypes, and their negative effect on students

• The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison
  Reasons: Banned and challenged because it was considered sexually explicit and depicts child sexual abuse

• The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas
  Reasons: Challenged for profanity, and it was thought to promote an anti-police message