Freedom of Speech and Expression

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares89 Views

    ¿Son legales los selfis electorales? Depende de dónde vivas

    by

    Según un informe reciente, Nueva York es uno de los estados donde está prohibido hacerse selfis en las urnas. Los californianos sí pueden.Puede que tu pelo esté perfecto. Puede que sientas el espíritu de la democracia corriendo por tus venas. Pero deberías pensártelo dos veces antes de publicar un selfi con tu papeleta marcada el día de las elecciones o antes.Según un informe reciente de la organización sin fines de lucro Lawyers for Good Government, los selfis con la papeleta de voto están prohibidos en 13 estados. Entre ellos se encuentra Nueva York, cuya fiscala general, Letitia James, recordó la semana pasada a los votantes que no se hicieran selfis con las papeletas marcadas.Siete estados permiten hacerse selfis con los votos por correo, pero no en los recintos de votación, y nueve tienen leyes poco claras, dijo el informe.¿Por qué no podemos simplemente sonreír a la cámara, como pueden hacer sin problemas los votantes de Alabama, California y otros 23 estados? La respuesta tiene su origen en antiguos debates sobre la inviolabilidad de la cabina de votación y la protección de la expresión política.“Para algunas personas puede parecer una estupidez, como que solo quiero hacerme un selfi”, dijo Anthony Michael Kreis, profesor de derecho constitucional en la Universidad Estatal de Georgia. “Pero es un asunto serio”.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 75 Shares93 Views

      in Elections

      China’s Latest Security Target: Halloween Partygoers

      by

      Last year, the Shanghai government said Halloween celebrations were a sign of “cultural tolerance.” This year, the police rounded up people in costume.Social media videos verified by The New York Times showed police in Shanghai escorting away people dressed in costumes.The police escorted the Buddha down the street, one officer steering him with both hands. They hurried a giant poop emoji out of a cheering dance circle in a public park. They also pounced on Donald J. Trump with a bandaged ear, and pushed a Kim Kardashian look-alike, in a tight black dress and pearls, into a police van, while she turned and waved to a crowd of onlookers.The authorities in Shanghai were on high alert this past weekend, against a pressing threat: Halloween.Officials there clamped down on Halloween celebrations this year, after many young people turned last year’s festivities into a rare public outlet for political or social criticism. People had poured into the streets dressed up as Covid testing workers, to mock the three years of lockdowns they had just endured; they plastered themselves in job advertisements, amid a weak employment market; they cross-dressed, seizing the opportunity to express L.G.B.T.Q. identities without being stigmatized.At the time, many on Chinese social media celebrated the revelries as a joyous form of collective therapy. The Shanghai government even issued a news release saying the celebrations were proof of the city’s “cultural tolerance” and the “wisdom of its urban managers.”“There is an absence of festivals in China solely dedicated to the simple pleasures of having fun,” it said. “Halloween has filled the void.”But the authorities have grown increasingly restrictive toward personal expression in recent years, including seemingly apolitical expression. They are also wary of impromptu crowds, especially after the anti-lockdown protests in 2022. And so, for all their praise last year, this year they seemed determined to prevent a repeat.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares98 Views

      in Elections

      Musk Wins Appeal Over Tweet He Had to Delete About Union Push

      by

      The Fifth Circuit court ruled that the 2018 post was protected speech. It also vacated an order to reinstate a pro-union Tesla worker who was fired.A federal appeals court handed Elon Musk a victory in a freedom-of-speech case on Friday by overturning an earlier ruling in a dispute between the billionaire and the National Labor Relations Board.In March last year, three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans affirmed the board’s finding that Tesla illegally fired an employee involved in union organizing, and that Mr. Musk, Tesla’s chief executive, had illegally threatened workers’ stock options in a post on Twitter if they chose to unionize. The opinion allowed the labor board to enforce its 2021 order requiring Tesla to reinstate, with back pay, the employee, Richard Ortiz, and Mr. Musk to delete the 2018 post.Mr. Musk challenged the panel’s ruling, and on Friday the full court ruled, 9 to 8, that the labor board had improperly ordered him to delete the social media post. “The agency exceeded its authority,” the 11-page ruling said. “We hold that Musk’s tweets are constitutionally protected speech.”“Deleting the speech of private citizens on topics of public concern is not a remedy traditionally countenanced by American law,” the ruling added.The court sent the matter of Mr. Ortiz’s firing back to the labor board to review, saying the board had failed “to consider the fact that the actual decision maker in Ortiz’s firing harbored no anti-union animus.”The judges did not rule on whether Mr. Musk’s online comment constituted a National Labor Relations Act violation for illegally threatening workers. (The board has held that it did.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Artist Sues Town for Canceling Residency Over Her Views on Gaza War

      by

      The American Civil Liberties Union has sued Vail, Colo., on behalf of a Native American artist who painted a work entitled “G is for Genocide.”The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado has sued the town of Vail on behalf of a Native American artist, claiming it violated her First Amendment rights when it abruptly canceled an artist residency she had been offered after she posted to social media a painting about her views on the war in Gaza.The painting depicted a woman wearing a Palestinian kaffiyeh and a feather, and it was entitled “G is for Genocide.” In March, the artist, Danielle SeeWalker, shared a photo of it on Instagram with the caption, “Some days, I have overwhelming grief + guilt for walking around privileged while people in Gaza are suffering for no reason.”Two month later, town officials told SeeWalker, 41, that her residency through Vail’s Art in Public Places program, which was scheduled to last 10 days in June while she completed a mural in the town, had been terminated because the painting had angered some in the local Jewish community, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court last week.The fallout from SeeWalker’s painting is the latest in a string of incidents involving criticism of Israel that have roiled the art world, raising questions over freedom of speech among artists, writers, museum employees, actors and others who oppose Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza.The war started with Hamas’s attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 people. Since then, Israeli military operations have killed more than 42,000 people in Gaza, many of them women and children, local health authorities say. Israel vehemently denies that its military has targeted civilians and claims Hamas fighters purposely hide among noncombatants.A spokeswoman for Vail, a town more than 90 miles west of Denver best known for its ski resorts, declined to comment about the lawsuit on Tuesday.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      California Gov. Newsom Signs Laws Regulating Election A.I. ‘Deepfakes’

      by

      The state joins dozens of others in regulating the A.I. fakery in ways that could impact this year’s presidential race.California will now require social media companies to moderate the spread of election-related impersonations powered by artificial intelligence, known as “deepfakes,” after Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed three new laws on the subject Tuesday.The three laws, including a first-of-its kind law that imposes a new requirement on social media platforms, largely deal with banning or labeling the deepfakes. Only one of the laws will take effect in time to affect the 2024 presidential election, but the trio could offer a road map for regulators across the country who are attempting to slow the spread of the manipulative content powered by artificial intelligence.The laws are expected to face legal challenges from social media companies or groups focusing on free speech rights.Deepfakes use A.I. tools to create lifelike images, videos or audio clips resembling actual people. Though the technology has been used to create jokes and artwork, it has also been widely adopted to supercharge scams, create non-consensual pornography and disseminate political misinformation.Elon Musk, the owner of X, has posted a deepfake to his account this year that would have run afoul of the new laws, experts said. In one video viewed millions of times, Mr. Musk posted fake audio of Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, calling herself the “ultimate diversity hire.”Election-Related ‘Deepfake’ LawsSeveral states have adopted or seem poised to adopt laws regulating “deepfakes” around elections. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Telegram’s Top Executive Pavel Durov Reportedly Detained in France

      by

      The founder of Telegram, an app with more than 900 million users, was taken into custody by the authorities, French media reported.The French authorities on Saturday detained Pavel Durov, the top executive of the online communications platform Telegram, on charges related to the spread of illicit material on the service, according to French news reports.Mr. Durov, 39, a Russian-born entrepreneur, was reportedly arrested at Le Bourget Airport near Paris after landing from Azerbaijan. His detention could not immediately be confirmed.The Russian Embassy in France said in a statement on Sunday that it had asked the French authorities for clarification on news of the arrest.Representatives of the French police and Interior Ministry declined to comment and redirected questions to the Paris prosecutor’s office. The Paris prosecutor’s office, citing an open investigation, also declined to comment.Telegram did not respond to requests for comment.In an interview on Telegram, George Lobushkin, a former press secretary for Mr. Durov who remains close to him, wrote, “This is a monstrous attack on freedom of speech worldwide.”Telegram, with more than 900 million users, has long been on the radar of law enforcement agencies around the world because terrorist organizations, drug runners, weapons dealers and far-right extremist groups have used it for communicating, recruiting and organizing.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How Section 230 Is Being Used Against Tech Giants Like Meta

      by

      A Massachusetts professor has filed a lawsuit against Meta using a novel interpretation of Section 230, a law known primarily for shielding social media companies from liability.Facebook, X, YouTube and other social media platforms rely on a 1996 law to insulate themselves from legal liability for user posts. The protection from this law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, is so significant that it has allowed tech companies to flourish.But what if the same law could be used to rein in the power of those social media giants?That idea is at the heart of a lawsuit filed in May against Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The plaintiff in the suit has asked a federal court to declare that a little-used part of Section 230 makes it permissible for him to release his own software that lets users automatically unfollow everyone on Facebook.The lawsuit, filed by Ethan Zuckerman, a public policy professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is the first to use Section 230 against a tech giant in this way, his lawyers said. It is an unusual legal maneuver that could turn a law that typically protects companies like Meta on its head. And if Mr. Zuckerman succeeds, it could mean more power for consumers to control what they see online.“I see and appreciate the elegance of trying to use a piece of law that has made user generated content possible, to now give users more control over those experiences and services,” he said.Section 230, introduced in the internet’s early days, protects companies from liability related to posts made by users on their sites, making it nearly impossible to sue tech companies over defamatory speech or extremist content.Mr. Zuckerman has focused on a part of Section 230 that spells out protection for blocking objectionable material online. In 2021, after a developer released software to purge users’ Facebook feeds of everyone they follow, Facebook threatened to shut it down. But Section 230 says it is possible to restrict access to obscene, excessively violent and other problematic content. The language shields companies from liability if they censor disturbing content, but lawyers now say it could also be used to justify scrubbing any content users don’t want to see.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Scofflaws and Other Hazards on the Roads

      by

      More from our inbox:Neo-Nazis in Nashville and the Speech QuestionVance vs. the Rule of LawA Ban on Masks? Stella Kalinina for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Traffic Stops Fell in Pandemic, and Didn’t Return” (The Upshot, front page, Aug. 1):Thank you for highlighting the public health crisis that is the rise in traffic deaths across the United States. One point not made is the burden on our children. Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death of children, second to firearms. In my city, Philadelphia, five children, on average, are hit by a car every week.As a pediatric resident physician, I see the devastating outcomes of these statistics in the emergency room and intensive care unit. I advise children to wear a seatbelt, look both ways before crossing a road and wear a helmet when cycling. But people are getting killed even when they do everything right.Plastic bollards separating a designated bike lane don’t work when drivers are willing to barrel over them.We need an evidence-based approach to this public health crisis. Safe road design saves lives. We need to invest in Vision Zero programs to fund structural changes, including speed cameras and physical barriers between cyclists and drivers. Cities need to invest in public transit systems.Culture change takes time. Structural change in the meantime is evidence-based and will work to make all Americans, including our children, safer.Allison NeesonPhiladelphiaTo the Editor:The degree to which American drivers have been ignoring traffic laws over the past several years is mind-blowing. Speeding on highways and parkways is out of control and makes driving an exercise in avoiding catastrophe. It seems as if every other car is drag racing or trying to set a new speed record.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ACLU Must Reinstate Employee Falsely Accused of Racist Language, Court Rules

      by

      The case put the legal group on the spot for taking positions on free speech and workers’ rights that seemed at odds with its mission.The American Civil Liberties Union lost a case about offensive speech and workers’ rights — over its own workplace.A judge ruled on Wednesday that the A.C.L.U. had illegally fired an employee, Kate Oh, from her job as senior policy counsel. The group had accused her of using language that was racist and that singled out people of color in the office.Michael A. Rosas, an administrative law judge, said that the A.C.L.U.’s accusation that she had targeted people of color “is not borne out by the facts.” He noted that her complaints were not about colleagues but superiors within the organization, and that she had also complained about white managers.Ms. Oh never uttered a racial slur or invoked race, court filings showed. She said that she considered herself a whistle-blower and advocate for other women in the office, drawing attention to an environment she said was rife with sexism and fear. Her frequent, sometimes intemperate, complaints irritated her bosses, she argued, so they retaliated by firing her.The case placed one of the nation’s leading defenders of workers’ rights under scrutiny for violating the very workplace protections it typically seeks to enforce.The judge ordered the A.C.L.U. to reinstate Ms. Oh, who was fired in May 2022, and to give her back pay.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More