Posts

Disney abc

ABC And Disney Sues FCC Over Alleged First Amendment Violations 

/in , /by

The ABC network has sued the Federal Communications Commission in federal court this week. ABC and its corporate parent, The Walt Disney Company, are alleging major First Amendment infractions, arguing that the Trump administration has violated their free speech rights by launching investigations and challenging the network’s broadcast licenses in retaliation for its news coverage, late-night satire, and views on talk shows, according to reports.  

ABC and Disney allege that the FCC is working to appease President Trump due to the fact that he has repeatedly called out the network to be stripped of its licenses because of material that he viewed as unfavorable to himself and his administration. 

Embed from Getty Images

“Government censorship is deeply un-American,” the lawsuit begins. 

Within the suit itself are Trump’s social media posts which condemn ABC’s news coverage, talk show The View, and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, who has often gone back and forth with the president. 

The lawsuit continues to point out that the government “may not use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”

“The case concerns the Administration’s sustained effort to do just that. The Administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts.”

ABC and Disney together own eight local TV stations, and among them are stations in six of the United States’ largest markets which contribute significantly to ABC’s bottom line, NPR reports. 

These shows require federal licenses because they rely on the public airwaves, but the FCC forces all eight of them to undergo early scrutiny within the renewal process, years ahead of schedule. 

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr stated in an interview with NPR this week that Disney and ABC were “jumping the gun,” because the agency has not made any decision about whether to renew the licenses. 

Embed from Getty Images

“Disney seems a little jumpy right now. Disney has chosen to go to court to try to block the FCC from moving forward with respect to at least some of the procedural options that are in front of the agency. But from our perspective, we’re going to continue to follow the facts and the law wherever they may lead. Perhaps Disney is concerned or worries about how the record is developing,” Carr said. 

“Ultimately, they’re going to get a fair shake before the agency.”

This lawsuit and the FCC’s decision is being regarded as unprecedented. Traditionally, the commission has acted with the president party holding three seats and the opposing party with two. However, before Trump took office for his second term, he publicly stated that he saw the FCC as an extension of the executive branch. 

Carr stated that he makes sure broadcasters operate in the public interest without violating Trump’s executive order regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion. He also has been vocal over his support of Trump’s views and criticisms of ABC, Kimmel, The View, and the network’s journalists in general. 

When Trump called for Kimmel to be pulled off the air, Carr said that ABC and Disney could “do this the easy way or the hard way.” The host was suspended and returned to air days later after public backlash and calls of First Amendment violations. 

With Trump consistently speaking out against ABC, The View, Kimmel, and its journalists, as the parent company Disney has decided to speak out against the president’s attempts to take over the programs. 

“We’re very principled on this,” Disney CEO Josh D’Amaro told CNBC.

“We’re going to stand up to what we believe is journalistic integrity, and we’re not going to be told how to run that side of our business.”  

harvard

Harvard Sues Trump Administration as 100+ University Leaders Condemn Federal Overreach

/in /by

Harvard University’s lawsuit against the Trump administration marks the beginning of an intense legal battle over issues of academic freedom, federal oversight, and the future of American higher education. The high-stakes dispute is expected to continue for years and may ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.

The prestigious institution has accused the administration of unlawfully freezing federal funds as part of a broader effort to pressure universities into complying with politically motivated demands.

In March, Harvard first received notice that it was under federal investigation for allegedly failing to “curb or combat” antisemitism on campus. Shortly afterward, the Trump administration sent over a list of demands and ordered immediate cooperation from Harvard in exchange for its continued financial relationship with the federal government.

Similar demands were sent to Columbia University, which made changes to meet the demands, conceding to the administration. Harvard’s public rebuke led the administration to freeze $2.2 billion in funding, followed by threats to rescind Harvard’s tax-exempt status and block the school’s ability to host international students.

Harvard’s lawsuit, filed in Boston federal court, challenges the administration’s claim that withholding funds is necessary to combat antisemitism.

“The Government has not—and cannot—identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation.”

Harvard asserts that the administration’s moves threaten the university’s academic independence and constitutional rights, characterizing them as part of a “pressure campaign” designed to exert control over the university.

Embed from Getty Images

The demands included ending diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, banning masks at protests, shifting to merit-based hiring, and diminishing faculty power deemed “more committed to activism than scholarship.”

Harvard President Alan Garber described these demands as “unprecedented,” emphasizing that the university “will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”

“The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League and Harvard’s chapter of the Hillel student organization, have criticized the administration’s heavy-handed approach.

“Shuttering apolitical, life-saving research; targeting the university’s tax-exempt status; and threatening all student visas…is neither focused nor measured, and stands to substantially harm the very Jewish students and scholars it purports to protect,” the Hillel student organization posted on social media.

This lawsuit represents more than a financial issue; Garber argues the administration’s actions place the “standing of American higher education” at stake. Garber joined over 100 university leaders and presidents, including those from Princeton, Penn, Brown, MIT, Cornell and Tufts, in signing a statement condemning the “unprecedented government overreach and political interference” endangering academic institutions.

“The price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society. On behalf of our current and future students and all who work at and benefit from our institutions, we call for constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the administration’s actions on CNBC. She emphasized that the federal government’s goal was to ensure campus safety and promote “viewpoint diversity,” a point that Harvard contests as masking political motivations.

Embed from Getty Images

“I made it very clear that these are not First Amendment infractions. This is civil rights. This is making sure that students on all campuses can come and learn and be safe…and that is why we have had these funds either withheld or frozen during this period of time of negotiation.”

Harvard’s substantial $53 billion endowment, primarily earmarked for specific uses like financial aid and faculty support, may temporarily offset federal cuts. However, the university warns that sustained funding disruptions could severely impact its research and educational programs, ultimately forcing Harvard to reduce its graduate admissions and research staff significantly.

Additionally, federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health, which provided $488 million of Harvard’s $686 million research budget for fiscal year 2024, have begun withdrawing funds from universities maintaining diversity programs. Garber warned that such sweeping cuts would significantly delay critical research in medicine, public health, and technology, harming patients and weakening America’s global standing in innovation.

The lawsuit asserts that the financial freeze’s impact extends beyond Harvard’s campus, potentially slowing job creation, limiting intellectual property development, and hindering scientific advances nationwide. As the lawsuit underscores, “Harvard is one of Massachusetts’ largest employers,” indicating that the funding freeze could ripple through the broader economy.

“The consequences of the government’s overreach will be severe and long-lasting,” Garber said in a statement, which also shared a link to the university’s complaint.

“Research that the government has put in jeopardy includes efforts to improve the prospects of children who survive cancer, to understand at the molecular level how cancer spreads throughout the body, to predict the spread of infectious disease outbreaks, and to ease the pain of soldiers wounded on the battlefield. As opportunities to reduce the risk of multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease are on the horizon, the government is slamming on the brakes. The victims will be future patients and their loved ones who will suffer the heartbreak of illnesses that might have been prevented or treated more effectively. Indiscriminately slashing medical, scientific, and technological research undermines the nation’s ability to save American lives, foster American success, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation.”

tiktok

TikTok Creators File Lawsuit Challenging Montana Ban

/in , /by

A group of TikTok creators in Montana have filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s new ban of the app, arguing that the law signed by Governor Greg Gianforte violates their First Amendment rights.

The ban signed by Gov. Gianforte on Wednesday is the first state-level ban of the social media platform. The complaint was filed just hours later in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana Wednesday evening.

The lawsuit asserts that TikTok is comparable to other forms of media, which the state does not have the authority to keep Montanans from accessing and contributing to.

“Montana can no more ban its residents from viewing or posting to TikTok than it could ban the Wall Street Journal because of who owns it or the ideas it publishes.”

The group of creators stated that the new ban, set to take effect in January 2024, goes far beyond restrictions already in place in Montana and other states.

Other states have prohibited the use of TikTok on government devices, citing a potential threat to national security because of TikTok’s ties to China via its parent company ByteDance. The Montana ban extends to personal devices, making it illegal for TikTok to operate the app and for the Apple and Google app stores to offer it for download within state lines.

According to the law, TikTok could be fined $10,000 for each violation of the ban, plus another $10,000 for each day the infraction persists. Google and Apple may face the same fines.

Embed from Getty Images

A spokesperson for Gov. Gianforte said in a statement that the Governor’s decision was motivated by wanting to protect “Montanans’ personal and private data being harvested by the Chinese Communist party.”

“While the Chinese Communist Party may try to hide their nefarious spying and collection of individuals’ personal, private, sensitive information under the banner of our First Amendment, the governor has an obligation to protect Montanans and their individual privacy right, as guaranteed by the Montana Constitution, from the Chinese Communist Party’s serious, grave threats.”

TikTok’s CEO, Shou Zi Chew, has stated that the Chinese government has never asked TikTok for its data on users in the U.S. There has also been no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Emily Flower, a spokeswoman for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, released a statement saying that the office expects a legal challenge but is “fully prepared to defend the law.”

Emilee Cantrell, another spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s office, told The New York Times that the state would enforce the ban through “geo-fencing,” which is “already in use across the gaming industry.”

“A basic internet search will show you companies that provide geolocation compliance. If companies do not comply with the ban, the agency will investigate and hold offending entities accountable in accordance with the law.”

Embed from Getty Images

In addition to citing the First Amendment, the lawsuit argues that Montana’s ban violates the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving TikTok users of other rights without due process.

It also asserts that the new law violates federal authority to set foreign policy and regulate interstate commerce, undermining the federal government’s powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The American Civil Liberties Union described the ban as “unconstitutional.” Ramya Krishnan, a lawyer at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told The New York Times that to justify a ban and have it hold up to legal scrutiny, the state would have to demonstrate its security concerns are real.

“Many have hypothesized that China might demand that ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, turn over Americans’ data or use TikTok to push disinformation in some way, but neither Montana nor the U.S. government has pointed to any evidence that China is actually doing this. That’s a problem because speculative harms can’t justify a total ban on a communications platform, particularly one that’s used by hundreds of thousands of Montanans daily.”

TikTok told Reuters that the new measure “infringes on the First Amendment rights of the people of Montana by unlawfully banning TikTok.”

“We want to reassure Montanans that they can continue using TikTok to express themselves, earn a living and find community as we continue working to defend the rights of our users inside and outside of Montana.”

The five plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit include a former Marine sergeant, a rancher, a swimwear business, and an exercise influencer.

books

Texas County Considers Closing Its Libraries after Federal Judge Orders Banned Books Returned to Shelves

/in , /by

A federal judge ordered a rural Texas county to return 12 banned books back to library shelves, and now the county is considering closing its libraries altogether.

The list of banned books included “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents” by Isabel Wilkerson, “They Called Themselves the K.K.K.: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group” by Susan Campbell Bartoletti and “Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen” by Jazz Jennings.

Seven local residents sued county officials for removing the books, citing their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Federal Judge Robert Pitman ruled that the Llano County Library System had to reinstate the books into circulation at its three library branches.

A meeting agenda for the Commissioners Court of Llano County shows plans for a discussion to “continue or cease operations of the current physical Llano County library system pending further guidance from the Federal Courts.” The meeting is set for Thursday.

The agenda also lists discussions “regarding the continued employment and/or status of the Llano County Library System employees and the feasibility of the use of the library premises by the public.”

Leila Green Little, one of the residents suing the county, emailed supporters to attend the meeting and voice their concerns.

“We may not get another opportunity to save our library system and, more importantly, the public servants who work there.”

Embed from Getty Images

According to the lawsuit, in 2021, county officials allegedly removed library board members and replaced them with new members who would review the content of all library books. Several books were removed from libraries, and access to an e-book service was revoked shortly after.

In his decision, Judge Pitman stated, “The First Amendment prohibits the removal of books from libraries based on either viewpoint or content discrimination” and gave the library system 24 hours to return the books to their shelves.

In a statement to CNN, Ellen Leonida, the attorney representing the seven residents, underscored the extreme measure the county was considering.

“It appears that the defendants would rather shut down the Library System entirely — depriving thousands of Llano County residents of access to books, learning resources, and meeting space — than make the banned books available to residents who want to read them.”

There is a growing movement for the censorship of books in grade schools, universities and public libraries. According to CNN, books that tell the stories of Black and LGBTQ people or by authors in those communities were among the ten most challenged titles in 2021. The trend continued the following year.

Embed from Getty Images

The American Library Association reported that, in the two decades since it began tracking book censorship, the number of attempts to ban books had reached an all-time high in 2022 at 1,269 total demands.

“The unparalleled number of reported book challenges in 2022 nearly doubles the 729 challenges reported in 2021. A record 2,571 unique titles were targeted for censorship, a 38% increase from the 1,858 unique titles targeted for censorship in 2021. Of those titles, the vast majority were written by or about members of the LGBTQIA+ community and people of color. Of the reported book challenges, 58% targeted books and materials in school libraries, classroom libraries or school curricula; 41% of book challenges targeted materials in public libraries.”

In a press release, Deborah Caldwelll-Stone, director of ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, stated, “Overwhelmingly, we’re seeing these challenges come from organized censorship groups that target local library board meetings to demand removal of a long list of books they share on social media.”

“Their aim is to suppress the voices of those traditionally excluded from our nation’s conversations, such as people in the LGBTQIA+ community or people of color. Each attempt to ban a book by one of these groups represents a direct attack on every person’s constitutionally protected right to freely choose what books to read and what ideas to explore. The choice of what to read must be left to the reader or, in the case of children, to parents. That choice does not belong to self-appointed book police.”

Wooden Judges Gavel

Federal Judge Rules Voice Of America Executive Violated Journalists First Amendment Rights

/in , /by

A federal judge ruled this Friday that the chief executive of the agency that oversees Voice of America must stop interfering and investigating with the journalists who are employed there. US District Judge Beryl Howell released a 76-page ruling which found that the CEO of the US Agency Global Media, Michael Pack, and his team violated the First Amendment rights of its journalists. 

Judge Howell also ruled that Pack and his team “showed an extensive pattern of penalizing those Global Media and network employees whom defendants regard as insufficiently supportive of President Trump.” The ruling means that Pack and others working for him won’t be able to do anything that could curb Voice Of America’s (VOA) editorial independence.

This includes “taking personal actions against journalists or editors, attempting to influence content by communicating with individual journalists or editors, and investigating purported breaches of journalistic ethics,” according to the ruling. 

Embed from Getty Images

The initial lawsuit was filed by five senior executives at the US Agency Global Media (USAGM) who Pack fired/suspended back in August. The senior executives alleged that Pack and other top employees consistently tried to interfere with their work because it didn’t align with the political interests of President Donald Trump. 

“Defendants’ extensive pattern of penalizing those USAGM and network employees whom defendants regard as insufficiently supportive of President Trump has resulted in the termination, discipline, and investigation of multiple employees and journalists,” Judge Howell wrote in her ruling.

Acting VOA Director Elez Bibera recently spoke with the press about how important it is for the journalism industry in general to maintain its First Amendment rights, but especially VOA which has acted as a sacred American media institution for decades. 

Embed from Getty Images

“83% of VOA’s audience finds our journalism trustworthy. There are few, if any, media organizations that can claim such trust. Our journalists continue to uphold VOA’s traditions of providing accurate, objective and comprehensive reporting.”

Judge Howell described Pack and his co-defendants in her ruling as “individuals with no discernible journalism or broadcasting experience.” She also added that Pack has tried to interfere in the agency’s “newsrooms in violation of their eighty-year practice, enshrined in law, of journalistic autonomy.” 

The VOA was initially created in 1942 to combat Nazi propaganda during WWII. It’s one of many US government funded broadcast outlets that’s available to listeners all over the world. Back in July, a bipartisan group of senators made a pledge to investigate USAGM and their funding after Pack began his mass firings. 

Fast forward to October when the State Department’s inspector general and the US Office of Special Counsel both opened up inquiries about alleged misconduct, abuse of authority, and gross mismanagement within the Agency, according to the lawyers representing the five senior executives.

2020 Olympics

Athlete Protests Banned At 2020 Olympic Games, Sparking Outrage

/in , /by

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is finding itself in the midst of an ongoing debate within the sports industry: professional athletes expressing their right to protest against certain societal injustices through kneeling or raising a fist in the air. The IOC’s solution is a ban on any and all protests from occuring at the 2020 Tokyo Games.

The Olympics are no stranger to controversial protests, at the 1968 Mexico City Games, African-American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos were awarded both bronze and gold medals, and while on the winner’s podiums they proceeded to take off their shoes and raise a fist wearing a black leather glove in the air in solidarity with the Black Panther movement. The podium protest ended in the IOC expelling both Smith and Carlos and stripping them of their awards, however, since then they have been inducted into the Olympic Hall of Fame, which makes the IOC’s recent protest ban even more confusing. 

The IOC’s new guidelines state that displaying any sort of political messaging, making gestures of a political nature, or refusal to follow the ceremony’s predetermined/traditional protocol will result in serious consequences, as all of those actions are a part of the official ban.

“When an individual makes their grievances, however legitimate, more important than the feelings of their competitors and the competition itself, the unity and harmony as well as the celebration of sport and human accomplishment are diminished. Failure to abide by the guidelines will result in the athlete’s action being evaluated by their respective National Olympic Committee, International Federation, and the IOC, and disciplinary action will be taken on a case-by-case basis as necessary,” according to the guidelines. 

Embed from Getty Images

Tommie Smith and John Carlos

Immediately after the news was released, fans, athletes, and those in the media were quick to call out the IOC’s hypocrisy within the new guidelines, stating that while the podiums and playing fields need to remain politically neutral, the IOC as an organization itself is able to take any political bias it pleases. Why are countries able to come and boast their national anthems and flags, but not protest about the injustices actually occurring within those countries, especially during the most popular televised sport events in history? Nancy Armour, a politics writer for USA Today, discussed this issue in an op-ed last Thursday (1/9/20) where she encapsulated the opposing view:

“The truth is, it’s not the mixing of politics and sports that [IOC president Thomas] Bach and the IOC don’t like. It’s just fine for Bach to lobby for the issues he finds important. Or to foster good relationships with world leaders who might someday bankrupt their economies in exchange for sparkling venues, five-star hotels, and Olympic traffic lanes that allow IOC members to avoid the general populace on the roads and in the airports. But God forbid athletes should stay silent about racism, homophobia, inequality, or murderous regimes. You know, issues that have a direct effect on their lives.”

Embed from Getty Images

Armour’s point also called on hundreds of social media users who found themselves just as upset about the new guidelines. One of the guaranteed perks of living in a free country is having the right to speak up against/for any issue that you want because that’s something you earn as an individual with freedom. When major organizations protect the rights of big businesses and those in power, it begs the question how much “freedom” is too much freedom for average civilians in the eyes of the government. Is “freedom of speech” more of a formality than an actual law that all Americans, and any other free citizen around the world, are just supposed to accept? 

It also has created a narrative surrounding the rights of professional athletes. Athletes are normally just viewed as entertainers who serve the purpose of showing their skills on the field, and bringing home trophies for off the field. Their voices don’t matter, their political views, opinions etc. none of it actually matters as long as they can play the game. 

However, the world is a place of constant debate, disagreement, and bigotry. When those with monumental platforms speak up against injustices, it opens up a conversation amongst everybody on any level of power. No matter what “side” they’re on, the fact that someone with such a huge following is strictly meant to play a game and remain silent, is archaic in itself. Especially when the athletes themselves are minorities, from the outside, restrictive guidelines such as these show that the IOC is only concerned with minority rights when it’s regarding their presence in the Olympic Games, and the ratings they can bring in. 

Diallo Brooks, the director of People for the American Way, a political advocacy group, created a Twitter thread this past week that opened up an entire conversation about the presence of minority bodies versus minority voices in sporting events. 

“Young men/women of color who play sports are more than just entertainers, and they should not be penalized for speaking out peacefully against injustice. They must be allowed to have a voice. And when their voices are threatened, we have to raise our own and stand with them.”