Connect with us

Midwest

GOP AGs asks Supreme Court to peel back content moderation from Big Tech in landmark First Amendment case

Published

on

GOP AGs asks Supreme Court to peel back content moderation from Big Tech in landmark First Amendment case

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account!

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email, you are agreeing to Fox News Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

FIRST ON FOX – A group of 20 Republican states are weighing in on a Supreme Court legal battle that could sharply alter the landscape of Big Tech’s content moderation. 

Next month, the high court will hear a set of cases that question whether state laws that limit Big Tech companies’ ability to moderate content on their platforms curbs the companies’ First Amendment liberties.

Advertisement

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey – one of the Republican AGs leading the lawsuit against the Biden administration, alleging it engaged in a “vast censorship enterprise” – on Monday filed an amicus brief along with 19 of his colleagues in the cases, asking the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the laws meant to limit internet platform’s ability to moderate content. 

“If the Supreme Court lets social media companies silence speech, it will set a devastating anti-free speech precedent at a time when the First Amendment is under widespread attack,” Bailey told Fox News digital on Monday. 

JAN 6 RIOTERS, ABORTION, GUN RIGHTS: A LOOK AHEAD AT LANDMARK CASES SCOTUS WILL HEAR IN 2024

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Separate laws that passed in Florida and Texas and are now challenged in court would require large Big Tech companies like X, formerly Twitter, and Facebook to host third-party communications but prevent those businesses from blocking or removing users’ posts based on political viewpoints. 

Advertisement

A federal appeals court had ruled for the tech industry in the Florida case, saying as private entities, those companies were “engaged in constitutionally protected expressive activity when they moderate and curate the content that they disseminate on their platforms.” But the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of a similar law in Texas, creating a circuit split on the issue ripe for the nine justices to take up. 

The attorneys general argue in the friend-of-the-court brief that government giving Big Tech the ability to moderate or censor users’ content would be like giving cable or telephone companies permission to cut phone lines on speech at their discretion. The AGs note that under federal “must-carry requirements,” those companies are banned from subjugating any speech on their lines.

NYC PROFS SEE SUPREME COURT AS ‘ONLY HOPE’ IN FIGHT WITH ‘ANTISEMITIC’ TEACHERS UNION

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

SUPREME COURT APPEARS READY TO REEL IN ADMINISTRATIVE STATE IN LANDMARK CHALLENGE FROM EAST COAST FISHERMEN

Advertisement

“The Eleventh Circuit concluded social media companies could censor content because they have ‘historically exercised’ power to refuse transmission of disfavored ideas,” the AGs noted. 

“But telegraph companies have a much longer history of censorship. Social media is less than two decades old. Congress did not impose must-carry requirements on telegraphs until 1888, 50 years after their invention,” the AGs argue in their brief. 

“Yet it is well recognized today that those must-carry regulations were constitutional – even though this Court declared that telegraph companies are ‘not common carriers.’ History thus provides no basis for dismissing the striking similarities between social media companies and telegraph and telephones by dubbing social-media censorship ‘editorial judgment,’” they said.  

The U.S. Supreme Court (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)

“While the earlier laws applied to telegraphs and telephones, it is no different when the companies carrying other people’s speech are digital rather than analog,” they continued. 

Advertisement

“The States thus have a paramount interest in urging this Court to affirm that longstanding, historic authority of States to protect freedom of speech and enable representative government by prohibiting dominant communication networks from censoring,” they concluded. 

In addition to Missouri, attorneys general from Ohio, Alabama, Montana, Alaska, Nebraska, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Iowa, North Dakota, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Louisiana, South Carolina, Mississippi, Arizona, Virginia, South Dakota, Utah and Tennessee signed the amicus brief. 

The court will hear arguments in the cases, Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice LLC v. Paxton on Monday, Feb. 26. 

Read the full article from Here

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Midwest

Walz slams Trump admin for temporarily halting Medicaid funding to Minnesota: ‘Campaign of retribution’

Published

on

Walz slams Trump admin for temporarily halting Medicaid funding to Minnesota: ‘Campaign of retribution’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz accused the Trump administration of unleashing a “campaign of retribution” against his state after Vice President JD Vance announced a temporary pause in Medicaid funding there. 

Vance’s announcement was made after President Donald Trump railed against fraud in Minnesota on Tuesday evening in his State of the Union address. 

Vance said Wednesday that he is giving Walz 60 days to clean up how the state doles out funding, adding, “We are stopping the federal payments that will go to the state government until the state government takes its obligations seriously to stop the fraud that’s being perpetrated against the American taxpayer.” 

“This is a campaign of retribution. Trump is weaponizing the entirety of the federal government to punish blue states like Minnesota,” Walz, a Democrat, wrote in response on X. “These cuts will be devastating for veterans, families with young kids, folks with disabilities, and working people across our state.”

Advertisement

Vice President JD Vance, left, Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Dr. Mehmet Oz, center, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. (Tom Brenner/AP; Steve Karnowski/AP)

“This has nothing to do with fraud. The agents Trump allegedly sent to investigate fraud are shooting protesters and arresting children,” Walz added. “His DOJ is gutting the U.S. Attorney’s Office and crippling their ability to prosecute fraud. And every week Trump pardons another fraudster.” 

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment. 

The administration and Congress have zeroed in on rampant abuse of federal taxpayers’ funds since December 2025, when details of Minnesota’s fraud relating to social and welfare programs stretching back to the COVID-19 pandemic first came into the national spotlight. Investigators have since estimated the Minnesota scheme could top $9 billion.   

HEAVILY REDACTED AUDIT FINDS MINNESOTA MEDICAID HAD WIDESPREAD VULNERABILITIES

Advertisement

Gov. Tim Walz has 60 days to respond to a letter from Mehmet Oz, administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)

Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said Wednesday that the pause marks “the largest action against fraud that we’ve ever taken” at the federal agency, before launching into how the administration is deferring funds to the state.

“It’s going to be $259 million of deferred payments for Medicaid to Minnesota, which we’re announcing, as I speak, to Gov. Walz and his team,” Oz said. “That’s based on an audit of the last three months of 2025. Restated, a quarter billion dollars is not going to be paid this month to Minnesota for its Medicaid claims.”

Dr. Mehmet Oz speaks beside Vice President JD Vance during a news conference on efforts to combat fraud, in the Old Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus on Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2026. (Tom Brenner/AP)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

“We have notified the state and said that we will give them the money, but we’re going to hold it and only release it after they propose and act on a comprehensive corrective action plan to solve the problem,” Oz also said. “If Minnesota fails to clean up the systems, the state will rack up $1 billion of deferred payments this year.” 

Related Article

Minnesota remains front line in Vance's 'war on fraud'; Walz given 60 days 'to clean up the systems'

Read the full article from Here

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Detroit, MI

Terrion Arnold ‘maintains complete innocence’ in kidnapping, theft case

Published

on

Terrion Arnold ‘maintains complete innocence’ in kidnapping, theft case


I represent Mr. Terrion Arnold in connection with an incident that allegedly occurred on February 4, 2026, in Tampa, Florida, which resulted in the arrest of five individuals on serious felony charges.

To be clear, Mr. Arnold had no involvement whatsoever in the activities that led to those arrests. He did not participate in, nor was he present for, any conduct related to the alleged offenses. There is no evidence in police reports, text messages, or witness statements that implicates Mr. Arnold in any way.

In fact, after direct communication with the lead prosecutor, it has been confirmed that no charges have been filed against Mr. Arnold in connection with this matter.

Recent media coverage has referenced an Order issued by Circuit Judge J. Logan Murphy, which improperly suggests Mr. Arnold’s involvement in the incident. That same Order also incorrectly identifies Ms. Devalle as Mr. Arnold’s girlfriend. Both assertions are false, misleading, and entirely unsupported by the record.

Advertisement

Mr. Arnold categorically denies these unfounded claims and maintains his complete innocence. He was not involved in the crimes allegedly committed on February 4, 2026, in Tampa, Florida.

​We strongly urge members of the media to refrain from perpetuating inaccurate or speculative narratives. The facts are clear, and they do not support any claim of wrongdoing by Mr. Arnold.



Source link

Continue Reading

Milwaukee, WI

Sheriff’s Office backpedals on controversial facial recognition deal

Published

on

Sheriff’s Office backpedals on controversial facial recognition deal


play

  • The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office has decided against a contract for facial recognition technology.
  • Sheriff Denita Ball cited community concerns and the importance of public trust in the decision.
  • The move follows similar pushback that led the Milwaukee Police Department to pause its own pursuit of the technology.
  • Local officials and advocates have raised concerns about racial bias, surveillance, and civil rights violations.

The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office will not move forward on a potential deal to use facial recognition technology, Sheriff Denita Ball announced Friday.

In a statement on Feb. 27, Ball said after “thoughtful evaluation” and “meaningful dialogue” with community stakeholders and leaders, she decided to stop pursuing a contract with Biometrica, a Las Vegas-based company whose technology allows authorities to compare photos to a large database of photos for matches. 

Advertisement

“While we recognize the potential of this software as an investigative tool, we also recognize that trust between the MCSO and the people we serve is important,” she said.

“My discussions with local advocates highlighted valid concerns regarding how such data could be accessed or perceived in the current national climate. This decision is not a retreat from innovation but rather an understanding that timing matters, too,” Ball said.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on Feb. 17 that the Sheriff’s Office was on the verge of signing off on the use of facial recognition technology after news broke at a community advisory board meeting held by the office.

The update on the office’s sign-off on an intent to enter into a contract with Biometrica blindsided local officials and advocates because it contradicted earlier claims that the office had not moved forward with a controversial contract.

Advertisement

At the time, supervisors on the county’s judiciary and legislation committee called for more information from the Sheriff’s Office about the nature of the then-potential contract.

Supervisor Justin Bielinski, who chairs the committee, said Ball’s decision to step away from the deal was good news, but said he was still feeling wary.

“I would like to see more I guess,” he said of the two paragraph statement from Ball. “At what point would she reconsider, right?”

County Executive David Crowley, who is running for governor as a Democrat, had also voiced concerns about a possible contract when news came to light earlier this month.

Advertisement

After learning of Ball’s decision to not move forward with Biometrica, Crowley thanked community members who voiced concerns about facial recognition technology, saying he will “continue doing everything in my authority to ensure our residents’ First Amendment rights, civil liberties, and personal data are protected.”

In recent months, Milwaukee politicians and residents rebuffed local law enforcement’s efforts to pursue the use of such technology at both the city and county levels, with many citing concerns over racial bias and unjust surveillance of residents.

The Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors voted last summer to recommend the development of a policy framework for the use of facial recognition technology as worries about its use by local law enforcement grew in the community.

The policy emphasized that the use of such technology doesn’t “suppress First Amendment-related activities, violate privacy, or otherwise adversely impact individuals’ civil rights and liberties,” and called for a pause on acquiring new facial recognition technology until regulatory policies were in place to monitor any existing and new surveillance technology.

In early February, the Milwaukee Police Department paused its pursuit of facial recognition technology after almost a year of pushback from activists and some public officials at public meetings. The department also noted that community feedback was a part of its final decision as well as a volatile political climate amid the federal government’s immigration crackdown.

Advertisement

(This story was updated to add new information.)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending