红杏视频

WASHINGTON 鈥� The Supreme Court issued a blow to freedom of speech and privacy today by upholding Texas legislation that requires invasive age verification to access online content. Today鈥檚 ruling conflicts with decades of Supreme Court precedent protecting the free speech rights of adults to access sexual content online. But it is also a limited opinion that does not permit age verification for non-sexual content online. 鈥淭he Supreme Court has departed from decades of settled precedents that ensured that sweeping laws purportedly for the benefit of minors do not limit adults鈥� access to First Amendment-protected materials,鈥� said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the 红杏视频. 鈥淭he Texas statute at issue shows why those precedents applying strict scrutiny were needed. The legislature claims to be protecting children from sexually explicit materials, but the law will do little to block their access, and instead deters adults from viewing vast amounts of First Amendment-protected content.鈥� Texas鈥檚 H.B. 1181 mandates that any website where one-third or more of its content is deemed sexual in a way that is 鈥渉armful to minors鈥� must require visitors to prove they are adults before accessing the site. The act defines 鈥渟exual material harmful to minors鈥� as material that is obscene from the perspective of an average person considering the material鈥檚 effect on minors. 鈥淭oday's decision does not mean that age verification can be lawfully imposed across the internet,鈥� said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频 Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. 鈥淲ith this decision, the court has carved out an unprincipled pornography exception to the First Amendment. The Constitution should protect adults鈥� rights to access information about sex online, even if the government thinks it is too inappropriate for children to see." The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit鈥檚 ruling that mere rational basis scrutiny applies, instead imposing intermediate scrutiny, but it affirmed the Fifth Circuit Court鈥檚 ultimate conclusion that the law survives 鈥� and refused to apply strict scrutiny, as challenges to content-based laws typically do. However, the Texas law burdens adults鈥� ability to access sexual materials, requiring individuals to disclose personal information vulnerable to surveillance and data breaches just to access online content. The law also ultimately fails to achieve its intended purpose. Because the law only applies if one-third of a site鈥檚 content is explicit, the online sites where minors are most likely to be exposed to sexual content, like forums or social media platforms, are not affected. 鈥淎s it has been throughout history, pornography is once again the canary in the coal mine of free expression,鈥� said Alison Boden, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition. 鈥淭he government should not have the right to demand that we sacrifice our privacy and security to use the internet. This law has failed to keep minors away from sexual content yet continues to have a massive chilling effect on adults. The outcome is disastrous for Texans and for anyone who cares about freedom of speech and privacy online.鈥� The Supreme Court repeatedly heard cases on this issue in the past, many of which were brought by the 红杏视频, and had consistently held that requiring users to verify their age to access protected content is unconstitutional where there are less restrictive alternatives available, like filtering software. The Free Speech Coalition is represented by Quinn Emanuel, the 红杏视频, and the 红杏视频 of Texas. This case is a part of the 红杏视频鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket. The decision can be read here.

WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of the District of Columbia (红杏视频-DC), the 红杏视频 of Colorado (红杏视频-CO), and the 红杏视频 of Minnesota (红杏视频-MN) filed amicus briefs urging the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to block the enforcement of President Trump鈥檚 recent executive order defunding National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The order, titled 鈥淓nding Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,鈥� directs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal agencies to terminate all direct and indirect funding to NPR and PBS in explicit retaliation for the broadcasting organizations鈥� editorial and journalistic choices, which the order characterizes as 鈥渂iased鈥� and 鈥減artisan.鈥� NPR and PBS each filed lawsuits challenging the executive order, National Public Radio, Inc. v. Trump and Public Broadcasting Service v. Trump. The amicus briefs support the outlets鈥� respective motions for summary judgment in those cases, arguing that the executive order constitutes a flagrant violation of the First Amendment because it retaliates against both speakers solely for their constitutionally protected speech, including the words they choose to use in coverage and what stories they choose to highlight. The briefs also argue that the order unconstitutionally restricts federal funding, including funds appropriated for local public broadcasters throughout the country to use as they see fit, based on President Trump鈥檚 disapproval of NPR鈥檚 and PBS鈥� news coverage. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 have a Ministry of Propaganda in the United States,鈥� said Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淭he First Amendment prohibits President Trump from withholding federal funds expressly appropriated to support the free and independent press as punishment for news coverage he hates.鈥� The executive order accuses NPR and PBS of 鈥渂iased and partisan news coverage鈥� and mandates punitive measures, including barring their receipt of any federal funds, prohibiting local public broadcasters from using any federal funds they receive to license NPR or PBS programming, and threatening to defund local public broadcasters who continue to associate with the outlets. The order鈥檚 accompanying fact sheet and press release further attack NPR鈥檚 and PBS鈥� editorial decisions on public health, transgender rights, and political investigations 鈥� reinforcing that the order is fundamentally rooted in viewpoint discriminatory animus against the outlets. The brief emphasizes that while the government may allocate funds to promote its own speech, it cannot penalize independent media outlets for expressing disfavored views, including by denying them access to subsidies appropriated by Congress to support independent, noncommercial programming on radio and television. NPR鈥檚 programming 鈥� including its flagship show 鈥淎ll Things Considered,鈥� the most listened-to afternoon drive-time news radio program in the country 鈥� is speech on matters of public concern lying at the heart of the First Amendment. Likewise, the public affairs programming produced and distributed by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) 鈥� including PBS NewsHour, which has a nightly audience of 2.1 million viewers 鈥� serves as a vital platform for public debate. In addition to punishing the outlets for their constitutionally protected speech, the order threatens the financial stability of local broadcasters who rely on federal funds to license the outlets鈥� programming. It also deprives local communities throughout the country of access to beloved, noncommercial sources of information about public affairs, educational programming for children, artistic expression, and cultural commentary. 鈥淛ust as the government cannot shut down a newspaper because it dislikes its editorials, it may not defund NPR and PBS because it disapproves of their reporting,鈥� said Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at the 红杏视频 of the District of Columbia. 鈥淩etaliating against journalists for doing their job is the antithesis of democracy and a clear violation of the freedom of press.鈥� 鈥淣PR, Colorado Public Radio, and other public radio stations help ensure that communities across the country are informed and can engage in civic life,鈥� said Tim Macdonald, legal director at the 红杏视频 of Colorado. 鈥淧unishing public media because the government does not like their reporting is characteristic of autocracies seeking to deprive communities of information, not democracies.鈥� 鈥淪imply put, this executive order is a violation of the First Amendment,鈥� said 红杏视频-MN legal director Teresa Nelson. 鈥淧resident Trump is free to voice his disagreements with PBS, NPR, and any other media outlet鈥檚 programing, but he cannot use the power of the presidency to arbitrarily defund media organizations he dislikes.鈥� The amicus briefs warn that the executive order threatens the editorial independence of local public broadcasters nationwide, undermines the congressionally mandated purpose of the Public Broadcasting Act, and endangers essential infrastructure like the Public Radio Satellite System, which reaches 99 percent of the U.S. population and plays a critical role in national emergency communications. You can find the briefs online here and here.

NEWARK, N.J. 鈥� A federal court today granted bail to Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate student and lawful permanent resident targeted for deportation by the Trump administration because of his Palestinian rights advocacy. He will be able to return to New York to be with his wife and newborn son while his case proceeds. 鈥淎fter more than three months we can finally breathe a sigh of relief and know that Mahmoud is on his way home to me and Deen, who never should have been separated from his father,鈥� said Dr. Noor Abdalla, Mahmoud Khalil鈥檚 wife. 鈥淲e know this ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family, and so many others the government is trying to silence for speaking out against Israel鈥檚 ongoing genocide against Palestinians. But today we are celebrating Mahmoud coming back to New York to be reunited with our little family, and the community that has supported us since the day he was unjustly taken for speaking out for Palestinian freedom.鈥� Last Friday, the government informed the court it would continue to detain Mr. Khalil in a remote ICE detention facility in Jena, Louisiana, over false allegations related to supposed omissions on his green card application. The government鈥檚 new reliance on the 鈥渕isrepresentation鈥� allegations comes after the judge ruled the government could not keep detaining him on the grounds that his speech had adverse foreign policy consequences. Since being detained on March 8, Mr. Khalil has missed the birth of his first child, their family鈥檚 first Mother鈥檚 Day and Father鈥檚 Day, and his graduation from Columbia. 鈥淣o one should fear being jailed for speaking out in this country,鈥� said Alina Das, co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at New York University School of Law, who argued before the court today. 鈥淲e are overjoyed that Mr. Khalil will finally be reunited with his family while we continue to fight his case in court.鈥� 鈥淭his is a joyous day for Mahmoud, for his family, and for everyone鈥檚 First Amendment rights,鈥� said Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney with 红杏视频. 鈥淪ince he was arrested in early March, the government has acted at every turn to punish Mahmoud for expressing his political beliefs about Palestine. But today鈥檚 ruling underscores a vital First Amendment principle: The government cannot abuse immigration law to punish speech it disfavors.鈥� 鈥淚t is an enormous relief that Palestinian human rights defender Mahmoud Khalil can return to New York while his case proceeds. Now, Mr. Khalil will thankfully be reunited with his wife and newborn 鈥� a bond that never should have been broken in the first place,鈥� said Donna Lieberman, executive director at the NYCLU. 鈥淚deas are not illegal, and no administration should ever incarcerate people for expressing opinions they disagree with. We are heartened and relieved that Mr. Khalil can return to his family, community, and counsel, and the NYCLU will continue to fight back against Trump鈥檚 unconstitutional attacks on free speech and dissent.鈥� 鈥淲e are relieved that Mr. Khalil can finally return to his family and community,鈥� said Amol Sinha, executive director of the 红杏视频 of New Jersey. 鈥淭his is an important step in vindicating Mr. Khalil鈥檚 rights as he continues to be unlawfully targeted by the federal government for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights. We鈥檙e confident he will ultimately prevail in the fight for his freedom.鈥� 鈥淲e are so relieved Mahmoud is finally out of his cruel, remote detention, but equally outraged that it took this long and that Mahmoud had to fight this hard to challenge such outrageous and unconstitutional government conduct,鈥� said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. 鈥淎ll Americans should be grateful that Mahmoud had the fortitude to defend basic first amendment principles 鈥� and his pursuit of justice for Palestinians 鈥� against the administration's autocratic tactics, which threaten us all.鈥� 鈥淏y ordering Mr. Khalil freed today, the court vindicates not only his rights but also recognized what has been plain to everyone, the government has detained Mr. Khalil to punish him for his speech in defense of Palestinians. We look forward to Mr. Khalil returning to his wife and son, as we pursue this fight in federal and immigration court for as long as it takes until justice is served,鈥� said Ramzi Kassem, professor of law at the City University of New York and Co-Director of CLEAR, a legal non-profit and clinic. Mahmoud Khalil鈥檚 legal team has submitted multiple briefs and expert statements, and letters of support to the New Jersey court, outlining the irreparable harm he and others will continue to suffer as long as he remains illegally detained in Louisiana, thousands of miles away from his family. In addition, Mr. Khalil submitted his own declaration, factually disproving the government鈥檚 allegations and highlighting the fact that the government abandoned reliance on the so-called 鈥渕isrepresentation鈥� allegations in closing arguments in immigration court. The motion for release further explains that the court previously recognized that continued detention, based solely on the sorts of misrepresentations alleged by the government, is exceedingly rare and, the motion argued, is clearly only in further retaliation for his speech on Palestine. Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the 红杏视频 (红杏视频), the 红杏视频 of New Jersey, and the 红杏视频 of Louisiana. For more information on the case, please see here.

OKLAHOMA CITY 鈥� The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled today that the state鈥檚 2021 classroom censorship law does not apply to academic speech in higher education. The decision also leaves in place a preliminary injunction that prevents the enforcement of vague and borderline nonsensical prohibitions on instruction in K-12 schools. The suit was originally filed in 2021 on behalf of a diverse group of plaintiffs in K-12 and higher education. 鈥淎lmost four years since the initial filing, students and professors at Oklahoma鈥檚 universities and colleges have a clear answer: HB 1775 does not apply in Oklahoma鈥檚 higher education classrooms,鈥� said Adam Hines, legal fellow at the 红杏视频 of Oklahoma. 鈥淔or far too long our educators have felt the impact of HB 1775 and its attempt to censor discussions about race and gender in the classroom. But this answer for higher education is only half the battle. Parts of HB 1775 remain in effect in K-12 schools, and we will continue to fight for the rights of Oklahoma鈥檚 K-12 students and families to receive an equitable education where they can freely learn and talk about the history, experiences and viewpoints of all marginalized communities in this country.鈥� Last year, a lower court also blocked the enforcement of two provisions restricting K-12 instruction because they are vague, fail to let educators know what course material is prohibited, and could prevent discussions of a wide variety of ideas, including those that are the subject to current political debates. These provisions remain enjoined. The state Supreme Court did not weigh in on the constitutionality of any of the provisions. 鈥淭his decision provides needed clarity to Oklahoma鈥檚 higher education instructors, and we are pleased with the outcome,鈥� said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淪tudents in higher education expect to be challenged and to debate difficult ideas, and they expect their instructors to help them learn and grow 鈥� not stick to government-approved talking points.鈥� The lead authors of the law in the state House and Senate declared the intent behind HB 1775 was to prohibit conversations related to 鈥渋mplicit bias,鈥� 鈥渟ystemic racism,鈥� and 鈥渋ntersectionality,鈥� among other concepts. In the lawsuit, the groups argue that HB 1775 unlawfully silenced students鈥� and educators鈥� speech through its vague and overbroad terms. It also intentionally targeted and denied access to equitable, culturally relevant teaching and ideas that reflect the history and lived experiences of students of color, LGBTQ students, and young women and girls. The case will now go back to federal court where a partial preliminary injunction is in place. Cross-appeals have been filed in the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which are expected to proceed shortly. 鈥淭his ruling is another significant victory in the fight to end classroom censorship in Oklahoma鈥� said Douglas Koff, partner at pro-bono cocounsel Schulte Roth & Zabel. 鈥淏y confirming that HB 1775 does not apply to the higher education classroom, this decision allows Oklahoma鈥檚 college students and professors to have open and honest conversations about their history. We look forward to working alongside the 红杏视频, 红杏视频-OK, and Lawyers鈥� Committee in the continued fight to invalidate this law.鈥� 鈥淭oday's decision ensures that at colleges and universities in Oklahoma, teachers can teach and students can learn about our country's history in full 鈥� including topics like systemic racism, gender inequality and LGBTQ+ rights,鈥� said Maya Brodziak, senior counsel with the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers鈥� Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. 鈥淥ur country needs to acknowledge and reckon with its history of systemic racism 鈥� this includes being able to teach and talk about these concepts in our schools. A prohibition on talking honestly about issues of race and racism hurts all students and society.鈥� The lawsuit was filed by the 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Oklahoma, the Lawyers鈥� Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and pro bono counsel Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP on behalf of plaintiffs the Black Emergency Response Team (BERT); the University of Oklahoma Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (OU-AAUP); the Oklahoma State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP-OK); the American Indian Movement (AIM) Indian Territory on behalf of itself and its members who are public school students and teachers; a high school student; and Oklahoma public high school teachers Anthony Crawford and Regan Killackey. For more information about the lawsuit, please see here.