bennie thompson – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Twitter Fights Back Against January 6th Committee’s Dangerously Intrusive Subpoena Demands

from the good-for-them dept

With the whole Congressional January 6th Committee effort moving into prime time this week, this is probably pretty far down on the list of issues around it, but apparently Twitter is quietly fighting demands from the Committee to reveal internal communications.

The social media giant is asserting a First Amendment privilege to push back on the panel’s demand for communications about moderating tweets related to the Capitol insurrection.

Twitter’s pushback, the sources say, has caused consternation among the committee, whose members believe the internal communications would help them paint a fuller, more accurate portrait of how online MAGA extremism contributed to the day’s violence and mayhem. But the fact that the company is being asked for its internal communications at all raises tricky issues about the balance between free expression and the government’s authority to investigate an attempt to subvert democracy. And it shows just how wide Congressional investigators have been willing to cast their net in the run-up to their primetime hearings, which begin this week.

As you may recall, we talked about this issue last summer, when the Committee first sent information demands to a long list of social media companies, trying to understand the policies those sites had in dealing with extremism on their sites. At the time, we said that the companies should resist those demands, in part because some of the information that was being requested seemed very likely to lead to Congress threatening and intimidating companies over their 1st Amendment protected editorial decision making.

And that definitely appears to be the case. From the article, it appears that at least some of the companies did resist, leading Congress to step things up from a mere request for information to an actual subpoena.

The panel escalated the issue in January and sent formal subpoenas to Twitter, Meta, Google, and Reddit in January, citing “inadequate responses to prior requests for information” by the companies.

Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson lamented that the committee “still do[es] not have the documents and information necessary to answer” questions about how the tech companies handled January 6th-related communications, more than four months after its initial request.

With Twitter, at least, the demands seem deeply intrusive on basic editorial decision making, including some fairly basic internal communications.

In a letter accompanying the subpoena sent to Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal in January, Thompson demanded three specific categories of documents that he said Twitter had failed to turn over to the committee. They included “documents relating to warnings [Twitter] received regarding the use of the platform to plan or incite violence on January 6th” and an alleged failure to “even commit to a timeline” to send over “internal company analyses of misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation relating to the 2020 Election.”

Thompson also faulted Twitter for failing to turn over material concerning Twitter’s decision to suspend Trump from the platform two days after the insurrection—a decision set for reversal should billionaire Elon Musk complete his planned acquisition of Twitter.

The demands are asking for some internal communications, including internal Slack messages about moderating tweets regarding the invasion of the Capitol on January 6th. Even if you agree with the work of the Committee, this should greatly concern you for multiple reasons. First, opening up internal communications regarding editorial decisions raises all sorts of 1st Amendment issues. Imagine Congress similarly demanding internal editorial discussions for Fox News or the NY Times or CNN. People would be rightly concerned about that.

Second, Slack messages, in particular, are designed to be more informal. It’s quite easy to see how Slack messages, taken out of context, could be completely misrepresented to suggest something inaccurate.

Third, just the idea that such internal messages may go before a Congressional Committee (and potentially be released to the public) creates massive, stunning, chilling effects on the kinds of internal discussions that trust and safety teams need to have all the time as they figure out how to deal with dynamic, rapidly changing scenarios. It’s important that teams be able to communicate freely and discuss different ideas and perspectives about how to deal with different challenges, and if they’re constantly worried about how those messages will look when someone in Congress reads them from the floor, that’s going to create huge chilling effects, and make it much more difficult for people at these companies to do their job.

Finally, just think about how this power will be abused. If you support the Jan. 6 Committee, it’s quite likely that the Republicans will be the majority in Congress next year. Do you think they should then be able to demand these same internal communications from Twitter, Facebook, and others about their moderation choices? Do you honestly think that they will do so in good faith, and not to try to pressure and intimidate these companies into leaving up partisan propaganda and nonsense?

And, if you’re on the other side, and believe that the Jan. 6th Committee is a fraud on the American public, then you should already be concerned about these demands, but think about how those same powers might be used against companies you like. Should Congress be able to investigate Fox News or OAN’s internal editorial meetings and decisions about who they’ll put on air? Should Congress be able to subpoena Truth Social to find out why it’s blocking critics of President Trump?

There are some things Congress should not be able to do, and that includes interfering with the editorial choices of companies. It’s offensive to the 1st Amendment.

Filed Under: bennie thompson, committee, content moderation, editorial discretion, fishing expedition, insurrection, january 6th
Companies: twitter

More Bad Ideas: Congressional Rep Suggests Participants In The Attack On The Capitol Building Be Added To The No-Fly List

from the we-need-less-of-this,-not-more dept

Proving that 2020 wasn’t done with us yet, January 6, 2021 added a new horror to the long list of things that showed “may you live in interesting times” is a curse, rather than a blessing. Urged on by the guy less than ten days away from being escorted from the premises by security and his favorite legal advocate — one that advocated for “trial by combat” over the election results — Trump supporters invaded Washington, DC, hoping to somehow nullify the election through intimidation and violence.

This violent debacle (and it was violent — five people dead and two explosive devices recovered) has resulted in a lot of backlash. The most immediate backlash will be felt by some of the red-hatted crowd that broke into the Capitol building in hopes of preventing election certification. An executive order signed by Trump — one targeting “violent, left-wing extremists” — will instead be used to enhance the prison sentences of violent, right-wing extremists. Perhaps the worst president in history will exit the office with his supporters feeling the brunt of this incredible self-own. MAGA, indeed.

But it’s back to business as usual, now that things have settled down. An attack on the election process has resulted in calls for action. And calls for action prompted by singular events with almost no chance of being repeated almost always result in things being made worse for millions of citizens who did nothing more than watch in horror as events unfolded.

The 9/11 attacks resulted in an expansion of the surveillance state. The tragic attack was leveraged to take power away from the people and give it to their government instead. The same thing appears to be happening now, with President-elect Joe Biden demanding a War on (Domestic) Terrorism. And other legislators are demanding more be done now, ignoring the dire repercussions of their demands in favor of inflicting pain on people who didn’t vote for them. (h/t Sam Mintz)

Flight attendants felt disturbed by the presence of Capitol Hill invaders on flights out of DC. This is fine. And, as private companies, airlines can certainly refuse to allow certain people to board their planes. But this private objection is being made public, courtesy of Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. He wants these private complaints to become public by adding alleged “insurrectionists” to the incredibly expansive no-fly lists maintained by the federal government.

Given the heinous domestic terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol yesterday, I am urging the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to use their authorities to add the names of all identified individuals involved in the attack to the federal No-Fly List and keep them off planes. This should include all individuals identified as having entered the Capitol building—an intrusion which threatened the safety of Members of Congress and staff and served as an attack on our Nation.

We already saw reports of ‘unruly mobs’ in the air on the way to Washington, D.C. It does not take much imagination to envision how they might act out on their way out of D.C. if allowed to fly unfettered. This is an action that TSA and the FBI, by law, are able to take but, to my knowledge, have not yet taken. Alleged perpetrators of a domestic terrorist attack who have been identified by the FBI should be held accountable.

Lots to unpack here.

First, the TSA should not be given any permission to do anything, given that it’s done almost nothing with the vast amount of leeway it’s already been granted.

Second, no-fly lists are an unconstitutional mess. Even given the massive amount of deference judges grant to “national security” arguments, courts remain unconvinced that forbidding someone from flying (and then refusing to even acknowledge this fact, much less given them a chance to challenge this determination) isn’t a violation of their rights.

Adding a bunch of people to the no-fly list isn’t a good idea, especially when the government has plenty of power to deal with the perpetrators of this Capitol Hill invasion without deciding they’re no longer allowed to board airplanes. As Rep. Thompson says, perpetrators should be held accountable. There are plenty of laws on the books — and one recent executive order — that will help federal prosecutors achieve this goal. Banning perps from flying doesn’t change anything about the prosecutorial matrix.

And if someone can be identified and added to a no-fly list, chances are they can be identified, arrested, and prosecuted. So the watchlist is just punitive damage with almost zero recourse. Let the law take its course. Leave the no-fly list out of it. If airlines want to refuse to serve suspects facing prosecution for the Capitol raid, they can do so. The government doesn’t need to be involved. Federal agencies can BOLO suspects without putting them on a watchlist that severely curtails their ability to travel. And that’s all it should do at this point, since we’re supposed to presume innocence before determining guilt.

Filed Under: bad ideas, bennie thompson, due process, insurrection, no fly list, riots, tsa

Will Jurisdictional Fight Slow Down CISPA's Momentum?

from the one-hopes dept

Thanks to a fair bit of propaganda making the rounds, it feels like CISPA — the cybersecurity bill that seeks to obliterate privacy protections without explaining how that will increase our security — is on a bit of a fast track towards approval. However a bit of a stumbling block may have popped up. Congressional Representatives Bennie Thompson and Yvette Clarke — the ranking members on the Committee on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies — have suddenly realized that all of this is happening without their support. That is, they finally realized that, while this is being handled by the Intelligence Committee, it directly impacts Homeland Security and Cyersecurity (obviously), and so they’re suddenly asking why it’s not going through their committees.

This is just a basic jurisdictional dispute between various fiefdoms within Congress. They pop up every now and again, and usually get resolved in due time. However, in the short term, it could certainly represent a speed bump that hopefully slows down the pace at which Congress seems to want to rush into approving CISPA.

Filed Under: bennie thompson, cispa, congress, cybersecurity, homeland security, jurisdiction, momentum, yvette clarke