Coalition Urges Congress Not to Expand Domestic Terrorism Charges
151 Organizations Call on Congress to Oppose the Expansion of Terrorism-related Legal Authority
January 19, 2021
Dear Members of Congress:
On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (The Leadership Conference), a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 220 national organizations to promote and protect civil and human rights in the United States, and the undersigned
151 organizations, we write to express our deep concern regarding proposed expansion of terrorism-related legal authority. We must meet the challenge of addressing white nationalist and far-right militia violence without causing further harm to communities already disproportionately impacted by the criminal-legal system. The Justice Department (DOJ), including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), has over 50 terrorism-related statutes it can use to investigate and prosecute criminal conduct, including white
Print
For Facebook, the conclusion of President Trump’s term in office meant a respite from the regular provocations of a leader who seemed intent on pushing the limits of what social media companies would allow.
It also brought one final dilemma: whether to reinstate his account,
locked down indefinitely in the aftermath of
But Facebook didn’t decide. Instead, the company punted the question to
a third-party organization convened last year explicitly to take such thorny questions off Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg’s shoulders.
“Facebook is referring its decision to indefinitely suspend former U.S. President Donald Trump’s access to his Facebook and Instagram accounts to the independent Oversight Board,”
On the morning of Jan. 6, I was cackling over “Stop the Steal” rally attendees’ clueless posts about parking in Washington. Future Tense contributor Faine Greenwood was lurking on TheDonald.win, a Trump fan discussion site, and tweeted the best examples of out-of-towners fretting about the logistics. (I particularly loved the person who thought that 6 a.m. pandemic D.C. traffic was “psycho.” Buddy, you have no idea.) By the end of the day, everything seemed a bit less funny. But as a new and furious round of discussion about deplatforming erupted, it still seemed perfect that the morning began for me with screenshots of TheDonald.win.
Executive Summary
Over the past year, governments have made unprecedented demands for online platforms to police speech, and many companies are rushing to comply. But in their response to calls to remove objectionable content, social media companies and platforms have all too often censored valuable speech. While it is reasonable for companies to moderate some content, no one wins when companies and governments can censor online speech without transparency, notice, or due process.
This year’s Who Has Your Back report examines major tech companies’ content moderation policies in the midst of massive government pressure to censor. We assess companies’ policies in six categories:
, a series from Future Tense in which experts suggest specific, forward-looking actions the new Biden administration should implement.
Let’s jump back to 1996 for a moment. We didn’t have Wi-Fi, touch screens, or smartphones. Ariana Grande was 3 years old. Diana, princess of wales, was all over the tabloids. And E-Rate was born.
What, you don’t know E-Rate? It’s the obscure little program run by the Federal Communications Commission that discounts the cost of internet access in schools and libraries. It was one of several landmark programs to emerge from the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which stated that “all schools, classrooms, health care providers, and libraries should, generally, have access to advanced telecommunications services.” At the time, that kind of access consisted almost entirely of computers connecting to an actual line (ethernet cable, phone line, or whatever it might be). And so it seemed reasonable that E-Rate discounts should apply to the costs