Lmst

David Greene (no not that one) boosted:

Speaking freely online shouldn’t cost you your visa. But the federal government is using social media surveillance to target student visa holders living in the U.S. for online speech the administration disfavors. This is an alarming attack on digital rights. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/04/trump-administrations-targeting-international-students-jeopardizes-free-speech-and

David Greene (no not that one) boosted:

Join EFF's @davidgreene and Jillian York as well as Mastodon's @mellifluousbox, Bluesky's Emily Liu, and Spill's Kenya Parham for our upcoming livestream "Is There Hope for Social Media?" live on March 20! https://eff.org/livestream-socialmedia

David Greene (no not that one) boosted:

“When there is legitimate concern about the vast amounts of information that people freely hand over to social media companies, app stores, devices & other services,” laws that require collecting MORE data don't make sense, EFF’s @aaronmackey told @CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/13/tech/app-store-age-verification-meta-tension/index.html

Legal Services Corp. Velasquez (government cannot seek "to use an existing medium of expression and to control it, in a class of cases, in ways which distort its usual functioning") applies beyond lawyering to editorial processes, libraries, academic freedom, etc. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/533/

Judge Howell's' opinion in the Perkins Coie case, to be posted by tomorrow, will in fiery language condemn Trump's effort to distort the normal functioning of the legal system. This critical rule is not limited to the legal system. SCOTUS has similarly said no distortion of other systems too.

screenshot from Legal Services Corp v Velasquez: "the Government seeks to use an existing medium of expression and to control it, in a class of cases, in ways which distort its usual functioning. Where the government uses or attempts to regulate a particular medium, we have been informed by its accepted usage in determining whether a particular restriction on speech is necessary for the program's purposes and limitations. In FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364, 104 S.Ct. 3106, 82 L.Ed.2d 278 (1984), the Court was instructed by its understanding of the dynamics of the broadcast industry in holding that prohibitions against editorializing by public radio networks were an impermissible restriction, even though the Government enacted the restriction to control the use of public funds. The First Amendment forbade the Government from using the forum in an unconventional way to suppress speech inherent in the nature of the medium. See id., at 396–397, 104 S.Ct. 3106. In Arkansas Ed. Television Comm'n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666, 6761998), the dynamics of the broadcasting system gave station programmers the right to use editorial judgment to exclude certain speech so that the broadcast message could be more effective. And in Rosenberger, the fact that student newspapers expressed many different points of view was an important foundation for the Court's decision to invalidate viewpoint-based restrictions. 515 U.S., at 836, 115 S.Ct. 2510."

RIP Mark Klein. Expose government wrongdoing in his memory, and support others with the courage to do so.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/memoriam-mark-klein-att-whistleblower-about-nsa-mass-spying

We stand with Perkins Coie. "Lawsuits against the federal government are a vital component of the system of checks and balances that undergirds American democracy.... The Executive Order, if enforced, would upend that system."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/eff-stands-perkins-coie-and-rule-law

David Greene (no not that one) boosted:

No method of age verification is both privacy-protective and entirely accurate. Introducing these laws is dangerous, and expanding them to things like skincare, dating apps, and diet pills has enormous unintended consequences for your personal data. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/first-porn-now-skin-cream-age-verification-bills-are-out-control

David Greene (no not that one) boosted:

As reported here https://www.wired.com/story/rights-con-taipei-doge-foreign-aid-cuts/ grantees of the US govt are being told they must comply with the govt's anti-DEI purge for all of their programs, even those not funded by the USG. If you are such an NGO, I'd love to talk to you. For Contact my info: https://eff.org

One way to distinguish serious proposals to re-examine the US intermediary liability scheme from the "repealing §230 will solve everything I hate about the internet and also punish Meta" shouting is that the former will look at the various international models and to see which, if any, are better.

But, dear reader, we rarely see the former from US lawmakers. Maybe not ever.

He said the quiet part out loud: Trump supports the Take it Down Act, a badly flawed law lacking legal protections against abuse, so he can use it to censor his critics. If it passes, he won't be the only powerful person to do so. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/trump-calls-congress-pass-overbroad-take-it-down-act-so-he-can-use-it-censor

As reported here https://www.wired.com/story/rights-con-taipei-doge-foreign-aid-cuts/ grantees of the US govt are being told they must comply with the govt's anti-DEI purge for all of their programs, even those not funded by the USG. If you are such an NGO, I'd love to talk to you. For Contact my info: https://eff.org

Seems that many soon-to-be-graduating law students who'd arranged human rights-focused jobs with the US government next year are now out in the cold.

So we've re-opened our application window for those seeking a host for an externally funded post-grad fellowship. https://www.eff.org/about/opportunities/legal-fellows#main-content

David Greene (no not that one) boosted:

BREAKING: We are suing DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management to stop the brazen and illegal data sharing of federal employee data with the “government efficiency” group. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/eff-sues-doge-and-office-personnel-management-halt-ransacking-federal-data

@kevinrns awesome. thanks

David Greene (no not that one) boosted:

@davidgreene
I uploaded your image to mastodon and "detected" the words from the posting box.

Those words, unedited, are in alt.

By demanding that funding recipients adopt—as their own—the Government's view on an issue of public concern, the condition by its very nature affects “protected conduct outside the scope of the federally funded program.” @ Rust, 500 U.S., at 197, 111 5.Ct. 1759. A recipient cannot avow the belief dictated by the Policy Requirement when spending Leadership Act funds, and then turn around and assert a contrary belief, or claim neutrality, when participating in activities on its own time and dime. By requiring recipients to profess a specific belief, the Policy Requirement goes beyond defining the limits of the federally funded program to defining the recipient. See ibid. (“our ‘unconstitutional conditions' cases 219 involve [**2331 situations in which the Government has placed a condition on the recipient of the subsidy rather than on a particular program or service, thus effectively prohibiting the recipient from engaging in the protected conduct outside the scope of the federally funded program”).

USAID (I know, right?) v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l

From NEA v. Finley

From FCC v. League of Women Voters

Client Info