EFF intern Emma Plankey contributed to this blog post.
Students should not have to fear expulsion for expressing themselves on social media after school and off-campus, but that is just what happened to the plaintiff in C1.G v. Siegfried. Last month, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the student’s expulsion violated his First Amendment rights. The court’s opinion affirms what we argued in an amicus brief last year.
We strongly support the Tenth Circuit’s holding that schools cannot regulate how students use social media off campus, even to spread “offensive, controversial speech,” unless they target members of the school community with “vulgar or abusive language.”
The case arose when the student and his friends visited a thrift shop on a Friday night. There, they posted a picture on Snapchat with an offensive joke about violence against Jews. He deleted the post and shared an apology just a few hours later, but the school suspended and eventually expelled him.
The Tenth Circuit first noted that these facts closely mimic those in Mahanoy v. B.L., a recent Supreme Court case that protected a student from suspension after she posted a picture to Snapchat with the caption “fuck cheer.” The Mahanoy Court explained that when students speak off campus, schools don’t have the same educational interests in regulating that speech. Social media does not change that. EFF argued to the Tenth Circuit that, if anything, courts should especially protect social media speech, because it is central to young people’s communication and activism.
The Tenth Circuit held the First Amendment protected the student’s speech because “it does not constitute a true threat, fighting words, or obscenity.” The “post did not include weapons, specific threats, or speech directed toward the school or its students.” While the post spread widely and the school principal received emails about it, the court correctly held that this did not amount to “a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption” that would allow regulation of protected speech.
The UK government has had more than a year to revise its Online Safety Bill into a proposal that wouldn’t harm users’ basic rights. It has failed to do so, and the bill should be scrapped. The current bill is a threat to free expression, and it undermines the encryption that we all rely on for security and privacy online.
The government intended to advance and vote on the Online Safety Bill last month, but the scheduled vote was postponed until a new Prime Minister of the UK can be chosen. Members of Parliament should take this opportunity to insist that the bill be tossed out entirely.
Subjective Standards for CensorshipIf the Online Safety Bill passes, the UK government will be able to directly silence user speech, and even imprison those who publish messages that it doesn’t like. The bill empowers the UK’s Office of Communications (OFCOM) to levy heavy fines or even block access to sites that offend people. We said last year that those powers raise serious concerns about freedom of expression. Since then, the bill has been amended, and it’s gotten worse.
People shouldn’t be fined or thrown in jail because a government official finds their speech offensive. In the U.S., the First Amendment prevents that. But UK residents can already be punished for online statements that a court deems “grossly offensive,” under the 2003 Communications Act. If the Online Safety Bill passes, it would expand the potential scope of such cases. It would also significantly deviate from the new E.U. internet bill, the Digital Services Act, which avoids transforming social networks and other services into censorship tools.
Section 10 of the revised bill even authorizes jail time—up to two years—for anyone whose social media message could cause “psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress.” The message doesn’t even have to cause harm. If the authorities believe that the the offender intended to cause harm, and that there was a substantial risk of harm, that’s enough for a prosecution. There’s also a separate crime of transmitting “false communications,” punishable by fines or up to 51 weeks of imprisonment.
The problem here should be obvious: these are utterly subjective criteria. People disagree all the time about what constitutes a false statement. Determining what statements have a “real and substantial risk” of causing psychological harm is the epitome of a subjective question, as is who might have a “reasonable excuse” for making such a statement. The apparent lack of legal certainty casts doubt on whether the UK's Online Safety Act meets international human rights standards.
The few exceptions in the section appear to be grants to large media concerns. For instance, recognized news publishers are exempt from the section on communications offenses. So is anyone “showing a film made for cinema to members of the public.”
The exceptions are telling. The UK’s new proposed censors at OFCOM are making it clear they’ll never enforce against corporate media concerns; it’s only small media creators, activists, citizen journalists, and everyday users who will be subject to the extra scrutiny and accompanying punishments.
Online platforms will also face massive liability if they don’t meet OFCOM’s deadlines with regards to removing images and messages relating to terrorism or child abuse. But it is extremely difficult for human reviewers to correctly discern between activism, counter-speech, and extremist content. Algorithms do an even worse job. When governments around the world pressure websites to quickly remove content they deem “terrorist,” it results in censorship. The first victims of this type of censorship are usually human rights groups seeking to document abuses and war. And whilst the bill does require online service providers consider the importance of journalistic freedom of expression, the safeguards are onerous and weak.
Another Attack on EncryptionThe bill also empowers OFCOM to order online services to “use accredited technology”—in other words, government-approved software—to find child abuse images (Section 104). Those orders can be issued against online services that use end-to-end encryption, meaning they currently don’t have any technical way to inspect user messages. This part of the bill is a clear push by the bill’s sponsors to get companies to either abandon or compromise their encryption systems.
Unfortunately, we’ve seen this pattern before. Unable to get public support for the idea of police scanning every message online, some lawmakers in liberal democracies have turned to work-arounds. They have claimed certain types of encryption backdoors are needed to inspect files for the worst crimes, like child abuse. And they’ve claimed, falsely, that certain methods of inspecting user files and messages, like client-side scanning, don’t break encryption at all. We saw this in the U.S. in 2020 with the EARN IT Act, last year with Apple’s proposed client-side scanning system, and this year we have seen a similar system proposed in the E.U.
These types of systems create more vulnerabilities that endanger the rights of all users, including children. Security experts and NGOs have spoken clearly about this issue, and asked for the anti-encryption sections of this bill to be withdrawn, but the bill’s sponsors have unfortunately not listened.
If it passes, the censorious, anti-encryption Online Safety Bill won’t just affect the UK—it will be a blueprint for repression around the world. The next UK Prime Minister should abandon the bill in its entirety. If they won’t, Parliament should vote to reject it.
すべて読む | ITセクション | 火星 | バグ | サイエンス | お金 |
関連ストーリー：
21日、Microsoft Teamsで大規模障害が発生。思わぬ休日との声も 2022年07月22日
葛飾区、Excel ファイルの計算式ミスで補助金過大支給、数億円規模か 2022年06月12日
Firefoxからmicrosoft.comに接続できないトラブル、最新版v95.0.1で解消 2021年12月20日
一部の端末でJapan Wi-Fi auto-connectによる接続ができない不具合 2021年09月17日
Apple純正の天気アプリの一部に69度を表示できない不具合 2021年07月15日
国税庁、在宅勤務者の通信費・電気代などの非課税分の算出法などを公開 2021年01月19日
すべて読む | ITセクション | ビジネス | SNS | 政府 |
関連ストーリー：
ソフトバンクグループ、「ユーザープライバシーファースト」を基本方針として掲げる 2022年05月28日
政府、個人情報保護の規制強化案。個人情報管理責任者の設置を義務付け 2022年02月07日
東京都、LINEを使った独自のワクチン接種証明を公開。政府ガイドライン違反の指摘も 2021年11月04日
LINE問題で調査員による最終報告書。韓国色を隠す意図があったなどと指摘 2021年10月19日
LINE、個人情報の取り扱い状況を発表。トーク投稿の画像と動画は韓国サーバーで保管 2021年03月18日
LINEのトークなどを含む個人情報、中国の委託先技術者が閲覧できる状況に 2021年03月17日
すべて読む | セキュリティセクション | テクノロジー | ニュース | 暗号 | 数学 |
関連ストーリー：
ホンダ車のリモートキーレスエントリーシステムに脆弱性が発見される 2022年07月15日
偽の暗号通貨採掘アプリ、Google Playに多数存在か 2021年08月23日
北朝鮮、乱数放送をYouTubeで配信か 2020年08月31日
旅行予約サイト「あなた以外に○○人が見ています」表示、JavaScriptでランダムな数を表示しているだけだった 2019年10月24日
普段行かないような場所を乱数発生器で目的地として設定し探検する「ランドノート」 2019年10月04日
すべて読む | ITセクション | 地球 | バグ | サイエンス | 宇宙 |
関連ストーリー：
秋田県の沿岸部で気象庁のレーダーが大雨の誤観測。原因は風力発電の風車を雨雲と誤認したためか 2020年08月20日
日米共同開発のGPM主衛星、2月に打ち上げへ 2014年01月04日
北京五輪ではロケット弾で雨雲を分散 2007年07月23日
ドップラー効果で集中豪雨を予想 2004年09月05日
