Truth Social Initially Slaps Warning Label on Post from Stew Peters

A Truth Social post from conservative commentator and Died Suddenly creator Stew Peters initially received a “sensitive content” label before it later disappeared. The post drew attention to a number of public health officials who have reportedly suffered adverse effects from the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Peters has tested the platform’s commitment to free speech absolutism in the past.

The post was not deleted, though it was slapped with a “sensitive content” warning that viewers had to acknowledge before viewing the post and linked article. “‘Truth’ Social has more censorship than Elon Musk’s Twitter,” Peters wrote in a Gab post referencing the warning label.

Former President Trump launched Truth Social in the name of free speech absolutism after his Twitter account was unjustly shut down. However, the company does adhere to a number of “anti-hate” standards laid out by Google and Apple in order for its app to be available in their respective marketplaces.

Stew Peters has questioned the platform’s commitment to free speech absolutism in the past. Not long after the platform was launched, Peters was slapped with a similar label after testing the platform’s boundaries compared with other Twitter alternatives.

“I’m ALREADY being censored on Truth Social. Want to know what I said?” Peters wrote in a Gab post. “I said, ‘The people in our government responsible for allowing our kids to be killed with these dangerous Covid shots, should be put on trial and executed.’ Free Speech isn’t free.” The post was slapped with a warning label from Truth Social but left undisturbed by Gab and Telegram.

It is unclear whether former President Trump will remain committed to Truth Social for the long-term, though he has indicated as such to this point. Trump’s famous Twitter account was recently unbanned by Elon Musk, though the former president has indicated that he intends to stay on Truth Social.

https://nationalfile.com/truth-social-initially-slaps-warning-label-on-stew-peters-post/

https://nationalfile.com/truth-social-initially-slaps-warning-label-on-stew-peters-post/

No Joke: Supreme Court Case Could Take A Big Bite Out Of The First Amendment

Below is my column in The Hill on what is shaping up to be a major Supreme Court term on the issues of parody and satire under the First Amendment. The Court could reframe the constitutional limits for criminal and civil liability in two cases currently on the docket, including one recently granted review.

Here is the column:

The court system often is where humor goes to die. For those seeking to use satire or parody of corporations, jokes often run into trademark or other lawsuits and result in a little more than “ha, ha, thump.”

The same bad audience could await the defendant in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC. The Supreme Court just accepted a case involving a tongue-in-cheek dog chew toy made to resemble a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle. VIP prevailed in defending the toy as protected speech, but the distiller wants the Supreme Court to declare such parodies to be trademark violations.

The docket this term is actually a hoot of parody cases.

Another pending case is Novak v. City of Parma, in which Anthony Novak was prosecuted for posting a parody of the website of his local police department. He was charged with (and later acquitted of) a felony under an Ohio law prohibiting the use of a computer to “disrupt” or “interrupt” police functions.

The satirical site, The Onion, has filed a brilliant parody brief to support the right to parody. The Onion regularly publishes funny fake news stories and, true to form, filed a brief as the self-described “world’s leading news publication” offering “universally revered coverage,” and noting it is the “single most powerful and influential organization in human history.” It told the court that its “more than 350,000 full- and part-time” staff members are renowned for “maintaining a towering standard of excellence” in journalism. (It added that it “owns and operates the majority of the world’s transoceanic shipping lanes, stands on the nation’s leading edge on matters of deforestation and strip mining, and proudly conducts tests on millions of animals daily.”) It was a tour-de-force on the value of satire to make profound legal and political points.

Image from Supreme Court Petition

The court has yet to decide whether to take the Novak case, but it has accepted the Jack Daniel’s case. The distiller sued VIP over its introduction of the Silly Squeakers “Bad Spaniels” rubber squeaky toy. The toy is shaped like a whiskey bottle with a cartoon spaniel on the front and the caption: “Bad Spaniels, the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee Carpet.” On the back is a small disclaimer reading: “This product is not affiliated with Jack Daniel’s Distillery.”

That clearly was not enough for the distillery, which argued that people would be confused by the parody. While the district court originally ruled with Jack Daniel’s, it was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The chew toy was ruled (correctly, in my mind) to involve “new expressive content” and to be protected under the First Amendment.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/11/28/no-joke-supreme-court-case-could-take-a-big-bite-out-of-the-first-amendment/

“Watching you pledge allegiance to my flag was disgusting… you are vote traffickers. You’ve sold us out.”

“Am I bothering you? Because this election bothered me. And you’re doing nothing about it.”

https://twitter.com/KariLakeWarRoom/status/1597295441418539008