Washington
Supreme Court won’t revive lawsuit over NSA surveillance
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to revive an ACLU lawsuit challenging a portion of the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international email and phone communications.
The justices left in place an appeals court ruling against the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia. The organization said that the National Security Agency’s “Upstream” surveillance program violates free-speech rights and protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
Details of the Upstream program are classified, but it collects data from transmissions over high-speed cables that carry electronic communications into and out of the country.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, had ruled that the lawsuit must be dismissed after the government invoked the “state secrets privilege” against the possible damage to national security that might result from a court case.
Washington
Justices reject appeal from man arrested for spoofing police
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal, backed by the satirical The Onion, from a man who was arrested and prosecuted for making fun of police on social media.
The justices on Tuesday left in place a lower court ruling against Anthony Novak, who was arrested after he spoofed the Parma, Ohio, police force in Facebook posts.
After his acquittal on criminal charges, Novak sued the police for violating his constitutional rights. But a federal appeals court ruled the officers have “qualified immunity” and threw out the lawsuit.
The Onion filed its brief in defense of parody. Its lawyers wrote that the First Amendment protects people from prosecution when they make fun of others.
“The Onion’s writers also have a self-serving interest in preventing political authorities from imprisoning humorists,” the site’s lawyers wrote in a brief filed in October. “This brief is submitted in the interest of at least mitigating their future punishment.”
Washington
Supreme Court weighs Google’s liability in ISIS terror case
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is taking up its first case about a federal law that is credited with helping create the modern internet by shielding Google, Twitter, Facebook and other companies from lawsuits over content posted on their sites by others.
The justices are hearing arguments Tuesday about whether the family of an American college student killed in a terrorist attack in Paris can sue Google for helping extremists spread their message and attract new recruits.
The case is the court’s first look at Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, adopted early in the internet age, in 1996, to protect companies from being sued over information their users post online.
Lower courts have broadly interpreted the law to protect the industry, which the companies and their allies say has fueled the meteoric growth of the internet and encouraged the removal of harmful content.
But critics argue that the companies have not done nearly enough and that the law should not block lawsuits over the recommendations, generated by computer algorithms, that point viewers to more material that interests them and keeps them online longer.
Any narrowing of their immunity could have dramatic consequences that could affect every corner of the internet because websites use algorithms to sort and filter a mountain of data.
“Recommendation algorithms are what make it possible to find the needles in humanity’s largest haystack,” Google’s lawyers wrote in their main Supreme Court brief.
In response, the lawyers for the victim’s family questioned the prediction of dire consequences. “There is, on the other hand, no denying that the materials being promoted on social media sites have in fact caused serious harm,” the lawyers wrote.
The lawsuit was filed by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old senior at Cal State Long Beach who was spending a semester in Paris studying industrial design. She was killed by Islamic State group gunmen in a series of attacks that left 130 people dead in November 2015.
The Gonzalez family alleges that Google-owned YouTube aided and abetted the Islamic State group, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, by recommending its videos to viewers most likely to be interested in them, in violation of the federal Anti-Terrorism Act.
Lower courts sided with Google.
A related case, set for arguments Wednesday, involves a terrorist attack at a nightclub in Istanbul in 2017 that killed 39 people and prompted a lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook and Google.
Separate challenges to social media laws enacted by Republicans in Florida and Texas are pending before the high court, but they will not be argued before the fall and decisions probably won’t come until the first half of 2024.
Washington
Supreme Court won’t upset Arkansas anti-Israel boycott law
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to step into a legal fight over state laws that require contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel.
The justices rejected an appeal on behalf of an alternative weekly newspaper in Little Rock, Arkansas, that objected to a state law that reduces fees paid to contractors that refuse to sign the pledge.
The full federal appeals court in St. Louis upheld the law, overturning a three-judge panel’s finding that it violated constitutional free speech rights.
Similar measures in Arizona, Kansas and Texas were initially blocked by courts, prompting lawmakers to focus only on larger contracts. Arkansas’ law applies to contracts worth $1,000 or more.
Republican legislators in Arkansas who drafted the 2017 law have said it wasn’t prompted by a specific incident in the state. It followed similar restrictions enacted by other states in response to a movement promoting boycotts, divestment and sanctions of Israeli institutions and businesses over the country’s treatment of Palestinians. Israeli officials said the campaign masked a deeper goal of delegitimizing and even destroying their country.
Virginia
Student accused of threat at school where boy shot teacher
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (AP) — A fifth-grade student at the same Virginia elementary school where a first-grader shot his teacher last month told classmates in a text message that he would “pop some bullets” and tell someone to shoot up the class, a school official wrote in an email to parents.
Karen Lynch, an administrator who is currently leading the Newport News school, wrote in the email that several fifth-grade students were texting each other on Saturday when one of them allegedly made the threat. Another student told their parent, who contacted the teacher of the student who made the threat, Lynch wrote. The teacher then notified administrators.
“I immediately contacted the student’s parent and excluded the student from school,” Lynch wrote.
Lynch said police are investigating and a threat assessment is in progress.
“Please rest assured that all protocols are being followed and this incident is being addressed accordingly,” Lynch wrote.
On Jan. 6, a 6-year-old student at Richneck brought a loaded 9mm handgun to school and shot his teacher Abby Zwerner, seriously wounding her.
Diane Toscano, an attorney for Zwerner, notified school officials last month that Zwerner intends to sue the school district. Toscano said school administrators ignored warnings from several teachers in the hours before the shooting that the boy had a gun and was threatening other students. Zwerner is recovering at home.
New Mexico
5-year firearms enhancement dropped in Baldwin shooting case
The prosecution in the case of a fatal New Mexico film-set shooting made a stark turnaround Monday, dropping the possibility of a mandatory five-year sentence against Alec Baldwin, new court filings show.
The actor-producer’s attorneys had earlier objected to the enhancement, saying it was unconstitutional because it was added after the October 2021 shooting. Legal experts had said Baldwin had a strong chance of seeing it tossed out.
“The prosecutors committed a basic legal error by charging Mr. Baldwin under a version of the firearm-enhancement statue that did not exist on the date of the accident,” Baldwin’s attorneys said in an earlier court filing.
Baldwin’s attorney declined to comment Monday after the reversal by prosecutors, who earlier criticized his efforts to have the sentencing requirement dropped. The related standard for the possibility of a mandatory five years would be reckless disregard of safety “without due caution and circumspection” and carried a higher threshold of wrongdoing.
The remaining alternative standard and set of penalties in the case now requires proof of negligence, which is punishable by up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine under New Mexico law.
Heather Brewer, spokesperson for the New Mexico First Judicial District Attorney’s Office, said in an email earlier this month that the prosecution’s focus “will remain on ensuring that justice is served and that everyone — even celebrities with fancy attorneys — is held accountable under the law.”
Baldwin and Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the weapons supervisor on the set of the film “Rust,” were charged last month with felony involuntary manslaughter in the shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, who died shortly after being wounded during rehearsals at a ranch on the outskirts of Santa Fe.
Authorities said Baldwin was pointing a pistol at Hutchins when the gun went off, killing her and wounding director Joel Souza.
Hutchins’ parents and sister have filed a lawsuit over the shooting after a similar suit filed by her husband and son was settled.
Production that was halted by the shooting is expected to resume this spring. Rust Movie Productions said Hutchins’ widower, Matthew Hutchins, will be the film’s new executive producer with Blanca Cline as the new cinematographer.
Rust Movie Productions said last week a related documentary will detail the completion of the film and the life of Halyna Hutchins.
Souza will return as director when production resumes, although it’s unclear in what state the filming will take place.
Rust Movie Productions officials said the use of “working weapons” and “any form of ammunition” will be prohibited on the movie set.
