buzzfeed--2020-05-26--Joe Biden Has Struggled With Young People. He Has A New Plan To Win Them.

Joe Biden ’ s presidential campaign is organizing a new effort around young voters — a sign Biden will more aggressively target a group that could be vital in the general election and that resisted him for much of the Democratic primaries .
League 46 will be “ the coalition of young people that will make Joe Biden the 46th president , ” says the narrator of an introductory video shared first with BuzzFeed News .
Symone Sanders , a senior adviser to Biden and one of his most visible spokespeople , will lead the project .
League 46 will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Students for Biden while forging alliances with young professionals and young elected officials .
The organization stems from months of internal discussion on how to best reach young voters .
Millennial and Generation Z voters in the primaries went big for Bernie Sanders ( no relation to Symone , though she worked on his 2016 campaign ) .
There have been questions about whether enough of those voters , drawn to Sanders ’ comparatively more liberal politics , would turn out for Biden — a 77-year-old moderate who ’ s at his most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ 80s , and ‘ 90s — this fall .
“ Everyone keeps asking , How do we plan to engage young people in this election ?
It ’ s really about meeting people where they are , ” Symone Sanders , 30 , said Monday in a telephone interview .
The plan for League 46 is that young professionals and officeholders working with the campaign will help make inroads with other young voters in their communities .
These “ local validators , ” as Sanders described them , will help the campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s by discussing the challenges of finding work during a pandemic or brainstorming new ideas for engagement .
“ This is a way to take our message directly to voters , ” Sanders said .
“ They ’ re probably not getting on our website or watching CNN.
” The campaign already had been experimenting with formats that could work at a time when traditional on-the-ground campaigning has been suspended because of the coronavirus quarantines .
There have been virtual brunches and happy hours , hosted by some of the campaign ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , for example , Michigan Lt. Gov .
Garlin Gilchrist , 37 , led an event with former presidential candidate Andrew Yang , a 45-year-old entrepreneur whose millennial appeal came through during the primaries .
Among the events planned for this week is the kickoff of a young professionals finance council , featuring an online conversation Sanders will moderate with Pete Buttigieg , the 38-year-old former mayor of South Bend , Indiana , who was a top contender for this year ’ s Democratic nomination .
Others expected to be involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 38-year-old mayor of Birmingham , Alabama , and Svante Myrick , the 33-year-old mayor of Ithaca , New York .
“ Obviously we would love to be able to do in-person engagement , ” Sanders said .
“ But I do think in the absence of in-person engagement we 've seen a number of people step up virtually .
Just because we are connecting virtually does not mean we aren ’ t connecting with real people.
” A polling analysis last month by CNN ’ s Harry Enten found that Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 34-year-olds was narrower than Hillary Clinton ’ s in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign .
Biden has made overtures to these voters in recent months as he became his party ’ s presumptive nominee , and has described himself as a “ bridge ” to the next generations of Democratic leaders .
He has empathized with college students and graduates — and their slightly older peers who were just starting out in the job market during the 2008 financial meltdown — who have seen opportunities disappear because of the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the financial future of millennials , and the pandemic has created even more economic hardship for millennials and now Generation Z facing unemployment , furloughs , and pay cuts , ” reads a Biden campaign statement announcing the new project .
“ League 46 will be focused on bringing together young leaders that will help Joe Biden win and enact a bold , progressive agenda in 2021 that addresses critical issues young Americans are passionate about and ensure they are a key priority during the recovery.
” Campaign officials saw potential in expanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary , Students for Biden , especially after Biden ’ s success in Michigan .
Bernie Sanders won the contest there against Clinton in 2016 , fueled in part by a double-digit margin in Washtenaw County , home to the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University .
Sanders won those college towns again in March , but Biden won the county .
Students for Biden , which includes groups aimed at high school students and historically black colleges and universities , has more than 275 chapters , according to the campaign .

Joe Biden’s presidential campaign is organizing a new effort around young voters — a sign Biden will more aggressively target a group that could be vital in the general election and that resisted him for much of the Democratic primaries.
League 46 will be “the coalition of young people that will make Joe Biden the 46th president,” says the narrator of an introductory video shared first with BuzzFeed News.
Symone Sanders, a senior adviser to Biden and one of his most visible spokespeople, will lead the project. League 46 will build on work by the previously launched Students for Biden while forging alliances with young professionals and young elected officials.
The organization stems from months of internal discussion on how to best reach young voters. Millennial and Generation Z voters in the primaries went big for Bernie Sanders (no relation to Symone, though she worked on his 2016 campaign). There have been questions about whether enough of those voters, drawn to Sanders’ comparatively more liberal politics, would turn out for Biden — a 77-year-old moderate who’s at his most comfortable telling stories from the 1970s, ‘80s, and ‘90s — this fall.
“Everyone keeps asking, How do we plan to engage young people in this election? It’s really about meeting people where they are,” Symone Sanders, 30, said Monday in a telephone interview.
The plan for League 46 is that young professionals and officeholders working with the campaign will help make inroads with other young voters in their communities. These “local validators,” as Sanders described them, will help the campaign connect with new people, whether it’s by discussing the challenges of finding work during a pandemic or brainstorming new ideas for engagement.
“This is a way to take our message directly to voters,” Sanders said. “They’re probably not getting on our website or watching CNN.”
The campaign already had been experimenting with formats that could work at a time when traditional on-the-ground campaigning has been suspended because of the coronavirus quarantines. There have been virtual brunches and happy hours, hosted by some of the campaign’s most prominent young supporters. Last week, for example, Michigan Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist, 37, led an event with former presidential candidate Andrew Yang, a 45-year-old entrepreneur whose millennial appeal came through during the primaries.
Among the events planned for this week is the kickoff of a young professionals finance council, featuring an online conversation Sanders will moderate with Pete Buttigieg, the 38-year-old former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who was a top contender for this year’s Democratic nomination. Others expected to be involved in League 46 include Randall Woodfin, the 38-year-old mayor of Birmingham, Alabama, and Svante Myrick, the 33-year-old mayor of Ithaca, New York.
“Obviously we would love to be able to do in-person engagement,” Sanders said. “But I do think in the absence of in-person engagement we've seen a number of people step up virtually. Just because we are connecting virtually does not mean we aren’t connecting with real people.”
A polling analysis last month by CNN’s Harry Enten found that Biden’s lead over President Donald Trump among 18- to 34-year-olds was narrower than Hillary Clinton’s in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign. Biden has made overtures to these voters in recent months as he became his party’s presumptive nominee, and has described himself as a “bridge” to the next generations of Democratic leaders. He has empathized with college students and graduates — and their slightly older peers who were just starting out in the job market during the 2008 financial meltdown — who have seen opportunities disappear because of the coronavirus pandemic.
“The Great Recession stunted the financial future of millennials, and the pandemic has created even more economic hardship for millennials and now Generation Z facing unemployment, furloughs, and pay cuts,” reads a Biden campaign statement announcing the new project. “League 46 will be focused on bringing together young leaders that will help Joe Biden win and enact a bold, progressive agenda in 2021 that addresses critical issues young Americans are passionate about and ensure they are a key priority during the recovery.”
Campaign officials saw potential in expanding their initiative targeting young voters during the primary, Students for Biden, especially after Biden’s success in Michigan. Bernie Sanders won the contest there against Clinton in 2016, fueled in part by a double-digit margin in Washtenaw County, home to the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University. Sanders won those college towns again in March, but Biden won the county.
Students for Biden, which includes groups aimed at high school students and historically black colleges and universities, has more than 275 chapters, according to the campaign.


buzzfeed--2020-05-27--These Charts And Maps Show Where The Coronavirus Is Surging Across The US — And Where It Is In Decli

These Charts And Maps Show Where The Coronavirus Is Surging Across The US — And Where It Is In Decline

The journalists at BuzzFeed News are proud to bring you trustworthy and relevant reporting about the coronavirus .
To help keep this news free , become a member and sign up for our newsletter , Outbreak Today .
New coronavirus infections are on the rise in parts of the country , such as North Carolina and Arkansas , while falling in former hot spots like New York .
As the weeks and months drag on , experts expect to see a patchwork of surging and subsiding local epidemics — particularly if the virus starts to spread rapidly in places that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy to its knees .
The charts and maps below will help you track this shifting landscape .
The colors indicate whether the number of new cases has risen or fallen in the last two weeks .
In locations highlighted in pink , new cases have surged , while green shows where the number has declined .
The darker the shade of pink or green , the larger the relative rise or fall .
Because the number of confirmed new cases on any day can fluctuate widely , we have used the daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven days to provide a more stable measure on any given day .
Locations shown in light gray have either had very few cases in the past two weeks , or the number has changed by less than 5 % .

New coronavirus infections are on the rise in parts of the country, while falling in some former hot spots.
As the weeks and months drag on, experts expect to see a patchwork of surging and subsiding local epidemics — particularly if the virus starts to spread rapidly in places that are relaxing lockdowns that have brought the economy to its knees.
The charts and maps below will help you track this shifting landscape and will be updated regularly. The colors indicate whether the number of new cases has risen or fallen in the last two weeks. In locations highlighted in pink, new cases have surged, while green shows where the number has declined. The darker the shade of pink or green, the larger the relative rise or fall.
Because the number of confirmed new cases on any day can fluctuate widely, we have used the daily average of new cases over the last seven days to provide a more stable measure on any given day. Locations shown in light gray have either had very few cases in the past two weeks, or the number has changed by less than 5%.
States


buzzfeed--2020-05-26--A Security Flaw In Qatar's Contact Tracing App Exposed Hundreds Of Thousands Of People's Personal Da

A Security Flaw In Qatar's Contact Tracing App Exposed Hundreds Of Thousands Of People's Personal Data

A security flaw in Qatar ’ s mandatory coronavirus contact tracing app could have resulted in the leak of the personal data of hundreds of thousands of people , including ID numbers , location , and health information , according to Amnesty International ’ s Security Lab .
After Amnesty alerted Qatari authorities on Thursday , they fixed the flaw in the app .
The incident underscores the risks of contact tracing apps .
Privacy activists worry the apps could be compromised by outside attackers or used by governments to collect personal data unrelated to the pandemic .
Claudio Guarnieri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and head of its Security Lab , told BuzzFeed News that his organization found the flaw that could have compromised people 's data .
“ The app downloaded the QR code from the server by performing a particular request providing the national ID the user provided at registration , ” he said .
“ However , anyone with the sufficient technical know-how to analyze the inner workings of the apps would have been able to reconstruct the network protocol and notice that because the server only expected an ID number to return the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for any other ID instead . ''
A hacker could have used a brute-force attack to generate all possible combinations of the ID numbers , retrieving their data .
To fix the issue , the updated version of the app has more stringent authentication requirements .

A security flaw in Qatar’s mandatory coronavirus contact tracing app could have resulted in the leak of the personal data of hundreds of thousands of people, including ID numbers, location, and health information, according to Amnesty International’s Security Lab.
After Amnesty alerted Qatari authorities on Thursday, they fixed the flaw in the app. The incident underscores the risks of contact tracing apps. Privacy activists worry the apps could be compromised by outside attackers or used by governments to collect personal data unrelated to the pandemic.
Claudio Guarnieri, a senior technologist at Amnesty International and head of its Security Lab, told BuzzFeed News that his organization found the flaw that could have compromised people's data.
“The app downloaded the QR code from the server by performing a particular request providing the national ID the user provided at registration,” he said. “However, anyone with the sufficient technical know-how to analyze the inner workings of the apps would have been able to reconstruct the network protocol and notice that because the server only expected an ID number to return the QR code, one could request it for any other ID instead."
A hacker could have used a brute-force attack to generate all possible combinations of the ID numbers, retrieving their data.
To fix the issue, the updated version of the app has more stringent authentication requirements.


buzzfeed--2020-05-26--Facebook Is Taking Down Posts That Cause Imminent Harm — But Not Posts That Cause Inevitable Harm

The social media platform is siding with scientists to stop the spread of harmful misinformation about the pandemic .
If it can do it now , why was n't it doing it all along ?
In January 2020 , Facebook executives began paying attention to a new coronavirus spreading across the globe .
The virus was deadly and highly contagious , and when the World Health Organization shared guidance about it , the company ’ s leadership dropped their typically hands-off approach to misinformation .
“ We decided we would remove content that directly contradicted [ the WHO ] and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harm , ” Monika Bickert , Facebook ’ s head of global policy management , told BuzzFeed News .
Say “ social distancing doesn ’ t work ” or “ wearing a mask can make you sick ” on Facebook , and the company will direct its moderators to remove your post .
A move of this scale is unprecedented for a company that has sought to keep itself out of battles over the truth , but Facebook has removed hundreds of thousands of posts violating this policy already , according to Bickert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of others .
Though Facebook has removed some health-related misinformation in the past , the company ’ s decision , although enforced spottily , to side with science has thrust it into new ground .
Removing coronavirus misinformation could make its largely hands-off approach to other harm-causing misinformation — such as on climate denialism and anti-vaccine advocacy — harder to defend .
It will also place Facebook squarely in the middle of a political battle in the US , where the not widely shared opposition to social distancing and masks break along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know how they 're going to reconcile being an open marketplace of political ideas , while at the same time not cracking down on certain political voices that are taking fringe anti-science beliefs and trying to bring them into the mainstream , ” Andy Carvin , a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council 's Digital Forensic Research Lab , which takes funding from Facebook , told BuzzFeed News .
“ It feels like a collision is inevitable.
” Bickert acknowledged her company ’ s tough position .
“ None of this is easy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are always difficult factors to balance in writing and applying content rules.
” Although Facebook has removed misinformation on measles in Samoa , and polio in Pakistan , a deletion campaign of this scale is unprecedented , and as the pandemic continues it could be the first of many .
Anti-vaxxers are spreading misinformation in anticipation of a vaccine for the coronavirus if one were to be developed — with some declaring that it would be made mandatory — and their Facebook pages and Instagram profiles are booming .
Facebook won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they could cause deaths in the future , because the company ’ s standard for removal requires “ imminent harm.
” In the meantime , anti-vax pages and profiles are adding hundreds of thousands of engagements each month .
A former Facebook policy employee told BuzzFeed News that the company ’ s aggressive enforcement of WHO rules did n't square with its hands-off stance on anti-vaccine misinformation .
“ Where I think the platforms are gon na be in a real shit position , ” the ex-employee said , “ is when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus , all of the anti-vax groups that have taken the last month , and will continue to take the next few months , to build their followings , get donations , make sure that they 're right in front of people — they ’ re going to convince folks not to take the vaccine.
” Bickert defended applying the policy to the coronavirus but not vaccines by saying , `` There 's something about speech where the risk is immediate , where there is not necessarily going to be time for debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for us to address . ''
That ’ s not to say there isn ’ t lively ongoing debate about vaccine misinformation policy inside Facebook .
Lower-level employees debate policy issues , the ex-employee said , but the company ’ s decisions on politically explosive topics like anti-vax content remain at the top .
“ The anti-vaxxer lobby is very well connected , very loud , so it 's a small group of people who are running things , but they know how to use the internet , ” the ex-Facebook policy employee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just does n't want the headache .
I also think there are people who are somewhat sympathetic to parents saying that they want to make choices for their children.
” Though Facebook added some information about vaccines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention after political pressure during a measles outbreak in 2019 , it ’ s largely allowed anti-vaccine misinformation to stay up , and for groups promoting such materials to remain active .
Facebook also banned ads with vaccine misinformation , a ban it hasn ’ t enforced very effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more restrictive approach about COVID vaccine misinformation , Bickert allowed for the possibility , but not yet .
“ The situation is obviously dynamic , ” she said .
“ We 're going to have to wait and see how it develops and what the state of treatment is , and when there are treatments what the risks are associated with those treatments and so forth , it 's complicated territory.
” That position may inspire scrutiny from critics who would prefer the company to act more consistently — and aggressively .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say they 're going to do , ” Judd Legum , the author of the Popular Information newsletter , told BuzzFeed News .
“ If there 's a page with hundreds of thousands of people following it , and the whole purpose of the page is to talk about how it 's a government conspiracy , and hospitals are intentionally killing patients to drum up support for a mandatory vaccine , and this drug has a 99 % effective rate against coronaviruses , they should probably be more aggressive about taking that type @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forms of misinformation that could be even more damaging than content about the coronavirus or vaccines .
“ Climate change is actually an even bigger emergency than COVID , though society has n't yet fully appreciated this — partly due to climate misinformation , ” climate scientist Peter Kalmus told BuzzFeed News .
He worried that the new policy was too narrowly targeted on immediate harm .
“ Climate breakdown threatens our food , water , infrastructure , health , economic , and geopolitical systems , has the potential to cause death and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will likely be effectively permanent , ” Kalmus said .
“ So in my opinion , Facebook should apply similar standards to climate misinformation as it does to COVID misinformation.
” Facebook doesn ’ t appear ready to take action with regard to climate crisis denial — making what appears to some outside observers an indefensible distinction between the imminent and the merely inevitable .
Asked if the company would apply the same standard it did to the coronavirus to areas like climate change , Bickert demurred , saying , “ All of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're learning a lot through the way we 're seeing people respond to what we 're doing.
” When Facebook sided with the WHO ’ s guidelines for the coronavirus — and hence , science — it was fairly uncontroversial politically .
All 50 US states put stay-at-home orders in place , and social distancing was the norm .
But it didn ’ t take long for a political fissure to form among those who subscribe to the WHO ’ s guidelines and those who don ’ t — putting Facebook between them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survey conducted last month , Republicans outpaced Democrats in battleground states in the belief that returning to daycares , bars , sporting events , and hair salons was safe .
And now sustained protests against the WHO-informed government policies are in full swing , sparked by right-leaning politicians , anti-vax groups , and normal people with social media accounts .
Many of these protests have added event pages on Facebook .
The company has removed some for challenging their state ’ s stay-at-home orders , a decision that some lawmakers have disagreed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sides of the debate , ” Danny McCormick , a Republican Louisiana state representative , told BuzzFeed News .
“ If you just censor one side of the debate because you think the other is the side you agree with , you 're not increasing education , you 're stymieing education.
” Rep. Ro Khanna , a Democrat who represents parts of Silicon Valley , said this is an area where the government should step in .
“ It should be Congress and regulators that create clear guidelines for what speech is allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what speech should be removed , ” he said .
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has argued for government guidelines on speech in the past , but it 's a difficult-to-navigate intersection between cracking down on hoaxes and lies and censoring political speech .
When making policy decisions on things like the coronavirus , Facebook looks mostly to immunologists , doctors , and the medical establishment , another ex-Facebook employee told BuzzFeed News .
“ Facebook would be looking for — what is the medical consensus , not what is the political consensus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that meant conflict .
And it could get worse for Facebook as President Donald Trump takes actions that oppose the health establishment ’ s guidance .
Earlier this week , Trump said he was taking hydroxychloroquine , an antimalarial drug that the Food and Drug Administration had previously warned against taking outside of a hospital setting .
( A study released Friday found the drug was tied to an increased risk of death among patients taking it . )
Asked about the possibility of removing something Trump said , Bickert didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have removed content from high-profile individuals , including the president of Brazil and the president of Madagascar , where statements that they 've made have contradicted health guidance , ” she said .
“ Nobody is exempted from this policy.
” “ Public health is squishy by definition , ” Kenneth Bernard , an epidemiologist who ’ s served in the WHO and set up the NSC ’ s health security office , told BuzzFeed News .
“ We do n't have enough information and we 're dealing with biological organisms that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can exist.
” Still , Bernard said Facebook is doing what ’ s necessary , even if it ’ s messy .
“ I think that it 's irresponsible to allow information under 'free speech ' to go out if it 's actually going to directly cause harm , ” he said .
“ This is not an easy problem .
I think Facebook is trying .
They do n't have a lot to go on .
”

Is Saving Lives Time-Bound?
Although Facebook has removed misinformation on measles in Samoa, and polio in Pakistan, a deletion campaign of this scale is unprecedented, and as the pandemic continues it could be the first of many.
Anti-vaxxers are spreading misinformation in anticipation of a vaccine for the coronavirus if one were to be developed — with some declaring that it would be made mandatory — and their Facebook pages and Instagram profiles are booming. Facebook won’t take down these inaccurate posts, even if they could cause deaths in the future, because the company’s standard for removal requires “imminent harm.” In the meantime, anti-vax pages and profiles are adding hundreds of thousands of engagements each month.
A former Facebook policy employee told BuzzFeed News that the company’s aggressive enforcement of WHO rules didn't square with its hands-off stance on anti-vaccine misinformation. “Where I think the platforms are gonna be in a real shit position,” the ex-employee said, “is when we're closer to a vaccine for coronavirus, all of the anti-vax groups that have taken the last month, and will continue to take the next few months, to build their followings, get donations, make sure that they're right in front of people — they’re going to convince folks not to take the vaccine.”
Bickert defended applying the policy to the coronavirus but not vaccines by saying, "There's something about speech where the risk is immediate, where there is not necessarily going to be time for debate, that makes that speech especially important for us to address."
That’s not to say there isn’t lively ongoing debate about vaccine misinformation policy inside Facebook. Lower-level employees debate policy issues, the ex-employee said, but the company’s decisions on politically explosive topics like anti-vax content remain at the top.
“The anti-vaxxer lobby is very well connected, very loud, so it's a small group of people who are running things, but they know how to use the internet,” the ex-Facebook policy employee said. “[Facebook leadership] just doesn't want the headache. I also think there are people who are somewhat sympathetic to parents saying that they want to make choices for their children.”
Though Facebook added some information about vaccines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention after political pressure during a measles outbreak in 2019, it’s largely allowed anti-vaccine misinformation to stay up, and for groups promoting such materials to remain active. Facebook also banned ads with vaccine misinformation, a ban it hasn’t enforced very effectively.
Asked if Facebook would take a more restrictive approach about COVID vaccine misinformation, Bickert allowed for the possibility, but not yet. “The situation is obviously dynamic,” she said. “We're going to have to wait and see how it develops and what the state of treatment is, and when there are treatments what the risks are associated with those treatments and so forth, it's complicated territory.”
That position may inspire scrutiny from critics who would prefer the company to act more consistently — and aggressively. “They should follow through with what they say they're going to do,” Judd Legum, the author of the Popular Information newsletter, told BuzzFeed News. “If there's a page with hundreds of thousands of people following it, and the whole purpose of the page is to talk about how it's a government conspiracy, and hospitals are intentionally killing patients to drum up support for a mandatory vaccine, and this drug has a 99% effective rate against coronaviruses, they should probably be more aggressive about taking that type of content down.”
And there are forms of misinformation that could be even more damaging than content about the coronavirus or vaccines. “Climate change is actually an even bigger emergency than COVID, though society hasn't yet fully appreciated this — partly due to climate misinformation,” climate scientist Peter Kalmus told BuzzFeed News. He worried that the new policy was too narrowly targeted on immediate harm.


buzzfeed--2020-05-27--The Trump Administration Wants To Cut Back A Billion-Dollar Healthcare Program. Hospitals Say Now Is

The Trump Administration Wants To Cut Back A Billion-Dollar Healthcare Program. Hospitals Say Now Is A Really Bad Time.

The Trump administration has been fighting in court with public and nonprofit hospitals since 2017 over a plan to slash the reimbursement rates for drugs prescribed to Medicare patients .
WASHINGTON — In 2018 , Park Ridge Health , a not-for-profit healthcare network in western North Carolina that serves a large population of lower-income patients , delayed plans to buy a new CT scanner for stroke patients .
The Trump administration had drastically scaled back a federal drug reimbursement program that benefitted public and not-for-profit hospitals .
Park Ridge , now called AdventHealth Hendersonville , stood to lose $ 3.3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s chief financial officer wrote in a court affidavit , and it wasn ’ t just the CT scanner on the line — that money went toward a variety of services for elderly and poor patients , including new cancer treatment facilities , women ’ s healthcare , and partnerships with nonprofits on issues like prescription drug abuse .
Park Ridge and other hospitals have been battling with the administration in court for three years over a plan to slash by nearly 30 % the reimbursement rate that hospitals get for certain drugs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won the first round .
The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit heard arguments in November and has yet to rule , and for now the cut is still in effect .
In the meantime , the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ( CMS ) is exploring another way to make the cut if they lose the case , over the objection of hospitals .
The litigation predates the coronavirus pandemic , but the stakes are higher as hospitals nationwide lose tens of billions of dollars weekly while nonessential services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the ongoing crisis .
“ If [ hospitals ] lost that money now , it would make an already dire financial situation worse , ” Lindsay Wiley , director of the Health Law and Policy Program at American University Washington College of Law , wrote in an email to BuzzFeed News .
Hospitals that serve a high proportion of lower-income patients can buy outpatient drugs at a discounted price through what ’ s known as the 340B program .
Until 2017 , these hospitals were reimbursed by the federal government for drugs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate than the discounted price the hospitals paid .
The CMS announced in 2017 that it was slashing the reimbursement rate from 6 % above the average price of the drugs to 22.5 % below the average cost .
The agency said the program gave hospitals an incentive to overprescribe drugs and cost patients more money , and shouldn ’ t provide a windfall to subsidize other services .
Hospitals that opposed the change argued that they had put money earned through the program — which can run in the millions of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services for poor and underserved communities , as Congress intended .
The CMS estimated that cutting the reimbursement rate for the drugs would reduce the amount of money paid to hospitals by $ 1.6 billion in 2018 alone .
Scaling back that funding would actually increase the rates paid by the government for other services for Medicare patients — the payment system has to be “ budget neutral ” — but Park Ridge and other hospitals that took the administration to court said they still expected net losses of millions of dollars .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ program “ are in the red to begin with , ” said Maureen Testoni , president and CEO of 340B Health , a membership group for hospitals and health systems that participate .
“ So on top of that , you add this pandemic and all the financial turmoil that this has caused , ” Testoni said .
The pandemic has highlighted “ how critical [ hospitals ] are ... and what an important role they play .
And , financially , they ’ re not in a situation where they can play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial reduction.
” While waiting for the DC Circuit to rule , the CMS is exploring ways to move forward with the rate cut even if it loses .
Last month , the agency launched a survey to collect data from 340B hospitals that the CMS says would address the issues that led the lower court judge to rule against the government .
Hospitals opposed the survey and asked the agency to at least delay it , saying they ’ d have to divert resources that are already stretched thin during the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time to distract hospitals ’ attention from the vital job at hand to complete a CMS survey on drug acquisition costs .
By launching the survey with no notice on April 24 and providing less than three weeks to respond , CMS is creating an unnecessary burden on hospitals at the worst possible moment , ” Testoni wrote in a May 4 letter to the agency .
The agency didn ’ t respond .
Representatives of hospitals involved in the lawsuits declined interview requests , citing the pending litigation .
The American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declined an interview request but sent a statement : “ The COVID-19 pandemic has created the greatest financial crisis in history for America ’ s hospitals and health systems , with our field losing over $ 50 billion each month .
While it is too soon to have precise data on the full impact of this pandemic , the unlawful Medicare cuts that we are contesting in federal court have added significantly to the financial pressure all hospitals face , ” the group said .
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for comment .
In court , the Justice Department has argued that the district court judge lacked authority to review the rate cut at all , and that even if he could , the government had the power to bring the rate in line with what the available data showed hospitals were paying for the drugs .
“ [ O ] vercompensation for some drugs or treatments means reduced payments for other drugs and treatments , and correcting overcompensation permits more equitable distribution of limited funds , ” Justice Department lawyers argued in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DC Circuit .
“ The result of bringing the Medicare payment amount for 340B drugs into alignment with average acquisition cost was therefore the redistribution of the anticipated $ 1.6 billion in savings , resulting in a 3.2 % increase in the Medicare payment rates for non-drug items and services.
” Congress created the 340B program in 1992 .
Healthcare providers eligible for the program can buy outpatient drugs at discounted rates from pharmaceutical companies .
When hospitals prescribe those drugs to patients covered by Medicare — the federal insurance program for people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or have disabilities — they submit claims to the government for reimbursement .
Starting in 2006 , Congress gave the CMS two options to set the drug reimbursement rate .
It could rely on what hospitals were actually paying to buy drugs if it had “ statistically sound survey data ” or , if that wasn ’ t available , the average sales price of the drugs .
If the agency used the second , alternative option , Congress set a default rate : the average sales price plus 6 % .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration announced a plan to change the rate .
Under the new rule , the Medicare agency said it would pay the average sales price of drugs minus 22.5 % .
That rate would come closer to matching the discounted rate hospitals were paying through the 340B program , the agency said .
Hospitals don ’ t have to track or disclose how they use money saved through the program .
Kelly Cleary , who spent three years as the chief legal officer for the CMS , said hospitals had provided examples of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expand services into underserved areas and provide free or low-cost care .
“ The money was going toward a purpose that was consistent with their mission , ” said Cleary , who was involved in the CMS ’ s effort to change the rate and defend it in court .
She returned to private practice last month as a partner at the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld .
The chief financial officer for the Henry Ford Health System , which serves patients in Detroit and Jackson , Michigan , wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cut meant that reimbursement rates increased for other Medicare services , the hospital network still expected to lose around $ 8.5 million by the end of 2018 — money that had gone toward services for patients with low incomes , such as free and low-cost medications , a free community clinic , and mobile health units .
The margin between what the Henry Ford Health System paid for drugs through the 340B program and what it received back from Medicare helped hospitals in that network provide care for “ underserved and indigent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unsustainable , ” the officer wrote .
In support of the rate cut , the CMS pointed to a 2015 report by the Government Accountability Office that showed hospitals participating in the program had an incentive to prescribe more drugs than hospitals that weren ’ t in the program , and that meant higher copayments for Medicare patients who were prescribed more drugs or higher-priced drugs .
The agency concluded hospitals were receiving too much of a net financial benefit .
“ While we recognize the intent of the 340B Program , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notice in the Federal Register , “ we believe it is inappropriate for Medicare to subsidize other activities.
” It ’ s a position that aligned the government with the pharmaceutical industry , which argued that some hospitals had abused the program .
Drugmakers pointed out that even with a cut to the reimbursement rate , the healthcare providers would still get the benefit of discounted drugs .
A representative of PhRMA , a membership group for the pharmaceutical industry , declined an interview request , but sent BuzzFeed News a copy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cut .
“ PhRMA is concerned that the 340B program continues to grow rapidly and without patient benefits , thus increasingly departing from its purpose and statutory boundaries , ” the group wrote .
“ This growth in the 340B program creates market-distorting incentives that affect consumer prices for medicines , shift care to more expensive hospital settings , and accelerate provider market consolidation.
” Hospitals that supported the program , meanwhile , said the proposal punished providers who work with vulnerable patients , and they urged the CMS to focus its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The agency disputed that the plan was punitive and said that “ lowering the price of pharmaceuticals is a top priority ” but was outside the scope of what it was considering at the time .
Hospitals and hospital associations began suing the administration shortly after the rule became final in November 2017 .
They argued that the CMS had come up with the new rate using a process that Congress hadn ’ t approved .
The agency admitted that it didn ’ t have the “ statistically sound ” survey data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the drugs — the first method Congress had laid out — so instead it used an estimate of average purchase costs compiled by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission , an agency that advises Congress .
The problem with the government ’ s approach , the hospitals argued , was that Congress had said the CMS could either use survey data on purchase costs or the average sales price of the drugs , but not a hybrid of the two .
Congress had given the CMS authority to “ adjust ” rates , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % was more than just an adjustment , the hospitals said .
US District Judge Rudolph Contreras in Washington , DC , sided with the hospitals .
In a December 2018 opinion , he wrote that the rate cut ’ s “ magnitude and its wide applicability inexorably lead to the conclusion ” that the agency had “ fundamentally altered ” what Congress had spelled out .
The judge stopped short of blocking the rule and ordering the government to reimburse hospitals for the difference between the previous rate and the CMS ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , writing that it was “ likely to be highly disruptive.
” He noted that the payment system had to stay budget neutral , which meant the money would need to come from another source , a “ quagmire that may be impossible to navigate ” given how much money the government paid out of Medicare each year .
He asked for more briefing on what the agency should do to fix the problem , but that issue was put on hold as the administration took the case to the DC Circuit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Nov. 8 and has yet to release a decision .
In the meantime , hospitals have continued to file lawsuits as their claims for reimbursement at the previous , higher rate are rejected ; earlier this month , a hospital system in Jacksonville , Florida , which is part of the University of Florida , filed a new suit in federal court in Washington .
And the CMS is going ahead with its survey over the objections from hospitals .
“ The pandemic amplifies the significance of this policy , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losers with the policy and it ’ s always going to be a zero-sum game , ” Cleary said .
“ If the court rules against the agency and the agency is forced to walk back the policy , that stands to negatively impact thousands of hospitals.
” Wiley , of American University , told BuzzFeed News that even before the pandemic , the fight over the 340B program highlighted how hospitals and drugmakers were “ actively throwing each other under the bus ” in the broader debate about who was to blame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what the federal government should do about it .
“ Which stakeholders voters perceive to be the heroes of the pandemic response could affect health reform and reimbursement politics for years to come , ” she wrote .

WASHINGTON — In 2018, Park Ridge Health, a not-for-profit healthcare network in western North Carolina that serves a large population of lower-income patients, delayed plans to buy a new CT scanner for stroke patients.
The Trump administration had drastically scaled back a federal drug reimbursement program that benefitted public and not-for-profit hospitals. Park Ridge, now called AdventHealth Hendersonville, stood to lose $3.3 million per year, the hospital’s chief financial officer wrote in a court affidavit, and it wasn’t just the CT scanner on the line — that money went toward a variety of services for elderly and poor patients, including new cancer treatment facilities, women’s healthcare, and partnerships with nonprofits on issues like prescription drug abuse.
Park Ridge and other hospitals have been battling with the administration in court for three years over a plan to slash by nearly 30% the reimbursement rate that hospitals get for certain drugs prescribed to Medicare patients. The hospitals won the first round. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit heard arguments in November and has yet to rule, and for now the cut is still in effect. In the meantime, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is exploring another way to make the cut if they lose the case, over the objection of hospitals.
The litigation predates the coronavirus pandemic, but the stakes are higher as hospitals nationwide lose tens of billions of dollars weekly while nonessential services and elective surgeries are on hold because of the ongoing crisis.
“If [hospitals] lost that money now, it would make an already dire financial situation worse,” Lindsay Wiley, director of the Health Law and Policy Program at American University Washington College of Law, wrote in an email to BuzzFeed News.
Hospitals that serve a high proportion of lower-income patients can buy outpatient drugs at a discounted price through what’s known as the 340B program. Until 2017, these hospitals were reimbursed by the federal government for drugs prescribed to Medicare patients at a higher rate than the discounted price the hospitals paid.
The CMS announced in 2017 that it was slashing the reimbursement rate from 6% above the average price of the drugs to 22.5% below the average cost. The agency said the program gave hospitals an incentive to overprescribe drugs and cost patients more money, and shouldn’t provide a windfall to subsidize other services.
Hospitals that opposed the change argued that they had put money earned through the program — which can run in the millions of dollars for a hospital each year — into services for poor and underserved communities, as Congress intended.
The CMS estimated that cutting the reimbursement rate for the drugs would reduce the amount of money paid to hospitals by $1.6 billion in 2018 alone. Scaling back that funding would actually increase the rates paid by the government for other services for Medicare patients — the payment system has to be “budget neutral” — but Park Ridge and other hospitals that took the administration to court said they still expected net losses of millions of dollars.
Many hospitals that participate in the 340B program “are in the red to begin with,” said Maureen Testoni, president and CEO of 340B Health, a membership group for hospitals and health systems that participate.
“So on top of that, you add this pandemic and all the financial turmoil that this has caused,” Testoni said. The pandemic has highlighted “how critical [hospitals] are ... and what an important role they play. And, financially, they’re not in a situation where they can play that role when they have this big financial reduction.”
While waiting for the DC Circuit to rule, the CMS is exploring ways to move forward with the rate cut even if it loses. Last month, the agency launched a survey to collect data from 340B hospitals that the CMS says would address the issues that led the lower court judge to rule against the government. Hospitals opposed the survey and asked the agency to at least delay it, saying they’d have to divert resources that are already stretched thin during the pandemic to respond.


buzzfeed--2020-05-27--There Was A Pretty Loud Fart Noise During A Joe Biden Livestream

In the first week of this hell month , we heard someone flushing a toilet during a live hearing of @ @ @ @ @ now May is ending with a large fart noise .
A livestreamed campaign video chat @ @ @ @ @ Biden and Pennsylvania Gov .
Tom Wolf on Wednesday was briefly muffled by the sound @ @ @ @ @ a very wet fart .
Biden was asking about what `` the human cost '' @ @ @ @ @ more federal money does n't arrive to help with the coronavirus economic recovery when the @ @ @ @ @ appeared to lean back in his chair at the same time as the noise , @ @ @ @ @ and shake his head shortly after .

In the first week of this hell month, we heard someone flushing a toilet during a live hearing of the Supreme Court. And now May is ending with a large fart noise.
A livestreamed campaign video chat between presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf on Wednesday was briefly muffled by the sound of what appeared to be a very wet fart.
Biden was asking about what "the human cost" looks like in Pennsylvania if more federal money doesn't arrive to help with the coronavirus economic recovery when the toot rang out.
He appeared to lean back in his chair at the same time as the noise, while Wolf appeared to blink and shake his head shortly after.


buzzfeed--2020-05-27--This Top UK Official Attended A Massive Horse-Racing Festival Right As The Pandemic Was Exploding

The Cheltenham Festival welcomed in hundreds of thousands of spectators even as other major sports around the world were closing their doors .
The UK ’ s seniormost public official attended a massive horse racing festival in mid-March that experts have linked to an increased spread of the coronavirus , BuzzFeed News has learned .
Sir Mark Sedwill , the powerful cabinet secretary and head of the civil service , was one of 250,000 spectators at the four-day Cheltenham Festival .
The festival ran from March 10 to March 13 — the week that many of the world ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the NBA suspending its season , the NCAA canceling March Madness , and many European soccer leagues canceling matches .
A new analysis released this week suggests that the British government ’ s decision to allow the Cheltenham Festival to go forward `` caused increased suffering and death . ''
Sedwill oversees the UK ’ s 400,000 civil servants — permanent government employees who hold no political position — and is the country ’ s most influential unelected official .
As cabinet secretary and Boris Johnson ’ s national security adviser , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussions over whether and how to introduce lockdown restrictions .
Asked about Sedwill ’ s attendance at the Cheltenham Festival , a government spokesperson said that its approach to mass gatherings “ has been guided by the latest science , taking the right decisions at the right time.
” The spokesperson added that the “ decision to go ahead with the festival was taken by the racecourse , operating within clear public health guidance at the time.
” The Cabinet Office declined to say whether Sedwill paid for his tickets , or whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The revelation comes in the midst of a firestorm over alleged lockdown breaches by another influential figure , Dominic Cummings , Johnson ’ s top aide , who drove 260 miles from his home in London to stay on his parents ’ property when restrictions were at their tightest .
There were no lockdown restrictions in place when Sedwill attended the Cheltenham Festival .
But many mass gatherings were being canceled around the world while Cheltenham continued to operate .
On March 11 — the same day the World Health Organization declared a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced sweeping new travel restrictions — an NBA game in Oklahoma City was abandoned right before tipoff after Utah Jazz center Rudy Gobert tested positive for the coronavirus .
The BBC reported this week that scientists working on the UK 's largest COVID-19 tracking project found coronavirus `` hot spots '' that arose shortly after the festival , as well as a Champions League soccer match between Liverpool and Atletico Madrid on March 11 , which also was not canceled or played behind closed doors .
Tim Spector , a professor of genetic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the BBC local rates of cases `` increased several-fold '' after the two events .
“ People will have probably died prematurely , ” Spector said .
According to the BBC , the scientists gathered data from millions of volunteers .
It shows that in the last week of March , Liverpool and Cheltenham were among the areas with the highest number of suspected coronavirus cases in England .
The analysis chimes with other studies elsewhere , which have similarly found that mass events acted as “ superspreaders ” of the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racegoers who suffered from COVID-19 symptoms in the weeks following the event .
Health officials have since called for an inquiry into whether the four-day festival should have gone ahead .
As the festival kicked off on March 10 , the government said there was `` no reason for people not to attend such events or to cancel them at this stage . ''
Prime Minister Boris Johnson told a daily press briefing the UK was following `` scientific advice '' and said that `` banning such events will have little effect on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the day after the races , the government had started briefing UK media outlets that it was planning to halt large gatherings from the following week .
Britain eventually went into lockdown on March 23 .
By that date , many other countries in Europe — including Austria , Italy , Spain , Greece , Denmark , much of Germany , and France — had already introduced stringent measures .
California ordered people to stay at home on March 19 ; New York did the same on March 22 .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had officially recorded 10 coronavirus deaths .
The UK 's death toll is now approaching 38,000 and is one of the highest in Europe .
The UK government has repeatedly claimed that its decision to go into lockdown later than other European countries was about following the science .
But the government ’ s scientific advisory group had already reached a consensus by March 2 that it was `` highly likely '' that there was already a sustained transmission of COVID-19 in the UK , according to a document later published by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that while individual measures such as closing schools or strict social distancing were unlikely to contain an outbreak on their own , deploying these measures in tandem would likely have `` a greater impact . ''
The Sunday Times reported this weekend that the government was warned in early March by its two main modeling teams that without a tougher approach , about 250,000 people could die .
But it took the government three weeks to act on those warnings , according to the newspaper .
And even once the projections were accepted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nine days to deliberations over how and when a lockdown should be introduced .
A scientific adviser to the government confirmed the central claims of the Sunday Times account to BuzzFeed News .
The adviser , speaking on condition of anonymity , said those projections were made in two separate papers .
Those documents have not been made public , but their existence has been listed in this spreadsheet of document titles published by the government ’ s scientific advisory group .
The adviser said the early figures and other similar estimates had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Service .
“ It took 2–3 weeks for the UK government to be persuaded that there was no ‘ controlled epidemic ’ scenario which would lead to anything other than hundreds of thousands of deaths and the NHS falling over , ” the adviser told BuzzFeed News .
The British broadcaster ITV revealed last month that Sedwill had the coronavirus at about the same time as the prime minister , who tested positive in late March .
The government later confirmed that Sedwill developed symptoms around April 2–3 .
It is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus , though the festival was held more than two weeks before those dates .

The UK’s seniormost public official attended a massive horse racing festival in mid-March that experts have linked to an increased spread of the coronavirus, BuzzFeed News has learned.
Sir Mark Sedwill, the powerful cabinet secretary and head of the civil service, was one of 250,000 spectators at the four-day Cheltenham Festival. The festival ran from March 10 to March 13 — the week that many of the world’s largest sports screeched to a halt, with the NBA suspending its season, the NCAA canceling March Madness, and many European soccer leagues canceling matches.
A new analysis released this week suggests that the British government’s decision to allow the Cheltenham Festival to go forward "caused increased suffering and death."
Sedwill oversees the UK’s 400,000 civil servants — permanent government employees who hold no political position — and is the country’s most influential unelected official. As cabinet secretary and Boris Johnson’s national security adviser, Sedwill would have been intimately involved in discussions over whether and how to introduce lockdown restrictions.
Asked about Sedwill’s attendance at the Cheltenham Festival, a government spokesperson said that its approach to mass gatherings “has been guided by the latest science, taking the right decisions at the right time.” The spokesperson added that the “decision to go ahead with the festival was taken by the racecourse, operating within clear public health guidance at the time.” The Cabinet Office declined to say whether Sedwill paid for his tickets, or whether he received them as a gift.
The revelation comes in the midst of a firestorm over alleged lockdown breaches by another influential figure, Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s top aide, who drove 260 miles from his home in London to stay on his parents’ property when restrictions were at their tightest.
There were no lockdown restrictions in place when Sedwill attended the Cheltenham Festival. But many mass gatherings were being canceled around the world while Cheltenham continued to operate. On March 11 — the same day the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic, and President Donald Trump announced sweeping new travel restrictions — an NBA game in Oklahoma City was abandoned right before tipoff after Utah Jazz center Rudy Gobert tested positive for the coronavirus.


buzzfeed--2020-05-27--Trump’s Campaign And Fox News Are Attacking A Twitter Employee Because They Think He Fact-Checked Th

Trump’s Campaign And Fox News Are Attacking A Twitter Employee Because They Think He Fact-Checked The President. They Have The Wrong Guy.

“ No one person at Twitter is responsible for our policies , ” a Twitter spokesperson told BuzzFeed News .
“ It 's unfortunate to see individual employees targeted for company decisions.
” Right-wing media and Trump supporters are targeting a Twitter employee after the platform fact-checked President Donald Trump for the first time on Tuesday , applying its label for misleading tweets from world leaders to two tweets he sent about mail-in ballots in California .
Yet according to the company , it was not that employee 's responsibility to fact-check the tweet .
Trump ’ s tweets claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter fraud — which Myrna Pérez , director of the Brennan Center 's Voting Rights and Elections Program , told BuzzFeed News there was no evidence for .
Twitter added a label below the tweets that said , `` Get the facts about mail-in ballots . ''
Upon clicking the link , people would see the following message : `` Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud . ''
The Trump fact-check set off fury from Republicans .
“ Yep .
It ’ s pretty simple : if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to editorialize and censor and act like traditional publishers , they should be treated like traditional publishers and stop receiving the special carve out from the federal government in Section 230 , ” Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley tweeted on Wednesday morning , following a similar complaint from Florida Sen. Marco Rubio the previous night .
As the right-wing criticisms of the site grew , conservatives settled on a single scapegoat : Twitter 's head of site integrity , Yoel Roth .
On Tuesday night , three-year-old anti-Trump tweets of Roth ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Post reporter Jon Levine .
“ This person is the ‘ head of site integrity ’ at Twitter , ” Levine tweeted , sharing Roth ’ s old tweets , which included : “ I ’ m just saying , we fly over the states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason '' and “ Yes , that person in the pink hat is clearly a bigger threat to your brand of feminism than ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
” Levine ’ s tweet has been retweeted over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's son Eric Trump , far-right actor James Woods , and Fox News host Brit Hume .
Roth has also been written about by the Daily Mail , Breitbart News , and the Daily Wire .
And ire against him has spread past the site for which he works : According to social metrics site CrowdTangle , his name has driven 32,000 interactions on Facebook since Tuesday .
A Fox News article about him was shared to “ X22 Report [ Geopolitical ] , ” one of the larger QAnon groups on Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retweeted Levine ’ s post and then tweeted about Roth twice more on Wednesday .
But the coverage and complaints about Roth are based on a basic misunderstanding of his job : He 's not the person who decided to fact-check the president .
A spokesperson for Twitter on Wednesday told BuzzFeed News that Roth was not responsible for fact-checking Trump ’ s tweets , adding that he would not be put on leave or reprimanded in any way .
“ No one person at Twitter is responsible for our policies or enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see individual employees targeted for company decisions , ” the spokesperson said .
The spokesperson said Roth was not available to comment , due to the deluge of abuse he ’ s currently getting online .
Roth has worked at Twitter since 2015 and currently heads the platform ’ s Site Integrity team , which deals with platform manipulation , bots , and foreign interference campaigns — not fact-checking — although it is a sub-team of the Trust and Safety team , which was the group that made the decision on Tuesday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning to singling him out specifically .
Roth ’ s tweets were embedded in a Fox News story devoted entirely to painting him as an anti-Trump activist secretly pulling the strings within Twitter .
Host Charles Payne mentioned his name during a Fox & Friends segment Wednesday morning .
During a different Fox & Friends segment , White House adviser Kellyanne Conway spelled out his name and Twitter handle .
“ Somebody in San Francisco will wake him up and tell him he 's about to get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Her remarks were then reported in a different Fox News story about Roth .
And Conway threat materialized : As of Wednesday morning , Roth ’ s account was flooded with abuse .
`` @ yoyoel IS A FRAUD !
Label that # LIAR , '' one person tweeted .
During its shareholder meeting on Wednesday , Twitter General Counsel Sean Edgett said the decision to fact-check the president 's tweets was made by a group of employees .
`` We have a group and committee of folks who take a look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what 's getting a lot of visibility and interaction , and where there 's a lot of conversation , and where we feel like we should be applying a label , '' he said .
Trump 's tweets were reported by a third-party organization that works with the platform .
Twitter 's trust and safety team reviewed the tweets to decide if they violated the company 's policies and needed to be pulled down .
The president 's tweets were left up , but it was decided they would include a misleading information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decision , after which Twitter 's broader public policy team and the communication teams were informed .
That decision came after weeks of pressure mounting to label tweets from the president that contained misinformation .
As of Tuesday night , Trump had tweeted six times , most recently over Memorial Day weekend , about a decades-old conspiracy theory that falsely claimed that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough was involved in the 2001 death of Lori Klausutis , a staffer who worked in his Florida office when he served in Congress .
Last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , wrote a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey asking him to remove the president 's tweets , but Twitter refused .
A spokesperson for Twitter told BuzzFeed News on Tuesday that the fact-checked Trump tweets contained potentially misleading information about voting processes and were labeled to provide additional context around mail-in ballots .
It was the first time the site had taken action against content unrelated to COVID-19 since it launched the tool on May 11 .
`` This decision is in line with the approach we shared earlier this month , @ @ @ @ @

Right-wing media and Trump supporters are targeting a Twitter employee after the platform fact-checked President Donald Trump for the first time on Tuesday, applying its label for misleading tweets from world leaders to two tweets he sent about mail-in ballots in California. Yet according to the company, it was not that employee's responsibility to fact-check the tweet.
Trump’s tweets claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to increased voter fraud — which Myrna Pérez, director of the Brennan Center's Voting Rights and Elections Program, told BuzzFeed News there was no evidence for. Twitter added a label below the tweets that said, "Get the facts about mail-in ballots." Upon clicking the link, people would see the following message: "Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud."
The Trump fact-check set off fury from Republicans. “Yep. It’s pretty simple: if Twitter and Google and the rest are going to editorialize and censor and act like traditional publishers, they should be treated like traditional publishers and stop receiving the special carve out from the federal government in Section 230,” Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley tweeted on Wednesday morning, following a similar complaint from Florida Sen. Marco Rubio the previous night.


buzzfeed--2020-05-28--This Top UK Official Attended A Massive Horse-Racing Festival Right As The Pandemic Was Exploding


buzzfeed--2020-05-28--Trump’s Campaign And Fox News Are Attacking A Twitter Employee Because They Think He Fact-Checked Th

“ No one person at Twitter is responsible for our policies , ” a Twitter spokesperson told BuzzFeed News .
“ It 's unfortunate to see individual employees targeted for company decisions.
” Right-wing media and Trump supporters are targeting a Twitter employee after the platform fact-checked President Donald Trump for the first time on Tuesday , applying its label for misleading tweets from world leaders to two tweets he sent about mail-in ballots in California .
Yet according to the company , it was not that employee 's responsibility to fact-check the tweet .
Trump ’ s tweets claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter fraud — which Myrna Pérez , director of the Brennan Center 's Voting Rights and Elections Program , told BuzzFeed News there was no evidence for .
Twitter added a label below the tweets that said , `` Get the facts about mail-in ballots . ''
Upon clicking the link , people would see the following message : `` Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud . ''
The Trump fact-check set off fury from Republicans .
“ Yep .
It ’ s pretty simple : if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to editorialize and censor and act like traditional publishers , they should be treated like traditional publishers and stop receiving the special carve out from the federal government in Section 230 , ” Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley tweeted on Wednesday morning , following a similar complaint from Florida Sen. Marco Rubio the previous night .
As the right-wing criticisms of the site grew , conservatives settled on a single scapegoat : Twitter 's head of site integrity , Yoel Roth .
On Tuesday night , three-year-old anti-Trump tweets of Roth ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Post reporter Jon Levine .
“ This person is the ‘ head of site integrity ’ at Twitter , ” Levine tweeted , sharing Roth ’ s old tweets , which included : “ I ’ m just saying , we fly over the states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason '' and “ Yes , that person in the pink hat is clearly a bigger threat to your brand of feminism than ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
” Levine ’ s tweet has been retweeted over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's son Eric Trump , far-right actor James Woods , and Fox News host Brit Hume .
Roth has also been written about by the Daily Mail , Breitbart News , and the Daily Wire .
And ire against him has spread past the site for which he works : According to social metrics site CrowdTangle , his name has driven 32,000 interactions on Facebook since Tuesday .
A Fox News article about him was shared to “ X22 Report [ Geopolitical ] , ” one of the larger QAnon groups on Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retweeted Levine ’ s post and then tweeted about Roth twice more on Wednesday .
But the coverage and complaints about Roth are based on a basic misunderstanding of his job : He 's not the person who decided to fact-check the president .
A spokesperson for Twitter on Wednesday told BuzzFeed News that Roth was not responsible for fact-checking Trump ’ s tweets , adding that he would not be put on leave or reprimanded in any way .
“ No one person at Twitter is responsible for our policies or enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see individual employees targeted for company decisions , ” the spokesperson said .
The spokesperson said Roth was not available to comment , due to the deluge of abuse he ’ s currently getting online .
Roth has worked at Twitter since 2015 and currently heads the platform ’ s Site Integrity team , which deals with platform manipulation , bots , and foreign interference campaigns — not fact-checking — although it is a sub-team of the Trust and Safety team , which was the group that made the decision on Tuesday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dorsey said he took responsibility for the Trump fact-check , tweeting , `` Fact check : there is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company , and that ’ s me .
Please leave our employees out of this .
We ’ ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally .
And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make . ''
Roth ’ s tweets were embedded in a Fox News story devoted entirely to painting him as an anti-Trump activist secretly pulling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mentioned his name during a Fox & Friends segment Wednesday morning .
During a different Fox & Friends segment , White House adviser Kellyanne Conway spelled out his name and Twitter handle .
“ Somebody in San Francisco will wake him up and tell him he 's about to get a lot more followers , ” Conway said .
Her remarks were then reported in a different Fox News story about Roth .
And Conway threat materialized : As of Wednesday morning , Roth ’ s account was flooded with abuse .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that # LIAR , '' one person tweeted .
During its shareholder meeting on Wednesday , Twitter General Counsel Sean Edgett said the decision to fact-check the president 's tweets was made by a group of employees .
`` We have a group and committee of folks who take a look at these things and make decisions on what 's getting a lot of visibility and interaction , and where there 's a lot of conversation , and where we feel like we should be applying a label , '' he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ third-party organization that works with the platform .
Twitter 's trust and safety team reviewed the tweets to decide if they violated the company 's policies and needed to be pulled down .
The president 's tweets were left up , but it was decided they would include a misleading information label .
Senior executives were informed of the decision , after which Twitter 's broader public policy team and the communication teams were informed .
That decision came after weeks of pressure mounting to label tweets from the president that contained misinformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had tweeted six times , most recently over Memorial Day weekend , about a decades-old conspiracy theory that falsely claimed that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough was involved in the 2001 death of Lori Klausutis , a staffer who worked in his Florida office when he served in Congress .
Last week , Klausutis 's widower , T.J. Klausutis , wrote a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey asking him to remove the president 's tweets , but Twitter refused .
A spokesperson for Twitter told BuzzFeed News on Tuesday that the fact-checked Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ processes and were labeled to provide additional context around mail-in ballots .
It was the first time the site had taken action against content unrelated to COVID-19 since it launched the tool on May 11 .
`` This decision is in line with the approach we shared earlier this month , '' the spokesperson said .


buzzfeed--2020-05-28--These Charts And Maps Show Where The Coronavirus Is Surging Across The US — And Where It Is In Decli

The journalists at BuzzFeed News are proud to bring you trustworthy and relevant reporting about the coronavirus .
To help keep this news free , become a member and sign up for our newsletter , Outbreak Today .
New coronavirus infections are on the rise in parts of the country , such as North Carolina and Arkansas , while falling in former hot spots like New York .
As the weeks and months drag on , experts expect to see a patchwork of surging and subsiding local epidemics — particularly if the virus starts to spread rapidly in places that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy to its knees .
The charts and maps below will help you track this shifting landscape and will be updated regularly .
The colors indicate whether the number of new cases has risen or fallen in the last two weeks .
In locations highlighted in pink , new cases have surged , while green shows where the number has declined .
The darker the shade of pink or green , the larger the relative rise or fall .
Because the number of confirmed new cases on any day can fluctuate widely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new cases over the last seven days to provide a more stable measure on any given day .
Locations shown in light gray have either had very few cases in the past two weeks , or the number has changed by less than 5 % .


buzzfeed--2020-05-29--Forget Trump’s Executive Order. Some Lawmakers Want To Use Antitrust To Really Take On Big Tech

WASHINGTON , DC - President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office before signing an executive order related to regulating social media on May 28 , 2020 .
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting social media companies Thursday , but despite a lengthy Oval Office diatribe it ’ s not clear whether it will actually do anything .
“ It isn ’ t going to meaningfully change anything and I think it ’ s not serious , ” Sarah Miller , executive director of the anti-monopoly think tank the American Economic Liberties Project , told BuzzFeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ much more important and serious ” conversation going on elsewhere in the government : how to use antitrust laws to rein in big tech companies .
Federal regulators mostly sat back as companies like Google and Facebook gobbled up competitors and grew into massive platforms .
But now a growing number of lawmakers , from both parties , are arguing that these platforms have become akin to public utilities that need oversight — or something more drastic .
Their motivations don ’ t always align .
Democratic concerns center on social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and corroding the public discourse .
Republicans have accused Facebook and Twitter of silencing conservatives .
But in both cases , the solution involves the government checking the powers of the tech companies .
The results could range from new restrictions on how companies can exploit the personal data of their users , a rewriting of liability laws , or antitrust lawsuits to split the largest companies apart .
Advocates in this unusual bipartisan alliance range from progressive leaders like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Pramila Jayapal to Trump ’ s strongest loyalists @

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting social media companies Thursday, but despite a lengthy Oval Office diatribe, it’s not clear whether it will actually do anything.
“It isn’t going to meaningfully change anything, and I think it’s not serious,” Sarah Miller, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, an anti-monopoly think tank, told BuzzFeed News.
But Miller said a “much more important and serious” conversation was going on elsewhere in the government: how to use antitrust laws to rein in big tech companies.
Federal regulators mostly sat back as companies like Google and Facebook gobbled up competitors and grew into massive platforms. But now a growing number of lawmakers from both parties are arguing that these platforms have become akin to public utilities that need oversight — or something more drastic.
Their motivations don’t always align. Democratic concerns center on social media platforms monetizing the spread of disinformation and corroding the public discourse. Republicans have accused Facebook and Twitter of silencing conservatives.
But in both cases, the solution involves the government checking the powers of the tech companies. The results could range from new restrictions on how companies can exploit the personal data of their users, a rewriting of liability laws, or antitrust lawsuits to split the largest companies apart.
Advocates in this unusual bipartisan alliance range from progressive leaders like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Pramila Jayapal to Trump’s strongest loyalists.


buzzfeed--2020-05-29--Trump Wants To Help Conservatives Sue Twitter For Censorship. Justice Brett Kavanaugh Could Get In T

Trump Wants To Help Conservatives Sue Twitter For Censorship. Justice Brett Kavanaugh Could Get In The Way.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday aimed at making it easier for people to sue Twitter and other social media platforms for what Trump and his allies have denounced as unconstitutional political censorship .
But any future First Amendment lawsuits that Trump has in mind will run into a problem that his order doesn ’ t appear to address : a US Supreme Court decision written by a justice he appointed , Brett Kavanaugh .
Trump ’ s executive order doesn ’ t — and couldn ’ t — change Supreme Court precedent .
Last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private companies aren ’ t government actors subject to the First Amendment ’ s free speech protections just because they open their platforms to the public .
Kavanaugh , one of Trump ’ s two appointees to the Supreme Court , wrote the opinion .
Just this week , the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit cited that Kavanaugh opinion when a three-judge panel rejected a First Amendment claim against Twitter , Facebook , Google , and Apple brought by conservative activists , including far-right media personality Laura Loomer , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ censored in violation of the First Amendment .
And earlier this year , the 9th Circuit relied on the same Kavanaugh opinion to reject an appeal from Prager University , a nonprofit that produces videos about conservative issues , which had sued YouTube for restricting access to some of its videos .
“ Social media platforms are not the government , they are not public fora , trying to superimpose that kind of framework on this makes no sense , and the courts have uniformly held that , ” First Amendment lawyer Bob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s law firm Davis Wright Tremaine has represented BuzzFeed News . )
Trump ’ s order concerns Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , which broadly says that companies that serve as platforms for third-party speech , like Twitter or Facebook , aren ’ t liable for what people post on their sites .
It also says that these companies can ’ t be sued for acting in “ good faith ” to restrict or take down “ obscene , lewd , lascivious , filthy , excessively violent , harassing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contends social media companies aren ’ t acting in “ good faith ” and are using Section 230 as a shield to censor conservative voices .
Trump signed the order after Twitter fact-checked two of his tweets and flagged them as containing “ potentially misleading information.
” “ It is the policy of the United States to ensure that , to the maximum extent permissible under the law , this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in ‘ good faith ’ to remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or pretextual actions ( often contrary to their stated terms of service ) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree , ” the executive order states .
The executive order doesn ’ t change anything about how Section 230 is applied in court right away .
Trump directed agencies to propose new rules and draft legislation for Congress that would chip away at the immunity social media companies have against being sued .
The question of just how much immunity social media platforms should get has come up in the federal courts in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reasons Trump articulated in Thursday ’ s order .
Victims of terrorism and their families have tried to sue tech companies for serving as platforms for groups such as ISIS to recruit , but they ’ ve lost , in part because courts have found that social media sites are immune under Section 230 .
Rather than focusing on political speech , Attorney General Bill Barr brought up terrorism cases in a speech in February as one area where Section 230 had “ severely diminished ” the power of other tools Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Daniel Weininger , a lawyer for families involved in some of the terrorism-related cases , told BuzzFeed News that it didn ’ t appear Trump ’ s executive order would directly address the Section 230 issues that have come up in their cases .
“ The administration ’ s concern seems to be some sort of pressing the thumbs on the scale of the content that ’ s posted on the platform , and what we ’ re driving at is that there needs to be more activity from the big three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] with respect to the content that is on there , ” Weininger said .
“ We are asking for more vigilance in terms of policing the content.
” Trump ’ s order is couched in terms of the First Amendment .
The first section reads : “ Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy .
Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution .
… In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression , we can not allow a limited number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Americans may access and convey on the internet.
” Several courts have cited Kavanaugh ’ s June 2019 opinion in rejecting First Amendment claims against online platforms .
That case , Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck , wasn ’ t about social media ; it involved a private nonprofit that operated a public access TV channel in New York .
The nonprofit faced a First Amendment claim after it suspended people from the network who had criticized the nonprofit .
Kavanaugh , joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Neil Gorsuch ( Trump ’ s other Supreme Court pick ) , wrote that the nonprofit wasn ’ t acting as a government entity just because it opened up the channel to public speech .
As a private actor , and not a state actor , the nonprofit was “ not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion , ” Kavanaugh wrote .
In February , the 9th Circuit relied on Halleck when it upheld the dismissal of Prager University ’ s lawsuit against YouTube , which had restricted access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ videos and limited advertising .
The 9th Circuit found that the Supreme Court was clear that private entities don ’ t become state actors just because they operate as a public forum for speech .
“ PragerU ’ s attempt to foist a ‘ public forum ’ label on YouTube by claiming that YouTube declared itself a public forum ... fails .
YouTube ’ s representation that it is committed to freedom of expression , or a single statement made by its executive before a congressional committee that she considers YouTube to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not somehow convert private property into a public forum , ” Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the three-judge panel .
And in yesterday ’ s DC Circuit order , a three-judge panel wrote that a First Amendment claim against Google , Facebook , Twitter , and Apple brought by Loomer and conservative advocacy group Freedom Watch failed because there was no evidence that the platforms were “ engaged in state action.
” “ In general , the First Amendment ‘ prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech , ’ ” the DC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who had included the italics for emphasis in his opinion .
“ Freedom Watch contends that , because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech , they are engaged in state action .
But , under Halleck , ‘ a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor .
’ ”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday aimed at making it easier for people to sue Twitter and other social media platforms for what Trump and his allies have denounced as unconstitutional political censorship.
But any future First Amendment lawsuits that Trump has in mind will run into a problem that his order doesn’t appear to address: a US Supreme Court decision written by a justice he appointed, Brett Kavanaugh.
Trump’s executive order doesn’t — and couldn’t — change Supreme Court precedent. Last year, the court ruled 5–4 that private companies aren’t government actors subject to the First Amendment’s free speech protections just because they open their platforms to the public. Kavanaugh, one of Trump’s two appointees to the Supreme Court, wrote the opinion.
Just this week, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit cited that Kavanaugh opinion when a three-judge panel rejected a First Amendment claim against Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple brought by conservative activists, including far-right media personality Laura Loomer, who argued they’d been deplatformed and censored in violation of the First Amendment.
And earlier this year, the 9th Circuit relied on the same Kavanaugh opinion to reject an appeal from Prager University, a nonprofit that produces videos about conservative issues, which had sued YouTube for restricting access to some of its videos.
“Social media platforms are not the government, they are not public fora, trying to superimpose that kind of framework on this makes no sense, and the courts have uniformly held that,” First Amendment lawyer Bob Corn-Revere told BuzzFeed News. (Corn-Revere’s law firm Davis Wright Tremaine has represented BuzzFeed News.)
Trump’s order concerns Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which broadly says that companies that serve as platforms for third-party speech, like Twitter or Facebook, aren’t liable for what people post on their sites. It also says that these companies can’t be sued for acting in “good faith” to restrict or take down “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable” material.
Trump contends social media companies aren’t acting in “good faith” and are using Section 230 as a shield to censor conservative voices. Trump signed the order after Twitter fact-checked two of his tweets and flagged them as containing “potentially misleading information.”
“It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in ‘good faith’ to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree,” the executive order states.
The executive order doesn’t change anything about how Section 230 is applied in court right away. Trump directed agencies to propose new rules and draft legislation for Congress that would chip away at the immunity social media companies have against being sued.
The question of just how much immunity social media platforms should get has come up in the federal courts in recent years, but not always for the reasons Trump articulated in Thursday’s order. Victims of terrorism and their families have tried to sue tech companies for serving as platforms for groups such as ISIS to recruit, but they’ve lost, in part because courts have found that social media sites are immune under Section 230.
Rather than focusing on political speech, Attorney General Bill Barr brought up terrorism cases in a speech in February as one area where Section 230 had “severely diminished” the power of other tools Congress adopted to provide relief to victims. But Daniel Weininger, a lawyer for families involved in some of the terrorism-related cases, told BuzzFeed News that it didn’t appear Trump’s executive order would directly address the Section 230 issues that have come up in their cases.
“The administration’s concern seems to be some sort of pressing the thumbs on the scale of the content that’s posted on the platform, and what we’re driving at is that there needs to be more activity from the big three [Facebook, Google, and Twitter] with respect to the content that is on there,” Weininger said. “We are asking for more vigilance in terms of policing the content.”
Trump’s order is couched in terms of the First Amendment. The first section reads: “Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. … In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.”
Several courts have cited Kavanaugh’s June 2019 opinion in rejecting First Amendment claims against online platforms. That case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, wasn’t about social media; it involved a private nonprofit that operated a public access TV channel in New York. The nonprofit faced a First Amendment claim after it suspended people from the network who had criticized the nonprofit. Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito Jr., and Neil Gorsuch (Trump’s other Supreme Court pick), wrote that the nonprofit wasn’t acting as a government entity just because it opened up the channel to public speech.
As a private actor, and not a state actor, the nonprofit was “not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion,” Kavanaugh wrote.
In February, the 9th Circuit relied on Halleck when it upheld the dismissal of Prager University’s lawsuit against YouTube, which had restricted access to some of the organization’s videos and limited advertising. The 9th Circuit found that the Supreme Court was clear that private entities don’t become state actors just because they operate as a public forum for speech.
“PragerU’s attempt to foist a ‘public forum’ label on YouTube by claiming that YouTube declared itself a public forum ... fails. YouTube’s representation that it is committed to freedom of expression, or a single statement made by its executive before a congressional committee that she considers YouTube to be a ‘neutral public fora,’ cannot somehow convert private property into a public forum,” Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the three-judge panel.
And in yesterday’s DC Circuit order, a three-judge panel wrote that a First Amendment claim against Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple brought by Loomer and conservative advocacy group Freedom Watch failed because there was no evidence that the platforms were “engaged in state action.”
“In general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,’” the DC Circuit panel wrote, quoting Kavanaugh, who had included the italics for emphasis in his opinion. “Freedom Watch contends that, because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech, they are engaged in state action. But, under Halleck, ‘a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.’”
Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch, told BuzzFeed News that the executive order wouldn't directly address the DC Circuit's First Amendment analysis in his case about what counted as a "public forum," but he said he thought the administration was trying to "blunt" the decision and others like it.