Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit largely upheld a preliminary injunction against a similar Florida law. The law requires platforms to be treated as common carriers that must convey essentially all of their users’ messages rather than as publishers with editorial discretion. screeds denying or supporting the Holocaust, and encouraging children to engage in risky or unhealthy behavior like eating disorders.” The covered sites are largely prohibited from removing posts based on the viewpoints they express, with exceptions for the sexual exploitation of children, incitement of criminal activity and some threats of violence.Īccording to two trade groups that challenged the law, the measure “would compel platforms to disseminate all sorts of objectionable viewpoints - such as Russia’s propaganda claiming that its invasion of Ukraine is justified, ISIS propaganda claiming that extremism is warranted, neo-Nazi or K.K.K.
The law also does not cover sites that are devoted to news, sports, entertainment and other information that their users do not primarily generate. The law was prompted in part by the decisions of some platforms to bar President Donald J. The law’s supporters said the measure was an attempt to combat what they called Silicon Valley censorship, saying major platforms had removed posts expressing conservative views. “It is not at all obvious,” he wrote, “how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies.”
Justice Alito said he was skeptical of the argument that the social media companies have editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment like that enjoyed by newspapers and other traditional publishers. At issue is a groundbreaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.” “Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news. The President, if elected, will appoint the Prime Minister nominated by the largest alliance in the parliament, the Coordination Framework, to form a new government that would rule the country for the coming four years.“This application concerns issues of great importance that will plainly merit this court’s review,” he wrote. The Coordination Framework became the largest alliance in the Iraqi parliament after al-Sadr ordered his followers in the Sadrist Movement, the biggest winner in the elections held on October 10, 2021, with 73 seats, to withdraw from the parliament.ĭuring the past months, the continued dispute among the Shia parties have hampered the formation of a new Iraqi government, as the parliament has been unable to elect a new President by a two-thirds majority of the 329-seat parliament under the constitution. On Wednesday, hundreds of followers of Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr broke into the parliament building after the Coordination Framework, an umbrella group of Shia parliamentary parties, nominated al-Sudani on Monday for the post of Prime Minister.Įarlier in the day, al-Sadr's followers entered the Iraqi parliament building again and started a protest in the building. "The Secretary-General stresses that getting things out of control will not be in the interest of Iraq or in the interest of any party," the Arab League said on Facebook. Meanwhile, the Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul-Gheit on Saturday also appealed to all Iraqi political forces to work quickly to stop the escalation and start a real and sincere dialogue, Xinhua news agency reported. Voices of reason and wisdom are critical to prevent further violence," the UNAMI said on Twitter on Saturday, encouraging all sides to "de-escalate in the interest of all Iraqis".
Baghdad, Jul 31 (IANS):"The ongoing escalation is extremely concerning.