Court after court has recognized that no one can own the text of the law. But the Pro Codes Act is a deceptive power grab that will help giant industry associations ration access to huge swaths of U.S. laws. Tell Congress not to fall for it.
What do House Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Barbara Lee have in common with House Republicans like Thomas Massie and Andy Biggs? Not a lot. But they do know an unconstitutional bill when they see one.
These and others on both sides of the aisle were among the 65 House Members who voted "no" yesterday on the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” H.R. 7521, which would effectively ban TikTok. The bill now goes to the Senate, where we hope cooler heads will prevail in demanding comprehensive data privacy legislation instead of this attack on Americans' First Amendment rights.
We're saying plenty about this misguided, unfounded bill, and we want you to speak out about it too, but we thought you should see what some of the House Members who opposed it said, in their own words.
I am voting NO on the TikTok ban.
Rather than target one company in a rushed and secretive process, Congress should pass comprehensive data privacy protections and do a better job of informing the public of the threats these companies may pose to national security.
— Rep. Barbara Lee (@RepBarbaraLee) March 13, 2024
___________________
Today, I voted against the so-called “TikTok Bill.”
Here’s why: pic.twitter.com/Kbyh6hEhhj
— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) March 13, 2024
___________________
Today, I voted against H.R. 7521. My full statement: pic.twitter.com/9QCFQ2yj5Q
— Rep. Nadler (@RepJerryNadler) March 13, 2024
___________________
Today I claimed 20 minutes in opposition to the TikTok ban bill, and yielded time to several likeminded colleagues.
This bill gives the President far too much authority to determine what Americans can see and do on the internet.
This is my closing statement, before I voted No. pic.twitter.com/xMxp9bU18t
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 13, 2024
___________________
Why I voted no on the bill to potentially ban tik tok: pic.twitter.com/OGkfdxY8CR
— Jim Himes 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@jahimes) March 13, 2024
___________________
I don’t use TikTok. I find it unwise to do so. But after careful review, I’m a no on this legislation.
This bill infringes on the First Amendment and grants undue power to the administrative state. pic.twitter.com/oSpmYhCrV8
— Rep. Dan Bishop (@RepDanBishop) March 13, 2024
___________________
I’m voting NO on the TikTok forced sale bill.
This bill was incredibly rushed, from committee to vote in 4 days, with little explanation.
There are serious antitrust and privacy questions here, and any national security concerns should be laid out to the public prior to a vote.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 13, 2024
___________________
We should defend the free & open debate that our First Amendment protects. We should not take that power AWAY from the people & give it to the government. The answer to authoritarianism is NOT more authoritarianism. The answer to CCP-style propaganda is NOT CCP-style oppression. pic.twitter.com/z9HWgUSMpw
mcclintock.mp4
— Tom McClintock (@RepMcClintock) March 13, 2024
___________________
I'm voting no on the TikTok bill. Here's why:
1) It was rushed.
2) There's major free speech issues.
3) It would hurt small businesses.
4) America should be doing way more to protect data privacy & combatting misinformation online. Singling out one app isn't the answer.
— Rep. Jim McGovern (@RepMcGovern) March 13, 2024
___________________
Solve the correct problem.
Privacy.
Surveillance.
Content moderation.
Who owns #TikTok?
60% investors - including Americans
20% +7,000 employees - including Americans
20% founders
CEO & HQ Singapore
Data in Texas held by Oracle
What changes with ownership? I’ll be voting NO. pic.twitter.com/MrfROe02IS
— Warren Davidson 🇺🇸 (@WarrenDavidson) March 13, 2024
___________________
I voted no on the bill to force the sale of TikTok. Unlike our adversaries, we believe in freedom of speech and don’t ban social media platforms. Instead of this rushed bill, we need comprehensive data security legislation that protects all Americans.
— Val Hoyle (@RepValHoyle) March 13, 2024
___________________
Please tell the Senate to reject this bill and instead give Americans the comprehensive data privacy protections we so desperately need.
Special thanks to EFF legal intern Jack Beck, who was the lead author of this post.
Amid heavy criticism for its ties to weapons manufacturers supplying Israel, South by Southwest—the organizer of an annual conference and music festival in Austin—has been on the defensive. One tool in their arsenal: bogus trademark and copyright claims against local advocacy group Austin for Palestine Coalition.
The Austin for Palestine Coalition has been a major source of momentum behind recent anti-SXSW protests. Their efforts have included organizing rallies outside festival stages and hosting an alternative music festival in solidarity with Palestine. They have also created social media posts explaining the controversy, criticizing SXSW, and calling on readers to email SXSW with demands for action. The group’s posts include graphics that modify SXSW’s arrow logo to add blood-stained fighter jets. Other images incorporate patterns evoking SXSW marketing materials overlaid with imagery like a bomb or a bleeding dove.
One of Austin for Palestine's graphics
Days after the posts went up, SXSW sent a cease-and-desist letter to Austin for Palestine, accusing them of trademark and copyright infringement and demanding they take down the posts. Austin for Palestine later received an email from Instagram indicating that SXSW had reported the post for violating their trademark rights.
We responded to SXSW on Austin for Palestine’s behalf, explaining that their claims are completely unsupported by the law and demanding they retract them.
The law is clear on this point. The First Amendment protects your right to make a political statement using trademark parodies, whether or not the trademark owner likes it. That’s why trademark law applies a different standard (the “Rogers test”) to infringement claims involving expressive works. The Rogers test is a crucial defense against takedowns like these, and it clearly applies here. Even without Rogers’ extra protections, SXSW’s trademark claim would be bogus: Trademark law is about preventing consumer confusion, and no reasonable consumer would see Austin for Palestine’s posts and infer they were created or endorsed by SXSW.
SXSW’s copyright claims are just as groundless. Basic symbols like their arrow logo are not copyrightable. Moreover, even if SXSW meant to challenge Austin for Palestine’s mimicking of their promotional material—and it’s questionable whether that is copyrightable as well—the posts are a clear example of non-infringing fair use. In a fair use analysis, courts conduct a four-part analysis, and each of those four factors here either favors Austin for Palestine or is at worst neutral. Most importantly, it’s clear that the critical message conveyed by Austin for Palestine’s use is entirely different from the original purpose of these marketing materials, and the only injury to SXSW is reputational—which is not a cognizable copyright injury.
SXSW has yet to respond to our letter. EFF has defended against bogus copyright and trademark claims in the past, and SXSW’s attempted takedown feels especially egregious considering the nature of Austin for Palestine’s advocacy. Austin for Palestine used SXSW’s iconography to make a political point about the festival itself, and neither trademark nor copyright is a free pass to shut down criticism. As an organization that “dedicates itself to helping creative people achieve their goals,” SXSW should know better.
