The research that started it all--my law review note on the repeal of the domestic dissemination ban and the Smith-Mundt Act. As important today as it was three years ago. @NULRev scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol109/is…

This was what I was concerned about when I wrote my Northwestern University Law Review note--a true US-funded competitor to independent news: politico.com/story/2018/11/…

Former Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty head says that the BBG/USAGM needs more oversight. Couldn't agree more, particularly given how much power the executive branch holds over these agencies after recent restructurings. thehill.com/opinion/techno…

According to an official Congressional investigation, there have been at least 860 (!) violations of the Smith-Mundt Act over a two-year period. This cannot continue--Americans should not be targeted with U.S. government-funded media under federal law. foreignaffairs.house.gov/wp-content/upl…

I'm one of the "experts" they consulted, and I told them this would be total bullshit if they labeled Al Jazeera as state controlled media but exempted Voice of America and related entities. Watch this closely and see if they have the guts to label US-based media.

I hope everyone sees the importance now of labeling US state media (VOA) as it looks like they are about to get a giant exemption from Facebook. The president is about to appoint a CEO to run the USAGM—this is not what editorial independence looks like.

Facebook announced that it is going to be labeling foreign state media--a positive for transparency. But it does NOT appear that the company will be labeling U.S. state media such as Voice of America. Americans must know when their government is talking! about.fb.com/news/2020/06/l…

Still need confirmation that BBC is self-attributing as state media. If true, hoping that US state media outlets such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty follow suit. Here is research J.M. Grygiel 🐀 and I have published regarding identifying and labeling state media: scholarship.law.uci.edu/ucilr/vol11/is…

A decade ago, Congress eliminated the longstanding ban on the dissemination of U.S. state media within the United States. As I explain to AFP (article in Spanish), certain legal restrictions remain--as do questions about the U.S. government's compliance: factual.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33…

Dr. Emma L. Briant 🇬🇧 🇦🇺 BBC @Twitter …esp after his comments about the BBC self identifying. Also VOA and RFE/RL aren’t labeled…who knows what’s going on. Might just be sloppy…would be good to know.

NPR labeled as state media on Twitter? Not as crazy as it might seem so long as ex-USAGM head John Lansing is in charge: npr.org/people/7702705…. Still, seems odd--known US state media outlets Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty should certainly get the label first.

Kudos to Elon Musk and @Twitter for properly labeling U.S. state media outlet Voice of America as "Government Funded." People deserve to know when the U.S. government is talking to them. Still work to be done (such as labeling Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty), but this is an important step towards transparency.

Thrilled to see that Twitter has also labeled Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as "Government-funded Media." Despite what Amanda Bennett said to the U.S. State Department recently (state.gov/special-online…), this label is accurate and in no way "misleading."

Exciting news! Earlier today, RFK Jr.'s running mate Nicole Shanahan published a podcast in which she interviews me about my state media research. Link here: youtube.com/watch?v=DjZJSx…

More exciting news! In case you missed it, last month, I appeared on the Robert F. Kennedy Jr podcast RFK Jr Podcast to discuss my research on U.S. state media as well as the CIA's historical involvement in journalism and art. Link here: podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rfkjr…

In Murthy v. Missouri, I believe the SCOTUS majority did a disservice by ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing rather than ruling on the central First Amendment issue of whether the federal government can pressure social media platforms to remove private speech.

After reading the majority and dissent in Murthy, it seems that standing for at least one of the plaintiffs was a very close call. In such a scenario, the SCOTUS majority should have determined that standing existed and ruled on the merits of the case as they have before.

By imposing difficult-to-meet standing requirements and leaving the First Amendment issue unresolved, the SCOTUS majority in Murthy has (1) emboldened the federal government to pressure social media platforms and (2) made it harder for citizens to challenge government censorship.