| Submission declined on 3 December 2023 by Chetsford (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
| Submission declined on 2 December 2023 by Chetsford (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
| |
Comment: Article appears to have two secondary sources: a post to the EFF blog and a Bloomberg article. This isn't sufficient to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and, were this article to be brought to XFD in its current state it would, in my opinion, almost certainly be turned into a redirect to Twitter with non-WP:OR content merged. Chetsford (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Secondary sources are needed to demonstrate the notability of this subject. Chetsford (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Twitter Inc. v. Garland, et al, No. 20-16174 61 F.4th 686 U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit argued and submitted in Seattle, WA, filed March 6th, 2023, was a court case between Twitter (now known as X Corp) and the United States Federal Government represented by the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorney General Merrick Garland.:[1]
Background edit
In 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sent Twitter a National Security Letter requesting data about Twitter's users.[2] Twitter complied with the FBI. However, Twitter also wanted to publicly disclose a Transparency Report using "certain aggregate information" about the FBI's user data request.[2] The FBI claimed that the subpoenas of information sent to Twitter was classified involving national security, and that the information that Twitter wished to publish should be protected from public disclosure. Twitter claimed that this was a violation of their 1st Amendment right to free speech, and filed a case in 2014. The case was argued in 2020 under Twitter Inc. v. Barr [3][4] to which the district court ruled that “The Court applies the strict scrutiny standard to the challenged restrictions and finds that the government's restrictions on the information Twitter may report are, in fact, narrowly tailored in substance. ” Twitter, Inc. v. Barr, 445 F. Supp. 3d 295, 303 (N.D. Cal. 2020) [5]. The district court decision of the case was delivered by judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for Northern California. After the ruling in Twitter Inc. v. Barr, Twitter appealed their case to the 9th Circuit Appeals Court.
Contest grounds edit
Twitter contested the district court's rulings on the following grounds:[2]
- Standards of strict scrutiny were not met, as set forth in New York Times Co. v. U.S.
- Procedural safeguards were absent, as set forth in Freedman v. Maryland.
- Requesting access to classified versions of declarations to Twitter's cleared counsel to respond to arguments by the government.
Holdings of the appeal edit
The appealed case was argued in March of 2023, and was decided in October of 2023. The decision was delivered by circuit court judge Daniel Bress. The appellate court upheld the rulings of the district court, entering summary judgement in favor of the government. The court made the following holdings[6]
- The restrictions placed by the government were in fact subject to strict scrutiny
- The restrictions placed by the government were in fact narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest; in this case, that interest is national security.
- The government was not required to comply with exact procedural safeguards of censorship as laid forth in Freedman v. Maryland.
- The requirements of nondisclosure of the National Security Letter issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not have to comply with the ruling of Freedman v. Maryland since there was a compelling state interest in national security
- Laws in place allowed for sufficient procedural protections of Twitter's rights
- The government did not violate Twitter's 5th Amendment and14th Amendment due process rights by refusing the company to allow outside legal counsel to have access to classified information pertaining the user information subpoena made by the government.
Twitter has disagreed with the opinion of the appeal, and has petitioned for certiorari. As of December 1st, 2023, the Supreme Court has not yet provided a response to the petition.
Controversy edit
The appeals court's holdings brought along discussion of whether the ruling would allow the government to overreach its power. [7] The concern by 1st amendment right advocates is that the extent of the government's reasoning for national security and prior restraint has been expanded as a result of the upholding of the district court's ruling.[8] Free speech advocates believe that the situation does not appropriately fall within reasoning for national security, rather they claim the government's use is for surveillance. The U.S. Government claims that the connotation of a National Security Letter presents classified and sensitive information, and therefore, within the realm of prior restraint.
References edit
- ^ “Twitter, Inc.. v. Merrick Garland, et al, No. 20-16174 (9th Cir. 2023).” Justia Law, law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-16174/20-16174-2023-03-06.html. Accessed 1 Dec. 2023.
- ^ a b c [1] “Twitter, Inc. v. Barr.” Global Freedom of Expression, 10 Nov. 2023, globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/twitter-inc-v-barr/.
- ^ “Twitter, Inc. v. Barr.” Global Freedom of Expression, 10 Nov. 2023, globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/twitter-inc-v-barr/.
- ^ Twitter, Inc. v. Barr, 445 F. Supp. 3d 295 (N.D. Cal. 2020), aff'd sub nom. Twitter, Inc. v. Garland, 61 F.4th 686 (9th Cir. 2023)
- ^ Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Judge. “Twitter, Inc. v. Barr.” Legal Research Tools from Casetext, 17 Apr. 2020, casetext.com/case/twitter-inc-v-barr.
- ^ Twitter, Inc. v. Garland, 61 F.4th 686 (9th Cir. 2023)
- ^ Crocker, Andrew. “Appeals Court Upholds Restriction on Twitter’s First Amendment Right to Publish National Security Transparency Report.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 22 Mar. 2023, www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/appeals-court-upholds-restriction-twitters-first-amendment-right-publish-national.
- ^ Tillman, Zoe, and Chris Strohm. “The US Can Stop Twitter from Releasing Details in Spy Report.” Bloomberg.Com, Bloomberg, 6 Mar. 2023, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-06/twitter-loses-appeal-over-release-of-us-surveillance-details.