Canada’s Online Harms Act: Navigating digital safety and free speech
The Canadian government has introduced the Online Harms Act, a bill aimed at curbing hate speech and harmful content on social media platforms. The legislation has ignited a national conversation about the balance between ensuring digital safety and safeguarding individual freedoms.
The bill proposes the creation of a Digital Safety Commission and the assignment of a digital safety ombudsperson, tasked with enforcing new safety measures and providing support for victims of online abuse.
Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act are central to the bill’s strategy to combat a spectrum of online harms, including child sexual victimization, bullying and hate speech.
Critics, including notable Canadian author Margaret Atwood, have expressed concerns over what they describe as the bill’s Orwellian implications. They fear it could lead to false accusations and infringe upon freedom of thought.
Under the proposed law, advocating genocide could result in life imprisonment, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission would gain new powers to tackle online hate speech. The bill also focuses on protecting children from harmful online content, introducing bureaucratic bodies like the Digital Safety Commission to oversee the enforcement of these new regulations.
While supporters argue the legislation is essential for creating safer online environments, particularly for children, and liken the need for regulation to that of physical product safety, opponents are concerned it could be used to suppress free speech under the guise of combating hate speech.
SCOTUS hears arguments in landmark case on Texas, Florida social media laws
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases that could change how social media companies moderate content that users post on their sites and whether they can block some users altogether. The cases from Florida and Texas both look into censorship and First Amendment rights.
Florida and Texas passed what they described as anti-censorship laws in 2021 in response to what their state governments said was an anti-conservative bias from the social media platforms.
The Florida law bans social media companies from deplatforming a political candidate or a journalistic enterprise. The Texas law states a social media platform or interactive computer service may not censor a user based on their viewpoint.
In the Florida case, the justices will answer whether the First Amendment prohibits a state from requiring social media companies to host third-party communications. The judges will also determine whether the state can require the companies to notify and provide an explanation to their users if they do censor their speech.
“The platforms do not have a First Amendment right to apply their censorship policies in an inconsistent manner and to censor and deplatform certain users,” said Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker, R, during oral arguments.
“Florida’s effort to level the playing field and to fight the perceived bias of big tech violates the First Amendment several times over,” said Paul Clement, R, an attorney representing social media companies. “It interferes with editorial discretion, it compels speech, it discriminates on the basis of content, speaker and viewpoint.”
In the Texas case, the justices will determine if the First Amendment allows websites to choose how they publish and distribute speech.
“When editors or speakers engage in viewpoint discrimination, that is their First Amendment right,” Clement said. “It is also absolutely vital to the operation of these websites, because if you have to be viewpoint neutral, that means that if you have materials that are involved in suicide prevention, you also have to have materials that advocate suicide promotion. Or if you have materials on your site that are pro-semitic, then you have to let on materials onto your site that are antisemitic. And that is a formula for making these websites very unpopular to both users and advertisers.”
The court is also deciding whether these laws are unconstitutional in all situations, known as a facial challenge, or only unconstitutional as they apply to the specific circumstances of the plaintiff, known as an applied challenge.
There are also questions as to who these laws apply to. Much of the attention falls on social media sites like Facebook, X, formerly known as Twitter, and YouTube, where individuals post text, pictures and videos to be seen by others.
Arguments also touched on whether these laws apply to a host of other sites where individuals can post anything, including e-commerce sites.
“This is so, so broad,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Whitaker. “It’s covering almost everything. But the one thing I know about the internet is that its variety is infinite.”
In an amicus brief, Open Market Institute, which represents eBay and Etsy, wrote:
“It ought to be fundamental to the First Amendment that a marketplace for handmade t-shirts and coffee mugs should not be forced by a state’s ‘free speech’ regulations to carry ‘I ♥ Hitler’ paraphernalia out of ‘fairness’ to all viewpoints, or even to be forced to explain and justify — with individualized, case-specific reasons — why those views or products were taken down.”
“So Florida’s law, so far as I can understand it, is very broad,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said. “And we’re talking about the classic social media platforms, but it looks to me like it could cover Uber, it looks to me like it could cover just Google search engines, Amazon Web Service, and all of those things would look very different.”
A final decision on these cases will come out by June. Both laws were blocked from going into effect while the court reaches a decision.
Florida’s social media ban for kids under 16 awaits Gov. DeSantis’ signature
Florida may soon have one of the strictest social media laws in the United States. On Friday, Feb. 23, a bill that would ban children under the age of 16 from social media, regardless of parental consent, is heading to Gov. Ron DeSantis’ desk for his signature.
According to The Associated Press, the proposed restrictions, which have passed the Florida House and Senate, target any social media platforms that track user activity. The ban would enforce rules on any site that allows children to upload content and interact with other users.
Supporters of the social media measures argue they’re necessary as rates of suicide, depression and anxiety increase in teens. Advocates said the numbers are attributed to social media use, but social media companies have contended that the science is not conclusive.
Florida is not the first state to take action against social media companies.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, announced efforts to combat algorithms on social media sites, which she said send kids down rabbit holes and introduce them to harmful content.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams, also a Democrat, declared social media an “environmental toxin” and announced action against five social media companies, seeking a payout of millions of dollars in damages for the cost of mental health services and programs provided to teens. Adams largely blames social media for the mental health crisis among adolescents.
However, opponents of the bill contend the proposed law would violate the First Amendment, and they said that the decision to keep social media away from children should be left up to parents.
Social media bans for kids in Arkansas and Ohio have been paused as Big Tech has fought back against the laws, and judges have granted injunctions on the grounds that restrictions violate free speech rights.
The legislation in Florida has bipartisan support, with a mix of Democrats and Republicans helping to get the bill to DeSantis’ desk.
If DeSantis signs the social media ban into law, companies would be forced to close accounts believed to be used by minors and cancel accounts at the request of parents.
X complies with Indian gov’t order to take down accounts, posts
India’s government ordered X to take down certain accounts and posts to prevent social media users from seeing them. X said it will comply but disagrees with India’s request.
A post on the social platform’s global government affairs account says in part, “in compliance with the orders, we will withhold these accounts and posts in India alone; however, we disagree with these actions and maintain that freedom of expression should extend to these posts.”
The post also explained that details of the executive order cannot be made public, something it also disagrees with and wants changed for the sake of transparency.
Local media reports in India are associating its government’s demands with the farmers’ protests currently taking place in the country.
Press Trust of India — the largest news agency in India — reported that government agencies demanded the removal of nearly 200 X accounts linked to the protests.
Its sources also said those accounts can be restored after the farmers’ upheaval against government policies ends.
This is not the first time a foreign government has called on X to censor certain content going against a regime. It’s also not the platform’s first time receiving orders from India to censor posts and accounts.
In 2023, Elon Musk faced criticism after calling X a place of free speech but censoring over 100 prominent accounts belonging to politicians, journalists and activists on India’s command.
X also restricted posts ahead of a presidential election in Turkey after the Turkish government threatened to shut down the platform if it didn’t comply.
Musk is challenging the Indian government’s blocking orders in a pending case. India is the third largest market for X, following the U.S. and Japan. In the past, India has issued similar censorship demands to Meta, YouTube and other big tech platforms.
Navalny widow’s X account suspended after video; company calls it an error
Less than 24 hours after creating an X account and posting a video on the platform, Yulia Navalnaya — the widow of Alexei Navalny — had her social media account temporarily suspended. X said the suspension was done in error.
Yulia’s video message went viral, garnering more than 5 million views on the platform. The caption read, “I will continue the work of Alexei Navalny. Continue to fight for our country.”
Her husband, Alexei Navalny, was a well-known critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin and recently died while in a Russian prison. Many people, including President Joe Biden, said Putin was behind his death.
Yulia’s video accuses Russia of holding onto her late husband to conceal the cause of death, however, the video became unavailable when her account was suspended. News outlets said the account was down for 30 to 50 minutes.
After reinstating the account, X said it was accidentally flagged by its automated security protocols.
“Our platform’s defense mechanism against manipulation and spam mistakenly flagged Yulia as violating our rules,” X posted. “We unsuspended the account as soon as we became aware of the error, and will be updating the defense.”
Navalny’s family has been asking for the release of Navalny’s body. Russian investigators have reportedly told the family it won’t be released for at least two more weeks.
NYC sues social media owners, alleges Big Tech made platforms addictive
In January, New York City became the first major U.S. city to declare social media an “environmental toxin.” On Wednesday, Feb. 14, Mayor Eric Adams announced that New York City has filed a lawsuit against five social media companies, alleging Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube and Snapchat knowingly made their platforms addictive for teens.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages from the companies and aims to hold Big Tech more accountable.
Adams claims New York City spends $100 million each year on mental health services and programs for adolescents. According to ABC News, the city is seeking to have some of that repaid in the lawsuit.
“NYC Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur costs related to addressing the youth mental health crisis that Defendants created, caused, contributed to, and/or maintained,” the lawsuit said. “NYC Plaintiffs request relief relating to the damage or injury they have suffered, including actual and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial.”
“Over the past decade, we have seen how addictive and overwhelming the online world can be, exposing children to content they are not ready for, disrupting the educational process, and seriously damaging their self-esteem,” Adams said during a press conference Wednesday.
In addition to the lawsuit, New York City officials are also calling for increased mental health care, pointing to data that shows rates of “suicidal ideation” have increased among adolescents. City officials are also requesting more research on the impact social media is having on the mental health of teens.
Recently, social media companies have faced increased scrutiny from state and national politicians. Several social media CEOs were questioned and scolded by some U.S. lawmakers during public testimony. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg was pushed to apologize by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., during the hearing.
“Would you like to apologize to the victims who have been harmed by your product?” Hawley said. “Would you like to apologize for what you’ve done to these good people?”
“I’m sorry for everything you have been through,” Zuckerberg said as he faced the families in the audience. “No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered.”
Zuckerberg did, however, contend that a decline in mental health among teens is not directly related to his product.
In response to the New York City lawsuit, a Meta spokesperson told Reuters the company wanted teens to have “safe, age-appropriate experiences online.” A TikTok spokesperson also responded to ABC News’ report on the lawsuit, saying the company will “continue to work to keep the community safe by addressing industry-wide challenges.”
Google also issued a statement defending the company against the lawsuit.
“We’ve built services and products to give young people age-appropriate activities, experiences, and parents robust controls,” Jose Castaneda, a Google spokesperson, told Reuters. “The allegations in this complaint are simply not true.”
Snapchat also released a statement to ABC News.
“While we will always have more work to do, we feel good about the role Snapchat plays in helping close friends feel connected, happy, and prepared as they face the many challenges of adolescence,” said Ashley Adams, a Snapchat spokesperson.
While New York City looks to take legal action against social media companies, a federal judge in Ohio granted tech industry group NetChoice, which represents Facebook and TikTok among others, a legal win.
U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley ruled that an Ohio law requiring people under the age of 16 to get parental permission to use social media is unconstitutional, according to Reason Magazine.
“Foreclosing minors under the age of 16 from accessing all content on websites that the act purports to cover, absent affirmative parental consent, is a breathtakingly blunt instrument for reducing social media’s harm to children,” Marbley wrote.
Marbley’s temporary injunction is another blow to an increasing trend nationwide of requiring age verification to use social media apps. A federal judge ruled in September that an age restriction in Arkansas violated the First Amendment, blocking the law.
Senators say they have the votes to push through bill to protect kids online
A Common Sense Media census report found that 56% of U.S. children have their own social media accounts, and calls from parents and advocates to protect kids from harmful content, bullying and sexual exploitation have been growing for years. On Thursday, Feb. 15, the Senate announced it has enough votes to pass the Kids Online Safety Act after members of the Senate Committee on Child Safety interrogated Big Tech CEOs in January.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who championed the bill alongside Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told supporters at a rally in January that it is time to act.
“It is time for us to make certain that Big Tech stops looking at our children as the product, and it is time that we put in place provisions that are going to protect our children online, and it is time for Big Tech to stop funding armies of lawyers and lobbyist who push back against federal regulation in the virtual space,” Blackburn said at a rally on Jan. 31.
In a joint statement on Thursday, Blackburn and Blumenthal announced that after months of negotiations, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) has more than 60 backers in the Senate — enough to get it pushed through in a significant first step in regulating social media companies.
“This overwhelming bipartisan support for the Kids Online Safety Act … reflects the powerful voices of young people and parents who want Congress to act,” the senators said in part.
KOSA has come a long way since being introduced in 2022. Dozens of human rights and LGBTQ+ groups initially opposed the bill until it was updated to address concerns that regulators could use it to target and punish young LGBTQ users. The bill has since garnered support from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who determines what bills make it to the Senate floor for a vote.
The bill would require social media platforms to “exercise reasonable care” to prevent their products from causing anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance-use disorders and suicidal behaviors in kids, along with preventing addictive behaviors and bullying on their platforms.
“The Kids Online Safety Act would give parents and kids the tools that they need to protect themselves in the virtual space,” Blackburn said.
While it is certainly not Congress’ first attempt at regulating Big Tech companies, KOSA would be the first online children protection legislation or consumer privacy legislation to make it through a chamber in decades.
60 Senators have now joined me and @SenBlumenthal on the Kids Online Safety Act.
It’s clear that now is the time to protect young users and hold Big Tech accountable.
Though KOSA has transformed through months of negotiating to receive enough support to get through the Senate, it is unclear whether it can make it through a vote on the House floor.
Previously, there has been disagreement between the two chambers of Congress about what online issues should be top priority, with the House focusing its time on legislation to protect data privacy while the Senate’s focus has been on protecting kids and teens online.
Advocates for KOSA, though, are optimistic and see the Senate’s support for the Kids Online Protection Act as a way to pressure the House to send it to President Joe Biden’s desk for his signature.
NY officials propose restricting social media algorithms for kids
Gov. Kathy Hochul, D-N.Y., is throwing her support behind legislation that limits the power of social media algorithms for its youngest users. The proposed legislation would also require age verification for anyone under 18.
On Oct. 11, 2023, Hochul announced the state would pursue legislation that would limit the power of Big Tech algorithms and how they connect kids to content they’ve liked in the past. Lawmakers believe the law would protect kids from potentially harmful content.
“They’ll give more parents more tools to keep their kids safe, limit social media’s outreach, and also loosen the grip that these algorithms have on the way our kids think and act,” Hochul said.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the legislation is part of a “broader spending plan” by Hochul. The Journal also said that the proposal is likely to pass with state lawmakers required to take action by March 31.
The proposed law in New York is another critical juncture in the fight to rein in the powers of Big Tech. Forty-one attorneys general nationwide have filed lawsuits against Meta, and more cities and states are enacting laws to combat what critics contend are the harmful impacts of social media on the health of kids and teens.
The Wall Street Journal interviewed New York Attorney General Letitia James, D, who said that she believes the legislation, if passed, will survive a legal challenge. James said it will not falter under legal scrutiny like laws in Ohio and Arkansas, which ban social media for kids.
The laws banning social media for kids in Ohio and Arkansas are unable to be enforced because of legal challenges from NetChoice, a trade group that represents technology companies including Meta and TikTok. A district judge granted NetChoice a temporary injunction after it filed a lawsuit against all three states. Utah’s law doesn’t go into place until March 1, 2024.
The reason James believes the New York’s proposed law will be successful is because it differs in scope from the states that previously enacted age restrictions. Instead of targeting all of the content, New York’s law would target a “delivery mechanism.” The law would not regulate content broadly.
The state senator who sponsors the bill, Andrew Gounardes, D-N.Y., spoke with the Journal.
“If you want to follow the Taylor Swift fan page, that’s great,” said New York Sen. Andrew Gounardes, the bill’s sponsor.“What we don’t want is where you click on one thing and in 15 minutes be shown self-harm videos.”
New York is not the only state attempting to change laws regarding social media usage. The Wall Street Journal reported 140 bills in at least 30 states are on the books regarding media literacy, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In June, Politico reported that Connecticut required online platforms to perform children’s safety assessments. The assessments are designed to limit kids interactions with potentially dangerous people on social media.
Social media protections for kids have also been prominently featured in national politics recently. Congress members accused companies like Meta of hurting American youth through algorithms that target teens by enticing them with content.
“I know you don’t mean it to be so, but you have blood on your hands,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. said. “You have a product that’s killing people.”
However, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg argues that algorithms are taken out of context, telling The New York Times that his company uses them to identify and remove dangerous content.
Zuckerberg has also questioned the link between mental health issues in teens and social media usage. The Meta CEO said during testimony in front of U.S. senators that he did not see a “causal” link.
However, many lawmakers and activists contend that there is a link between social media and a rise in suicides, depression and mental health disorders among teens. In May, The New York Times reported that the U.S. surgeon general warned of the negative effects social media usage can have on anxiety and depression among kids.
Hochul is not the first public official in her state to take action on the reportedly harmful effects of social media use. In January, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, D, declared a public health emergency regarding social media usage among teens and kids. In response, New York City became the first major city in the U.S. to label social media an “environmental toxin.” Adams said he would reveal more details about his plan of action at a later date.
Why does Gen Z hate Facebook? Social network turns 20 with shrinking teen use
The world’s most popular social network will turn the big 2-0 on Feb. 4. Before Facebook made teens log out in droves, it was one of the most coveted tickets for college students. Here’s a look at why Gen Z has such disdain for the site that inspired the film, “The Social Network.”
When Mark Zuckerberg first launched thefacebook in 2004 as a directory of students at Harvard and it was an instant success. It soon expanded its reach to other Ivy League schools and eventually to most colleges and universities in the U.S. and Canada. This was mostly before it got wise to drop “the” in its name.
By 2006, two and a half years after its debut, Facebook became available to anyone aged 13 and older with a valid email address. At the time, Facebook earned roughly $30 million per year in revenue, a relatively small social media fish in a pond dominated by MySpace.
The company would go on to purchase Instagram and WhatsApp, become a public company, and later change the parent company’s name to Meta, aligning with its newfound focus on the metaverse to leverage their purchase of virtual reality headset maker Oculus.
But how could a social network, created for college students, get the reputation for being generally uncool and for baby boomers?
It doesn’t appear to be a demographic issue. The biggest cohort is men between the ages of 25 and 34, which would fall within the millennial category. True boomers make up around 10% of its user base, but as any regular Facebook user can tell you, boomers tend to make themselves known on the platform.
Facebook may have 3 billion monthly active users, but it struggles to remain relevant with the youth. Still, Generation Z is expected to outnumber baby boomers on Facebook soon, if they haven’t already.
Ten years ago, 71% of teens between the ages of 13 and 17 said they used Facebook regularly, according to Pew Research. That number dwindled to 33% in 2023.
Teens, for their part, are flocking to short-form video apps like YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram.
For Meta’s part, the comapany owns Instagram, which is the third-most-used social network in the world. A substantial portion of its users are in the 18 to 34 demographic, even if many of the videos are just reposts from TikTok.
Teens leaving Facebook might not be a bad thing for the company as it’s facing heated criticism for its harmful effects on teens. In recent years, the company stopped efforts to attract teens and is focusing on bringing in young adults to the social network.
YouTube facing questions after beheading video remained online for hours: The Morning Rundown, Feb. 1, 2024
Questions about YouTube’s policies are being raised after a graphic video related to a murder case in Pennsylvania is left up for hours. And three people are killed and several more injured when a building collapses near an airport in Idaho. These stories and more highlight The Morning Rundown for Thursday, Feb. 1, 2024.
Get up to speed on the stories leading the day every weekday morning. Get The Morning RundownTM newsletter straight to your inbox!
YouTube video connected to PA murder remained online for hours
YouTube’s policies are being questioned after it was discovered that a graphic video involving a case of a son accused of beheading his father was left on the video-sharing site for hours. Police in Pennsylvania charged 32-year-old Justin Mohn on Wednesday, Jan. 31, with first-degree murder and abusing a corpse.
Authorities said Mohn killed his father and then posted a graphic 14-minute video about the murder on YouTube, showing the severed head. Police said the video was uploaded about 10 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 30, and remained online for anyone to see for about five hours.
The graphic video was viewed more than 5,000 times before it was eventually taken down. A social media advocacy group told the Associated Press this is “another example of the blatant failure of these companies to protect us.”
Critics have accused YouTube and other social media platforms of not investing in their trust and safety teams. YouTube’s policies were put under the microscope while five social media CEOs were questioned during a Congressional hearing about child safety online.
Representatives for YouTube and its parent company, Google, were not in attendance. YouTube responded to the criticism.
“YouTube has strict policies prohibiting graphic violence and violent extremism. The video was removed for violating our graphic violence policy, and Justin Mohn’s channel was terminated in line with our violent extremism policies,” the company said in a statement. “Our teams are closely tracking to remove any re-uploads of the video.”
YouTube said it uses a combination of artificial intelligence and human moderators to monitor its platform.
Zuckerberg apologizes to families at online child safety hearing
CEOs from five social media companies testified at a Congressional hearing concerning online child safety measures on Wednesday, Jan. 31. CEOs from Meta, TikTok, X, Snapchat, and Discord answered questions from lawmakers about the role their platforms play in the lives of young users, and how social media has led to children suicides and exploitation.
In one key moment in the hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley asked Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg if he apologized to the victims and their families.
“Let me ask you this. There are families of victims here today. Have you apologized to the victims? Would you like to do so now? They’re here, you’re on national television,” Hawley said. “Would you like now to apologize to the victims who’ve been harmed by your product? Show him the pictures. Would you like to apologize for what you’ve done to these good people?”
“No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered. And this is why we’ve invested so much and are going to continue doing industry-leading efforts to make sure no one has to go through the types of things that your families have had to suffer,” Zuckerberg said.
If you’re waiting on the social media industry to regulate itself, you’ll die waiting.
It is unclear if the hearing will lead to any type of legislation, though lawmakers are working on bipartisan bills. You can find Lauren Taylor’s full report on the hearing here.
House passes $78 billion bipartisan tax bill increasing child tax credit
In a bipartisan vote on Wednesday evening, Jan. 31, the House overwhelmingly approved a $78 billion tax cut package, increasing the child tax credit for millions of lower-income families. The bill passed 357-70 and now moves on to the Senate.
Along with expanding the child tax credit, the package also restores business tax breaks related to research and development. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., called the bill “important” legislation and added that this was “a good example of how Congress is supposed to make law.”
I voted against tonight’s tax bill that balloons our already out-of-control welfare system.
While Republicans and Democrats came together on the bill, not everyone got what they hoped for. Several New York Republicans were looking for it to include state and local tax deduction limits. And while some Republicans said the bill expanded the child tax credit too much, some Democrats said it did not.
Five of the injured were taken to the hospital in critical condition. Officials said the building’s collapse caused a crane to fall but did not impact the airport. The cause of the collapse is under investigation.
Judge throws out Disney’s lawsuit against DeSantis and Florida’s Commerce Dept.
A federal judge threw out Walt Disney Company’s lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and the secretary of Florida’s Commerce Department. Disney sued DeSantis, alleging that he retaliated against the company after it criticized the Parental Rights in Education Act, known to critics as the “Don’t Say Gay” law backed by DeSantis.
Last year, Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature changed the district, renaming it the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, with its board members now selected by Gov. DeSantis and then must be confirmed by the state Senate.
We have consistently fought — and won — the big fights on behalf of the people.
When Disney went after our kids, I stood strong in defense of the rights of parents.
Donald Trump and Nikki Haley sided with Disney. Haley even invited them to her state.
Shortly after its creation, the district voted to throw out a development agreement between Disney and the previous board known as the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Disney also canceled its plans to build a $1 billion campus in Orlando.
In its lawsuit, Disney alleged DeSantis is punishing the company for exercising its First Amendment rights. Disney said it would appeal Judge Winsor’s ruling.
— The Walt Disney Company (@WaltDisneyCo) March 28, 2022
A spokesperson for DeSantis said the ruling said, “The federal court’s decision made it clear that Governor DeSantis was correct: Disney is still just one of many corporations in the state, and they do not have a right to their own special government.”
The federal lawsuit is separate from Disney’s state lawsuit against the new tourism district for terminating its previous agreement with the Reedy Creek Improvement District.
Donations pour in to replace stolen Jackie Robinson statue
There has been an outpouring of support to replace a symbol honoring one of baseball’s greats. On what would have been Jackie Robinson’s 105th birthday, donations poured in Wednesday, Jan. 31, to replace a statue of the baseball hall of famer who broke the major league’s color barrier in 1947.
One online fundraiser has raised over $156,000, surpassing the statue’s estimated value of $75,000. Major League Baseball has announced it will replace the statue and provide funding for a local youth baseball league called “League 42,” named after Robinson’s uniform number.
