@danielschuman; @mmasnick

I assume you are talking about sections 5931 to 5939 of the NDAA.

When I studied the bill a couple of weeks ago, there was an exception for "display on the internet of the covered information of an at-risk
individual or immediate family member if the information is relevant to and displayed as part of a news story, commentary, editorial, or other speech on a matter of public concern.

Section 5934(d)(1) (B)(ii)

Was that exception omitted from the final bill?

@paulalanlevy @mmasnick The exception is insufficient to protect speech concerning judicial ethics and prohibits the statement of true facts.

Summary of the issue with it is here: https://demandprogress.org/demand-progress-action-coalition-calls-upon-the-senate-to-internet-censorship-provision-from-the-ndaa/

It also turns out the database censorship provisions are badly written. https://epic.org/epic-statement-expressing-concerns-on-the-inclusion-of-the-judicial-privacy-and-security-act-in-the-ndaa/

@danielschuman @mmasnick

It remains to be seen whether the concerns you express are valid. "Public concern" is a pretty broad exception. You do not explain -- and the statement to which you point does not explain -- why that exception is insufficient. And considering that the language was in a must-pass bill, it strikes me as foolish that the statement called for removal of all of 5934 instead of proposing a better "cave-out."

@paulalanlevy @mmasnick We explain it in the statement:

"The legislation attempts to remedy these problems through a series of carve-outs. However, the cave-out language is subject to a wide-variety of interpretations, which chills speech through uncertainty. Furthermore, the legislative text contains a canon of interpretation that effectively states that when there is ambiguity, it should be decided in favor of censoring information...."

@paulalanlevy @mmasnick

".... Finally, federal judges ultimately will be called upon to review this legislation, and they possess an obvious conflict of interest.""

Note also, contra your toot, we did not call for the removal of the entire judicial security bill, but only the section that related to censoring speech, which contains the language we object to.

Are you the Paul Alan Levy who works at public citizen and routinely argues before appellate courts?

@danielschuman @mmasnick

Daniel, you called for leaving in the definitions and the short title, the statement of purposes, the training and education and so forth, but removing the entire section that implemented the definitions. Just a little too cute, don't you think?

Yes, that Paul Alan Levy. https://www.citizen.org/about/person/paul-alan-levy/

@danielschuman @mmasnick

And Daniel, if you come on an instance of attempted enforcement of this law that seeks to suppress a publication of covered information to inform an issue of public concern, I'd be glad to discuss the litigating the case with my colleagues

@paulalanlevy @mmasnick

My friends at the previously mentioned @flp already tweeted out that they will either have to take down judicial ethics information from their website or fight this in court. (https://twitter.com/FreeLawProject/status/1600903070329630720)

As I mentioned above, non-profits that do judicial accountability work cannot afford the legal uncertainty and commensurate potential costs (including damages) that arise from vaguely worded internet censorship laws like this one.