🚨🚨🚨 Antrim audit protective order hearing live now:

The judge just clarified that they will pause the hearing if YouTube goes down... due to the importance of transparency for the public
Deperno basically saying that the public's interest, needing election transparency and confidence, is greater than Dominion's interest in retaining privacy.
Deperno clarifying they don't plan to release any source code or reverse engineer the software
Deperno: at a minimum we need to be able to release this information to the Michigan legislature, oversight committee and... law enforcement. Wow
Ugh! This guy is saying that Deperno disclosed contents of the report in interviews... that's a lie!
Asst AG trying to block page 18, 20, 21
Of the report
Deperno offering to redact the "code"
They are going to release it! With redactions
Everyone is allowed to discuss the contents.

Deperno asking for clarifications on needed redactions
Deperno asking for a ruling on a graphic on page 18
Contending this is already public from the owners manual.

Asset AG claiming he hasn't had enough time to review so is asking for heavy redactions because "he can't be sure"
Judge says no redaction on page 18.
Apparently both parties have to agree on the redactions before release, hopefully that happens quickly
Video is now removed. Not sure why.

More from Law

I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.

And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25

One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/

So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief
https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/

So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/

Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/

You May Also Like