Does H.R. 4310 allow the US government to use propaganda against citizens? In an online conversation, a person said to me, Holy crap are you a bot? The media is the one deceiving. Look up HR 4310, it literally states the government can use propaganda against it's [sic] people. Damn you are so asleep you wont [sic] question anything. Maybe dont [sic] research and follow blindly what your masters tell you.
The intended reference is surely to Section 1078 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which is about &quot;Voice of America&quot; and other media services produced by the Department of State for non-U.S. audiences. Under the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, also known as the Smith-Mundt Act, the Secretary of State was authorized to provide for the preparation, and dissemination abroad, of information about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, and other information media, and through information centers and instructors abroad. This law did not explicitly authorize distribution of that material domestically, other than saying it would be available on request to members of Congress and in certain other circumstances. The policy of not making it generally available in the U.S. was hardened into law in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1972, saying Any such information (other than &quot;Problems of Communism&quot; which may continue to be sold by the Government Printing Office) shall not be disseminated within the United States, its territories, or possessions, but, on request, shall be available in the English language at the Department of State, at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination only by representatives of United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations, and by research students and scholars, and, on request, shall be made available for examination only to Members of Congress. Subsequent tweaks carved out many exceptions for other specific content, and arranged for deposition of material in the National Archives. In 1985, a new provision was inserted to say that apart from certain enumerated exceptions, no funds authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States, and no program material prepared by the United States Information Agency shall be distributed within the United States. The developing statute law reflects a balance of concerns; it was felt that Americans should know what their government is saying to foreign audiences, but should not be the target of that official messaging. These additional provisions are not a departure from the position of 1948, so much as they are trying to set out the boundaries more clearly in the light of experience. The 2013 law, codified within 22 U.S.C. §1461-1464b, made some changes to the domestic regime. It authorizes post-2013 material to be made generally available to the U.S. public on request, potentially subject to a fee: there is no longer a requirement that the requestor has to be a scholar/journalist/etc. It also amends the &quot;no domestic distribution&quot; section to account for that change. The bar on influencing domestic political opinion remains, as can be seen from the current codification. The present situation is that much post-2013 material is available online (which is &quot;on request&quot;, in that you have to go to the appropriate website). There is a system for requesting permission to reuse this material, including within the U.S.; for example, you might do this if you were making a documentary and wanted to show some VoA footage. Per policy, there is a possibility for providing program materials, prepared for dissemination abroad, to domestic broadcasters aimed at foreign diaspora communities as part of the Agency's foreign policy mission. Subject to various criteria, this allows broadcasting material within the U.S., not by the federal government itself but by some commercial organization - if that is still compliant with the prohibition on influencing domestic political opinion, based on the way the material is used. The broadcaster is also obliged to credit the producing agency, so it should be reasonably clear when a video segment (for example) has this origin. In answer to the question &quot;Does H.R. 4310 allow the US government to use propaganda against citizens?&quot;, the situation is something like: it makes it possible for a third party to rebroadcast existing foreign-targeted propaganda for a domestic audience, in certain circumstances. It does not allow the government to broadcast or promote it domestically, and does not allow the government to produce it with a domestic audience in mind. An important note is that all of this legislation only applies to the foreign-audience material produced under the auspices of the State Department (under various agency names at different times). It does not cover broadcasting or communication by other parts of the federal government. A less important note is that the journal &quot;Problems of Communism&quot; mentioned in the 1972 Act is now called &quot;Problems of Post-Communism&quot;, and published by Taylor &amp; Francis rather than by the U.S. government.
Nowhere Collectively The US doesn't know the number of laws on all the federal, state, and city books. Often the lowest level of laws and ordinances are only in a city database, and sometimes not on the internet. As a result, there is already an impossibility to get all the laws in the US in one database - and there are even countries that have not taken any steps to make their laws accessible on the internet at all. For example North Korean Law. This is compounded by different entities proclaiming their laws and regulations in only their own language and on different proclamation platforms. Where available at all, the countries have country-wide laws and ordinances on their own dedicated websites. But again, federalism for the win: there will be different proclamation platforms for lower levels of legislation. For example germany has its justice department host https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ which hosts all federal german laws. Schleswig Holstein hosts their state-level laws in corporation with the service Juris on https://www.gesetze-rechtsprechung.sh.juris.de/jportal/portal/page/bsshoprod.psml and the town of Kiel has all of its ordinances and special orders on https://www.kiel.de/de/politik_verwaltung/ortsrecht_bekanntmachungen/index.php Why a conglomerate is a bad idea Now, making a conglomerate of all the laws is actually a bad idea for several reasons: Updates. The different entities that are in making regulations with the force of law only update their official proclamation site. Often, such changes are not announced too loudly for the lowest levels, and with the number of cities in a single federal state, it's near impossible to keep the database up to date on a complete level. This is why different databases usually only scrape the federal levels. Scraping will break quickly. Each of the websites I pointed to in Germany has a different system setup, making scraping these websites for the relevant information basically useless. Compounding that, City ordinance pages are redesigned at a somewhat elevated pace, resulting in the scraping of these pages to break quickly, even if you manage to set it up. Citability. In a court of law, only the official text is relevant. If an update is missed, then the whole text is useless - you'll have to look up the actual, currently in-force version of the law or ordinance, so the conglomerate is not helping. You want a ginormous database. In some countries, judgments also make law as precedent. So you want every judgment in your database. Which quickly runs into a different problem: The US alone generates millions per day.
This is one of the things Martha Stewart was convicted of. 18 USC 1001 is the US federal law requiring truthfulness. That statute forbids you to falsify, conceal, or cover up a material fact. One limitation on how broad this law is, is that it has to be a matter "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States". If your neighbor is an FBI agent and he asks if you're the one who broke his window, and you lie, that's not a federal matter. Another limitation is that the lying has to be material. The essential part of the law is subsection (a). Subsection (b) then states an exception: (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. Then you also owe a lesser duty of truthfulness to the legislature. Taking note of US. v. Yermian, it is not required that the person you lie to be a federal officer. Yermian lied to his employer, who was a defense contractor, and the fact that the relevant form was submitted to the government for scrutiny is what made it a matter in federal jurisdiction. Comparing the wording of 1001 to the perjury statute, the operative expression for perjury involves statements "which he does not believe to be true", we can see that the perjury statute requires telling the literal truth (see Bronston v. US), which allows so-called lies of omission (of a particular subtype: much more could be said about that). In contrast the lying statute forbids both literally false statements and concealing of the truth. I don't have cases at my fingertips that indicate how broad your truthful answers have to be, for example if you think the FBI is trying to put away a friend and ask you about what he did on June 14, and you know that he did a bad thing on June 13, would it be lying in the relevant sense to conceal that fact which they didn't ask about. [ADDENDUM] A session of perusing cases has led to a tiny bit of further information. A literal reading of the statute says that you are in violation of the law if you falsify a fact (sloppy epistemology, unless it refers just to altering records and evidence), or conceal a fact, and the courts recognise this as a fundamental division. As for falsifying, the way that has been applied is to refer to cases where the accused makes a statement which asserts something that he knows to be untrue. Thus, saying "No" to a question when the truth is "Yes" is a violation. A propos concealment, in US v. Diogo 320 F.2d 898 the court states that False representations, like common law perjury, require proof of actual falsity; concealment requires proof of wilful nondisclosure by means of a 'trick, scheme or device.' This case is pre-Bronston so there is mixing of concepts from perjury law and lying law, which would not happen now, but we can steering clear of their perjury citations. The crucial fact is that accused(s) were technically married in New York, for immigration purposes, and they were accused of a 1001 violation for having indicated that they were married. Part of the government's case was that such a marriage is not valid, and the court rejected that conclusion. The government's second prong was to maintain that the court "should affirm appellant's convictions on a theory of concealment", and this too the court rejected, saying "proof of their ulterior motives in marriage would not be tantamount to proof of willful and knowing concealment of these material facts". What they said on the forms was literally true, and they did not have a duty to volunteer information that they probably knew the government was interested in. Contrarily in a later case, US v. Zalman 870 F.2d 1047 we are told that the underlying purpose of a marriage is a material fact which bears upon the validity of the marriage, and that any false or fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the actual purpose of a marriage in order to gain status as a resident of the United States can be punished under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001 so you have to be more truthful than the literal truth standard. There are also circumstances where there is an independent duty to give information, such as reporting income to the IRS. In US v. Hernando Ospina 798 F.2d 1570 the court maintained It is clear that in order to support a section 1001 concealment conviction there must be a legal duty to disclose the facts the defendant was convicted of concealing citing US v. Tobon-Builes 706 F.2d 1092, where again there was a legal duty to report "existence, origin, and transfer of approximately $185,200 in cash". In other words, it is not clear what information you are allowed to not volunteer when asked a question in a federal matter.
There is no law governing the 'number' of the president. Common sense suggests that a person can't be 45th and 46th; there must be someone in between having the presidency and they will become the 46th president. In the extremely unlikely scenario that a foreign power occupies the United States this year, eliminates the office of President, and a few years later the US is liberated and Donald Trump is re-elected, I guess people could name him the 45th and 46th President, but it makes no sense to speculate about this.
However, in the last 233 years, only a handful of people have been prosecuted for violating this law. The census bureau has noticed that a more effective way to get everyone counted is to follow up in person if someone neglects to respond to the questionnaire. Once they follow up and the person has responded, there's no longer a basis for prosecuting. What is the point of one of the oldest laws, in which some people have cared enough to amend, but not enough to actually enforce? The possibility of prosecution is presumably thought to increase the response rate even if virtually nobody is ever prosecuted. The law also serves as a formal statement by congress that responding to the census is important, even if the executive doesn't prosecute people for failing to do so. Another thing to consider is that an element of the offense specified in 13 USC 221 is refusal or willful neglect. Without evidence of an affirmative refusal to respond, the prosecutor would need evidence of willfulness, which goes to state of mind, and that is notoriously difficult to prove. Any defendant who claims to have intended to respond but for chronic forgetfulness would introduce reasonable doubt unless the prosecutor had something to show that the defendant intentionally refrained from responding.
Probably not There's a difference between knowing DeJoy is guilty, and proving he is guilty. The first is a matter of your personal views on epistemology; the second is a matter of law. The statute says an official cannot use &quot;his official authority for the purpose of interfering with...&quot; In other words, in order to charge DeJoy, the government needs evidence that he is making these changes for the purpose of interfering with the election. According to news reports, DeJoy claims his purpose is legitimate: To balance the USPS budgets. He claims the PO is losing so much money that drastic cuts are required unless Congress increases funding. Given that the USPS is running a deficit, it will very hard to prove that DeJoy's explanation is just a smokescreen, that his real purpose is to screw up the election. So, unless there is a smoking gun, it seems likely he would not be charged, let alone found guilty. Note: Edited for clarity in light of comments
This article is a useful introduction to restrictions on political advertising in the EU, where §3.4 (p 33) covers Italy. Silenzio elettorale is covered by art 9. of Norme per la disciplina della propaganda elettorale. The statutory situation is not entirely clear to me, but the main controlling fact relevant to the internet question is that AGCOM issues rules. An English legal analysis (from an Italian law firm) is here. Their undernourished analysis of the silence period is Finally, Italian legislation prohibits political propaganda on election day and on the day before. Although AGCOM is not competent for ascertaining infringements of said prohibition, it considers important to call everyone to turn the attention on these provisions. Indeed, they are important to guarantee effective protections of the constituents. As such, in the Authority’s opinion, the prohibition applies to all media. Clearly, the law applies to internet platforms. What is not clear is whether the prohibition as applied to web pages is against &quot;adding content&quot;, or does it require the elimination of previously-distributed content and scrubbing of links to such content. Perhaps the matter will be clarified in court one day.
It may help to start by clearing up some false premises in the question/comments: The Fourteenth Amendment does not &quot;expressly list protecting citizens as a core responsibility of Government.&quot; The IRS does not define &quot;U.S. person&quot; as &quot;someone that is born.&quot; The Internal Revenue Code has no bearing on whether corporations are considered people for purposes of political contributions. Then we need to clear up the main logical fallacy on which the question is built: Even if we accept that the Fourteenth Amendment requires government to protect citizens, and even if we accept that fetuses are not citizens, that doesn't mean states can't protect fetuses. That argument -- &quot;States may protect citizens, therefore states may not protect noncitizens&quot; -- is a straightforward example of denying the antecedent and pretty obviously untenable once you stop to think about it. Houses aren't citizens. Elections aren't citizens. Can state laws protect them? Foreign exchange students aren't citizens; can state laws protect them? How about the Canadian ambassador? The answer is quite well settled. The Tenth Amendment ensures state governments' right to enact virtually any laws to promote health, safety, and welfare, so long as those laws do not run afoul of some constitutional limit. Existing Supreme Court precedent makes clear that that authority -- known as the &quot;police power&quot; -- is virtually boundless. See, e.g., Bos. Beer Co. v. State of Massachusetts, 97 U.S. 25, 27 (1877); Lake Shore &amp; M. S. R. Co. v. State of Ohio, 173 U.S. 285, 297 (1899); Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380, 398–99 (1895). While Roe v. Wade has long provided just such a constitutional limit against the exercise of that power to regulate abortion, it appears clear that protection is about to vanish. Without Roe, states looking to protect &quot;potential life&quot; will be free to enact virtually any law that would advance that goal.