{"id":1647269,"date":"2022-09-19T13:32:48","date_gmt":"2022-09-19T17:32:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1647269"},"modified":"2022-09-19T13:34:14","modified_gmt":"2022-09-19T17:34:14","slug":"federal-court-deals-major-blow-to-big-tech-and-sets-up-scotus-to-restore-free-speech","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/federal-court-deals-major-blow-to-big-tech-and-sets-up-scotus-to-restore-free-speech\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal Court Deals Major Blow To Big Tech And Sets Up SCOTUS To Restore Free Speech"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">32<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Ffederal-court-deals-major-blow-to-big-tech-and-sets-up-scotus-to-restore-free-speech%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1647269&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><div><\/div>\n<p>A Texas law prohibiting social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, from discriminating against users based on their speech does not violate the First Amendment, a federal appellate court <a href=\"https:\/\/theiap.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/2022-09-16-Published-Opinion-dckt-.pdf\">held<\/a> on Friday. Conservatives, whose speech represents the overwhelming target of censorship, are cheering the Fifth Circuit\u2019s decision in <em>NetChoice v. Paxton<\/em>. A different federal court, however, struck down Florida\u2019s law prohibiting Big Tech from censoring political speech, setting up a Supreme Court review in the near future.<\/p>\n<h2><strong><em>NetChoice v. Paxton<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>In September of 2021, Texas passed House Bill 20, a state statute that regulates Big Tech companies \u2014 i.e., social media websites with more than 50 million monthly users. Before HB 20 went into effect, NetChoice and the Computer &#038; Communications Industry Association, trade associations representing social media sites, sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, arguing Section 7 and Section 2 of the law violated the First Amendment.<\/p>\n<p>Section 7 of HB 20 regulates the platforms\u2019 ability to censor users\u2019 posts, prohibiting censorship \u2014 defined broadly to include blocking, de-boosting, reducing visibility, and other mechanisms of discrimination \u2014 based on the viewpoint of the post. This provision applies to censorship of users who reside in, do business in, or share or receive expression in Texas.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>HB 20 allows for the continuing censorship of illegal speech as well as posts related to the sexual exploitation of children, harassment of survivors of sexual abuse, speech that directly incites criminal activity, or posts that consist of specific threats of violence targeting \u201ca person or group because of their race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, sex, or status as a peace officer or judge.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Under the law, illegally censored users or the Texas attorney general may sue Big Tech giants that violate Section 7, but they cannot recover monetary damages; rather, a court may only issue a ruling declaring that a violation has occurred and enter an injunction ordering the platform to comply with the law. If successful, costs and attorney\u2019s fees are also recoverable.<\/p>\n<p>The platforms also challenged certain disclosure and operational requirements established in Section 2 of HB 20, such as Texas\u2019s statutory mandate that the tech companies disclose \u201chow they moderate and promote content and publish an \u2018acceptable use policy.\u2019\u201d Section 2 also requires platforms to publish a \u201cbiannual transparency report\u201d that provides statistics detailing content-moderation decisions and the creation of a complaint-and-appeal system. Only the Texas attorney general may enforce Section 2, and again, damages are not recoverable.<\/p>\n<p>In challenging HB 20, the tech companies argued that the Texas statute violates their First Amendment right to free speech, which Supreme Court precedent makes clear includes the right not to speak. The tech companies then argued that the act of hosting (or rejecting) speech is its own protected speech, and thus the First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering in that \u201cspeech.\u201d Section 2\u2019s disclosure requirements likewise violate the First Amendment, the tech giants argued, because the mandates are \u201cunduly burdensome.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>A federal district court judge agreed with the tech companies\u2019 arguments and in December entered a preliminary injunction against Texas, prohibiting enforcement of the law. Texas then sought a \u201cstay\u201d of the trial court\u2019s injunction, asking the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to freeze the lower court\u2019s preliminary injunction and allow HB 20 to go into effect.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>While the Fifth Circuit granted the stay, the United States Supreme Court \u201cvacated\u201d or overturned the stay, keeping the preliminary injunction in place pending resolution of the appeal. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the Supreme Court\u2019s vacatur of the stay, and in doing so previewed the importance and complexity of this case. More on that later.<\/p>\n<p>On Friday, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court\u2019s decision, holding that HB 20 did not violate the First Amendment. Trump-appointed Judge Andrew Oldham authored the 90-page lead opinion that methodically analyzed an array of complex constitutional arguments posited by the tech giants.<\/p>\n<p>The main dispute in <em>NetChoice v. Paxton <\/em>concerned the application of Supreme Court precedent \u201cthat instructs that the freedom of speech includes \u2018the right to refrain from speaking at all.\u2019\u201d So, as the Fifth Circuit held, \u201cthe State may not force a private speaker to speak someone\u2019s else message.\u201d Conversely, the Fifth Circuit stressed, precedent teaches that a \u201cState can regulate conduct in a way that requires private entities to host, transmit, or otherwise facilitate speech.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The Fifth Circuit then summarized the interplay of these two principles by explaining that \u201cFirst Amendment doctrine permits regulating the conduct of an entity that hosts speech, but it generally forbids forcing the host itself to speak or interfering with the host\u2019s own message.\u201d In reaching this conclusion, the Fifth Circuit analyzed five Supreme Court decisions, beginning with <em>Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo<\/em>.\u00a0<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Government Interference May Backfire<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>To understand Friday\u2019s opinion and, more importantly, the broader implications of anti-censorship laws, it is necessary to gain a basic familiarity with the <em>Miami Herald <\/em>decision and the other cases the Fifth Circuit analyzed in <em>NetChoice v. Paxton.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>In <em>Miami Herald<\/em>, the Supreme Court held that a Florida statute that required newspapers to grant political candidates the right to equal space to reply to criticism violated the First Amendment rights of the publisher. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court stressed that the newspapers\u2019 decisions concerning the size, content, and treatment of public issues and public officials involved editorial control and judgment protected from state interference by the First Amendment.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Conversely, in <em>PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, <\/em>the Supreme Court held that the state could require privately owned shopping centers to allow individuals to distribute political literature without violating the mall owners\u2019 First Amendment rights. In upholding California\u2019s mandate, the high court reasoned that <em>PruneYard<\/em> did not involve the concerns present in <em>Miami Herald<\/em>, namely forced speech through the state telling a newspaper what to print.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Next up was <em>Pacific Gas &#038; Electric Company v. Public Utilities Commission of California<\/em>. In that case, a plurality of the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional California\u2019s mandate that the utility company let third-party groups include newsletters in the billing statements Pacific Gas sent to customers. In <em>Pacific Gas<\/em>, the Supreme Court distinguished <em>PruneYard, <\/em>by stressing that allowing the third-parties\u2019 speech did not affect the shopping center owners\u2019 exercise of their own right to speech, while mandating the inclusion of a third-party\u2019s newsletter affected Pacific Gas\u2019s ability to showcase its own speech, relative to the voice of its opponents.<\/p>\n<p>The fourth case the Fifth Circuit found relevant was <em>Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston<\/em>. In <em>Hurley, <\/em>a Massachusetts state court held that the St. Patrick\u2019s Day parade organized by the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council qualified as a public accommodation under state law, and thus the private organization could not exclude an organization of Irish-American gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals from marching in the parade. The parade organizers challenged the state decision, arguing it violated the federal constitutional right to free speech.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The United States Supreme Court agreed, holding that the parade constituted a \u201cform of expression\u201d that receives First Amendment protection. \u201cLike a composer,\u201d the Supreme Court reasoned, the parade organizers select \u201cexpressive units of the parade from potential participants,\u201d conveying, in total, a message of their own.<\/p>\n<p>The final case found relevant by the Fifth Circuit majority was the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in <em>Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. <\/em>In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the Solomon Amendment against a First Amendment challenge. Congress passed the Solomon Amendment in response to law schools banning military recruiters; the Solomon Amendment denied federal funding to schools that refused to provide military recruiters the same access to students granted to other employers.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>In a unanimous decision, the court held that Congress could have required such equal access without running afoul of the First Amendment, and therefore, removing federal funding from educational institutions that violated the Solomon Amendment did not violate the First Amendment.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>After detailing these five decisions, the Fifth Circuit majority concluded that precedent teaches that for a \u201cspeech host\u201d to mount a successful First Amendment challenge, he must show that \u201cthe challenged law either (a) compels the host to speak or (b) restricts the host\u2019s own speech.\u201d For instance, in <em>Miami Herald, <\/em>the challenged law mandated newspapers \u201cspeak\u201d by publishing a politician\u2019s response, and in <em>Hurley<\/em>, the law required the parade organizers to alter the message conveyed by the parade, while in <em>Pacific Gas, <\/em>the state\u2019s requirement that the utility company dispatch third parties\u2019 newsletters restricted the company\u2019s own ability to speak.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Conversely, in both <em>PruneYard <\/em>and <em>Rumsfeld, <\/em>speech was neither compelled nor restricted. According to the Supreme Court\u2019s reasoning in <em>PruneYard, <\/em>allowing access to the mall did not affect the property owner\u2019s speech: The owners were neither forced to communicate a message nor prevented from engaging in their own speech. Likewise, in <em>Rumsfeld<\/em>, the educational institutions required to provide equal access were not forced to speak nor deterred from speaking on their own.<\/p>\n<p>This analysis led the Fifth Circuit to conclude that HR 20 passed constitutional muster, with the majority finding that the law more closely resembled the situations in <em>PruneYard <\/em>and <em>Rumsfeld. <\/em>Specifically, HR 20 required the tech companies to provide equal access and nothing more. The users\u2019 speech also does not become the tech companies\u2019 speech, the majority stressed, and the platforms remain free to speak as they see fit, by disavowing or distancing themselves from posts. In fact, as the Fifth Circuit stressed, several platforms already do this by adding Disclaimers to users\u2019 posts.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Judge Edith Jones stressed in a separate concurrence that from <em>PruneYard <\/em>and <em>Rumsfeld <\/em>it follows \u201cthat in arbitrarily excluding from their platforms the makers of speech and preventing disfavored speech from reaching potential audiences (\u2018censoring,\u2019 in the comprehensive statutory term), they are not themselves \u2018speaking\u2019 for First Amendment purposes.\u201d The Reagan appointee added that \u201cit is ludicrous to assert,\u201d as the tech giants do, that by prohibiting the social media sites from censoring users\u2019 speech based on their viewpoint, HR 20 curtails the platforms\u2019 \u201cown speech.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In her concurrence, Jones added a further analysis of HR 20, viewing it through the lens of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in <em>Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC<\/em>. In that case, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of a federal statute that mandated cable companies \u201cdevote a specified portion of their channels to the transmission of local commercial and public broadcast stations.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Jones noted that while the <em>Turner <\/em>court concluded \u201cthat selecting a limited repertoire of cable channels to transmit constitutes First-Amendment-protected speech,\u201d the Supreme Court nonetheless upheld the statute. In doing so, the high court distinguished both <em>Pacific Gas &#038; Electric <\/em>and <em>Miami Herald<\/em>, stressing that the \u201cmust-carry\u201d cable requirements did not target specific content and did not force cable operators to modify their own speech. Further, the <em>Turner <\/em>court held that viewers were unlikely to consider the speech aired as the cable company\u2019s speech. And finally, the court found it significant that the cable operator\u2019s selection of channels controlled what information households had available to them.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>In her concurrence, Jones noted that these same points compel the conclusion that HR 20 does not infringe the First Amendment rights of social media platforms.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The third judge on the panel, Leslie H. Southwick, a George W. Bush appointee, agreed with portions of the majority opinion, but on the central question of \u201cwhether social media platforms engage in First Amendment-protected expression when they moderate their users\u2019 content,\u201d Southwick dissented. In his view, the First Amendment protects the tech companies\u2019 censorship of user content.<\/p>\n<p>With the panel split 2-1 in <em>NetChoice v. Paxton<\/em>, the tech giants could seek rehearing by the full court, followed by requesting review by the Supreme Court. Or the companies could seek review of the <em>Paxton <\/em>case by the Supreme Court immediately. No matter which tack the companies take, two circumstances suggest the high court will agree to hear an appeal of the case.\u00a0<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Circuit Split with <em>NetChoice v. Moody<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>First, the Fifth Circuit\u2019s decision on Friday creates a circuit split with the 11th Circuit, which in May of 2022 in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.leagle.com\/decision\/infco20220523060\"><em>NetChoice v. Moody<\/em><\/a>, concluded that similar portions of Florida\u2019s Big Tech anti-censorship statute violated the First Amendment. That statute, Senate Bill 7072, prohibits social media companies from banning political candidates from their platforms, or manipulating with algorithms content and material posted by or about a political candidate. SB 7072 further prohibits the censorship, deplatforming, or restricting of posts by \u201cjournalistic enterprises,\u201d as defined by statute. Additionally, the statute requires tech companies to apply any censorship, deplatforming, or banning standards in a consistent manner among its users, and defines the posting of a Disclaimer to posts as \u201ccensorship.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Florida\u2019s SB 7072 also imposes disclosure requirements on the tech companies, requiring them to publish the standards used to make censorship decisions. The companies must also give users notice seven days prior to any censorship, with the notice providing a \u201cthorough rationale explaining the reason for the censor[ship] and a precise and thorough explanation of how the social media platform became aware of the content that triggered its decision.\u201d (Notice is not required for the platform to remove obscene material.)<\/p>\n<p>In analyzing whether Florida\u2019s statute violated the First Amendment, the 11th Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Kevin Newsom, a Trump appointee, first stressed that \u201cthe Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a private entity\u2019s choices about whether, to what extent, and in what manner it will disseminate speech \u2014 even speech created by others \u2014 constitute \u2018editorial judgments\u2019 protected by the First Amendment.\u201d The federal appellate court then considered the same precedent analyzed by the Fifth Circuit in the <em>Paxton <\/em>case and held that \u201csocial-media platforms\u2019 content-moderation decisions constitute the same sort of editorial judgments\u201d as involved in <em>Miami Herald,<\/em> <em>Pacific Gas<\/em>, <em>Turner, <\/em>and <em>Hurley.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>While Florida argued that SB 7072 does not implicate the tech companies\u2019 First Amendment rights because those companies are merely \u201chosts\u201d of speech, like the mall in <em>PruneYard <\/em>and the higher ed institutions in<em> Rumsfeld,<\/em> the 11th Circuit rejected that argument. \u201cThe State\u2019s reliance on <em>PruneYard<\/em> and [<em>Rumsfeld<\/em>] and its attempts to distinguish the editorial-judgment line of cases are unavailing,\u201d the federal appellate court concluded in upholding the preliminary injunction entered by the lower court that barred enforcement of SB 7072.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The 11th Circuit further concluded that the disclosure mandates of SB 7072 \u201cindirectly burden platforms\u2019 editorial judgment by compelling them to disclose certain information.\u201d Such laws, to be constitutional, the federal appellate court explained, must not be \u201cunduly burdensome,\u201d such that they would \u201cchill protected speech.\u201d Mandating that tech companies provide seven-days\u2019 notice with detailed specificity would be practically impossible, the companies argued, and the court agreed the burden imposed by the law was \u201cundue.\u201d Accordingly, the 11th Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction\u2019s ban on enforcing those portions of Florida\u2019s law as well.<\/p>\n<p>While Florida has yet to seek review by the United States Supreme Court, in August it requested permission to extend the time to file its petition for review. Justice Thomas granted that request, giving Florida until September 21, 2022, to file its request for review by the Supreme Court, called a petition for a writ of certiorari. With the Fifth Circuit\u2019s decision last week upholding Texas\u2019s law, the split in the circuits makes Florida\u2019s forthcoming argument for review by the high court even stronger.<\/p>\n<p>Likewise, the eventual petition for review of the Fifth Circuit\u2019s decision in <em>Paxton <\/em>by the tech companies will prove enticing for the Supreme Court because it presents the opportunity for the justices to consider the vagaries between the statutes. And, here, a second fact suggests the high court is ready to explore these issues now, namely the three-justice <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/21pdf\/21a720_6536.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">dissent<\/a> to the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to vacate the Fifth Circuit\u2019s stay in the <em>Paxton <\/em>case.<\/p>\n<p>As noted above, Justice Alito authored that dissent, which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined. While on the surface the only question before the court was whether the Texas law should be allowed to go into effect pending the appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the dissent indicates at least three members of the Supreme Court are ready to hear the case.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis application concerns issues of great importance that will plainly merit this Court\u2019s review,\u201d the dissent began. \u201cSocial media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news. At issue is a ground-breaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day,\u201d Alito continued.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Then, after summarizing the Texas law and highlighting the Supreme Court\u2019s prior decisions in <em>Hurley,<\/em> <em>Miami Herald, PruneYard, <\/em>and <em>Turner,<\/em> Alito noted that \u201cthe law before us is novel,\u201d as are Big Tech\u2019s business models, and \u201cit is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>With this dissent, then, we have three justices on the record saying the underlying issues merit review by the Supreme Court. And given the conflicting positions of the Fifth and 11th Circuits, it seems likely that at least one more justice will vote to accept at least one appeal, but more likely both, reaching the required four votes necessary for the Supreme Court to accept an appeal.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Conservatives should champion review by the Supreme Court, but not because of any particular outcome. On the contrary, while clamping down on Big Tech\u2019s censorship may prove attractive to conservatives, <em>Hurley, Miami Herald, PruneYard, Turner, Pacific Gas, <\/em>and <em>Rumsfeld <\/em>all illustrate that the government interjecting itself into the operations of private operations proves risky. We may not mind when it is Texas and Florida passing laws that seem beneficial to the right, but the same principles will apply when it is leftists in California or New York enacting the statutes.<\/p>\n<p>Supreme Court review of these laws will nonetheless prove a victory for conservatism, no matter the outcome, because it will provide an opportunity for the originalist majority to cast aside the evolving standards and confusing analyses adopted over the years and return to the roots of the First Amendment. What that will mean for the Texas and Florida statutes remains to be seen.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\" \/>\n<p>\n  Margot Cleveland is The Federalist&#8217;s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. <\/p>\n<p>Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize\u2014the law school\u2019s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. <\/p>\n<p>As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A Texas law prohibiting social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, from discriminating against users based on their speech does not violate the First Amendment, a federal appellate court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":499,"featured_media":2315279,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1647269","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1647269","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/499"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1647269"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1647269\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1647269"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1647269"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1647269"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}