Submission declined on 3 December 2023 by
Chetsford (
talk).
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
| ![]() |
Submission declined on 2 December 2023 by
Chetsford (
talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject
qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: Declined by
Chetsford 7 months ago.
| ![]() |
Twitter Inc. v. Garland, et al, No. 20-16174 61 F.4th 686 U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit argued and submitted in Seattle, WA, filed March 6th, 2023, was a court case between Twitter (now known as X Corp) and the United States Federal Government represented by the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorney General Merrick Garland.: [1]
In 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) sent Twitter a National Security Letter requesting data about Twitter's users. [2] Twitter complied with the FBI. However, Twitter also wanted to publicly disclose a Transparency Report using "certain aggregate information" about the FBI's user data request. [2] The FBI claimed that the subpoenas of information sent to Twitter was classified involving national security, and that the information that Twitter wished to publish should be protected from public disclosure. Twitter claimed that this was a violation of their 1st Amendment right to free speech, and filed a case in 2014. The case was argued in 2020 under Twitter Inc. v. Barr [3] [4] to which the district court ruled that “The Court applies the strict scrutiny standard to the challenged restrictions and finds that the government's restrictions on the information Twitter may report are, in fact, narrowly tailored in substance. ” Twitter, Inc. v. Barr, 445 F. Supp. 3d 295, 303 (N.D. Cal. 2020) [5]. The district court decision of the case was delivered by judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for Northern California. After the ruling in Twitter Inc. v. Barr, Twitter appealed their case to the 9th Circuit Appeals Court.
Twitter contested the district court's rulings on the following grounds: [2]
The appealed case was argued in March of 2023, and was decided in October of 2023. The decision was delivered by circuit court judge Daniel Bress. The appellate court upheld the rulings of the district court, entering summary judgement in favor of the government. The court made the following holdings [6]
Twitter has disagreed with the opinion of the appeal, and has petitioned for certiorari. As of December 1st, 2023, the Supreme Court has not yet provided a response to the petition.
The appeals court's holdings brought along discussion of whether the ruling would allow the government to overreach its power. [7] The concern by 1st amendment right advocates is that the extent of the government's reasoning for national security and prior restraint has been expanded as a result of the upholding of the district court's ruling. [8] Free speech advocates believe that the situation does not appropriately fall within reasoning for national security, rather they claim the government's use is for surveillance. The U.S. Government claims that the connotation of a National Security Letter presents classified and sensitive information, and therefore, within the realm of prior restraint.
-
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
-
reliable
-
secondary
-
independent of the subject
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.