U.S. autism data project sparks uproar over ethics, privacy and intent; The Washington Post, April 25, 2025

Ariana Eunjung Cha

, 

Caitlin Gilbert

 and 

Fenit Nirappil

 , The Washington Post; U.S. autism data project sparks uproar over ethics, privacy and intent

"The Trump administration has retreated from a controversial plan for a national registry of people with autism just days after announcing it as part of a new health initiative that would link personal medical records to information from pharmacies and smartwatches.

Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health, unveiled the broad, data-driven initiative to a panel of experts Tuesday, saying it would include “national disease registries, including a new one for autism” that would accelerate research into the rapid rise in diagnoses of the condition.

The announcement sparked backlash in subsequent days over potential privacy violations, lack of consent and the risk of long-term misuse of sensitive data.

The Trump administration still will pursue large-scale data collection, but without the registry that drew the most intense criticism, the Department of Health and Human Services said."

The Court and Online Threats; New York Times, 6/1/15

Editorial Board, New York Times; The Court and Online Threats:

"If you post violent thoughts about someone on Facebook, does it matter what you intended to convey when you wrote the words?

In a 8-1 decision issued on Monday morning, the Supreme Court said yes.

If the government wants to criminally prosecute someone for his or her words, the court ruled, it must do more than show that a reasonable person would have interpreted those words as threats.

“Wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote for a seven-member majority. In the age of the Internet, when anyone can post anything for the world to see, it was an important affirmation of the need to protect speech, and to require the government to meet a stricter legal standard when trying to punish people for their words alone."

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Online Threats Case, Citing Intent; New York Times, 6/1/15

Adam Liptak, New York Times; Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Online Threats Case, Citing Intent:

"The Supreme Court on Monday made it harder to prosecute people for threats made on Facebook and other social media, reversing the conviction of a Pennsylvania man who directed brutally violent language against his estranged wife.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said prosecutors must do more than prove that reasonable people would view statements as threats. The defendant’s state of mind matters, the chief justice wrote, though he declined to say just where the legal line is drawn.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for seven justices, grounding his opinion in criminal-law principles concerning intent rather than the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The majority opinion was modest, even cryptic."