Monthly Archives: July 2017

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A free-speech group on Tuesday sued U.S. President Donald Trump for blocking Twitter users from his @realDonaldTrump account, arguing the practice violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit, brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in New York and joined by seven individual Twitter users, claims Trump blocked a number of accounts whose owners replied to his tweets with comments that criticized, mocked or disagreed with the president.

Trump's blocking of the accounts amounted to an unconstitutional effort to suppress dissent, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York.

Because Trump frequently turns to Twitter to make policy statements, his account qualifies as a public forum from which the government cannot exclude people on the basis of their views, according to the lawsuit. Twitter users are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Last month White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Trump's tweets were considered "official statements by the president of the United States."

The suit names Spicer and Dan Scavino, the White House director of social media, as defendants in addition to Trump. It asks for the blocking to be deemed unconstitutional and seeks an injunction to require the president to unblock users.

The complaint follows a letter from the Knight Institute to Trump last month warning it would sue if users were not unblocked.

"Everyone being able to see the president's tweets feels vital to democracy," Joseph Papp, one of the seven Twitter users involved in the suit, said in a statement.

Papp, an author, said he had been a registered Republican for 10 years and did not join the suit for political reasons, but that he "felt a deep sense of unease" when he was blocked.

Trump's Twitter use has drawn intense interest for his unvarnished commentary about his agenda and attacks on critics. His tweets often lead to tens of thousands of retweets and comments and can shape the news.

The Knight Institute's arguments may have merit, independent free speech and internet law scholars say, in part because Trump's tweets are used to announce policy decisions or can influence legislation. Previous cases involving politicians blocking users on Facebook may bolster its case.

The federal suit, case number 1:17-cv-05205, was filed in the Southern District of New York.

Editing by Bill Rigby and Jeffrey Benkoe

Link:
US free-speech group sues Trump for blocking Twitter users - Reuters

Its a classic Internet argument.

This is a danger to free speech!

No, its not! The government isnt shutting anyone up!

Ive got good news. Both can be right. There are plenty of things that endanger free-wheeling and robust speech without the government getting involved at all. A helpful way to think about it is the First Amendments protections are a suggestion for the least a free society should do to protect and foster free speech, not an accomplishment for which we should engage in vigorous back-patting.

This is the crux of an argument one of my colleagues, Kirsten Powers, is having with seemingly the entire Internet.

In the late-night hours of July 4, CNN published a story about the Reddit user who created a video suddenly infamous for being tweeted by the president of the United States. We live in strange times, so this Redditors meme was a video of President Donald Trump beating down a wrestling opponent with a CNN logo superimposed over his face.

Andrew Kaczynski, a reporter who made his name digging up long-forgotten, newsworthy videos of prominent politicians, used those same Internet sleuthing skills to track down the user who made the meme. We live in strange times, so the subject of this national news storys handle was HanA**holeSolo, and his real name was not included in the story.

Here is the passage that addressed that decision, which set off alarm bells in many quarters of the Internet, uniting left and right for a brief moment on this Independence Day in their chorus of WUTs.

CNN is not publishing HanA**holeSolos name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of this change.

It seemed to imply that HanA**holeSolos name was being withheld only because he agreed to stop engaging in speech the reporter or CNN didnt like, and should his behavior change, this mercy could be removed.I am employed by CNN, but dont speak for them. Kaczynski said the passage was only meant to communicate he had made no deal with the Redditor to withhold his name, and CNN backed him up.

CNN decided not to publish the name of the Reddit user out of concern for his safety. Any assertion that the network blackmailed or coerced him is false, the network said in the statement. The user, who is an adult male, not a 15-year-old boy, apologized and deleted his account before ever speaking with our reporter. CNN never made any deal, of any kind, with the user. In fact, CNN included its decision to withhold the users identity in an effort to be completely transparent that there was no deal.

But the whole affair raises a question about how we treat Internet trolls, when we out them, and at what cost. Powers has been in verbal fisticuffs over this question with honest interlocutors and abusive trolls alike for days.

Like Powers, I embrace the term speech nut. Like Powers, I wrote a book on dangers to free speech. But I disagree with her on this issue precisely because I care about free speech, not because I care about HanA**holeSolo in particular. Powers argues:

This mans speech was completely free of any restrictions. What his defenders are objecting to is him being accountable for what he wrote and posted. Holding a person accountable for what they say is not a violation of their free speech, unless the entity doing it is the government.

There are consequences to our speech. If a person wants to be in good standing in society, then they perhaps should not post racist garbage on the Internet for fun.

HanA**holeSolo isnt some great modern-day pamphleteer whom we should ensure at all costs can keep delivering us (and the president) hot memes from his den of racist sh*tposters. Hes not, and the fact that the White House finds inspiration in these corners of the Internet is newsworthy. Some of his other creations, including a a composite with Stars of David next to the Jewish CNN employees, are truly disgusting.

But media should be very careful about when they expose private citizens for the sin of political speech. They should be especially careful not to imply that content of political speech that crosses a big media entity is the reason for exposure. The media dont owe every troll on the Internet his or her anonymity, but doing disproportionate warfare with them can endanger and chill the speech of others.

As Voxs German Lopez put it simply, The Internet is not proportional.

The problem here is that the internet is not proportional. People wouldnt merely react to this guy making some offensive remarks on the internet by making some offensive remarks to him. They would react as the internet has reacted before to these kinds of situations with potentially thousands of hateful messages, death threats, attempts to get him fired, and harassment not just against him but also his family. Lines would quickly be crossed.

And its not just the Internet thats not proportional. Media has shown an inability to gauge its coverage of the online speech of private citizens.

Remember the #HasJustineLanded worldwide news furor over a single tweet or the week-long news cycle about a Republican staffers private Facebook post critical of the Obama daughters? The offenses of these women shouldnt have made them subjects of worldwide infamy, but they did. I am sympathetic to good, rational people who want to engage in online discussion, but put up barriers between it and their identities.

Again to Powers:We are not obligated to protect a persons identity so they can spread and foment racial hatred. They should take the hood off and own their behavior. Their targets do not have the luxury of being anonymous, after all. So why should they?

This all started with a Wrestlemania meme, not targeting of anyone. Although HanA**holeSolos other posts were anti-Semitic and racist, the one that made him newsworthy was well within bounds of American political discourse. It wasnt a threat of violence. It wasnt incitement. It was a goofy metaphor speech nuts shouldnt want to discourage Americans from making.

As to the question of anonymity, there are plenty of reasons that luxury shouldnt be jettisoned, even though it empowers some bad people to say bad things. Im a public figure. I put my real name with what I say online. I chose this way of doing things, and many private citizens do the same in their social media lives. It can be a helpful governor of online behavior that otherwise gets very dehumanizing and nasty. Ive been subjected to plenty of it myself.

But we shouldnt hold every private citizen with a Facebook account to the standards of a pundit or politician, who chose the strictures and exposure under which they speak.

Even if you do think a Wrestlemania clip is an out-of-bounds political statement, or that HanA**holeSolo should suffer for his other speech, consider this. Our justice system, though imperfect, attempts to value the presumption of innocence. This presumption is so important to us that we let the guilty go free so we dont wrongly convict the innocent.

A similar principle should apply to a culture of free speech. We let some truly vicious trolls and bad behavior by random Internet people go unpunished so we dont catch the innocent in a net meant for miscreants. In extreme cases, like incitement and threats, they must face consequences.

But this all started with a Wrestlemania meme. Even if I dont love it, and even if it was created by a guy who literally named himself A**hole, Ill go to the mats for it.

Mary Katharine Ham is a senior writer at The Federalist.

Read the rest here:
Going To The Mats For Free Speech Sometimes Means Letting Trolls Go Unpunished - The Federalist

wbur Commentary (Thom/ Unsplash)

Like what you read here? Sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

As all the world knows by now, last week our president prepared for his big meeting with Vladimir Putin by receiving round-the-clock briefings on the history of U.S.-Russian relations, as well as the recent accords of the G-20.

Kidding!

Actually, he prepared by tweeting out a video of himself pretend-assaulting a man with a CNN logo superimposed over his head.

The obvious question here is why the leader of the free world or any adult living outside his parents basement would do such a thing. But we all know who Donald Trump is at this point. Expecting him to go more than a few days without trolling is like expecting a leech to go vegetarian.

Whats been more interesting to watch is the fallout, and in particular, the way that Trumps fellowinternet trolls have descended into self-pity at the first sign of public exposure.

As one might expect, media outlets did not take kindly to Trumps tweet, and CNN soon tracked down the man who created the video and posted it on a Reddit site devoted to Trump worship.

The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to free speech. It doesnt guarantee anyone the right to spew hate speech onlineanonymously.

Like many of the folks who hang out on such sites, the Anonymous Poster (who Ill refer to as AP, because his handle is too profane to print) has a long history of posting racist vitriol.

Here are just a few examples of what AP posted:

*A photo of the gate to a concentration camp with the caption, Solved the refugee problem in Europe.

*Photos of dozens of CNN staffers marked with Stars of David.

*A photo of a Koran being burned with the caption, Dont mind me just posting an image to offend Islam.

*Repeated uses of the N-word in posts such as, I just like dancing when n------ are getting beat down by the cops and FBI stats dont lie n-----. You hood rats account for more that [sic] 50 percent of the murder, rape, robbery, and assault in the USA.

(Fun fact: This last outburst is based on a bogus stat our president tweeted out during the campaign. Classy!)

When Trump first posted the CNN video, AP proudly crowed, Holy s---!! I wake up and have my morning coffee and who retweets my s---post but the MAGA EMPORER [sic] himself!!! I am honored!!

But within a day, AP had issued a long apology, claiming that he wasnt a racist and never meant any of the horrible things he posted online.

So what might explain this sudden change of heart?

Heres a hint: CNN figured out APs true identity and contacted him by email. In other words, he was afraid of being exposed.

Conservative media outlets immediately accused CNN of threatening to blackmail AP by exposing his identity. To which I would respond: nonsense.

The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to free speech. It doesnt guarantee anyone the right to spew hate speech online anonymously.

Much of the reason the internet has become a cesspool of cruel rhetoric is because folks like AP have weaponized anonymity. They use the internet to say whatever they want without having to face the consequences. Theyve turned the information superhighway into a playground full of coward-bullies wearing masks.

Like Trump, they love to dish out abuse. And like Trump, the moment anyone tries to hold them accountable, theypitch a fit.

They also threatenchildren. Yes, a group of white supremacists responded to the CNN report on AP by posting information about CNN employees, and threatening the kids of CNN employees unless they fired the lead reporter.

What these trolls really want is a safe space to spew hate.

So thats what weve come to: Racists who threaten innocent kids online are demanding digital hoods to protect them from public disapproval. Perhaps the federal government should provide them guns and ammo, as well? Would that Make America Great Again?

We now have a president with a history of tweeting and retweeting material from white nationalist websites. He also has a long history of inciting violence against protesters, the media and other perceived enemies.

Under his watch, hate crimes have predictably surged. Journalists who work to expose the sources of hate speech routinely receive death threats from Trumps racist army all of them anonymous, naturally.

What these trolls really want is a safe space to spew hate. Forcing them to stand behind their words is the least a civilized society can do.

Follow Cognoscenti on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

Steve Almond Cognoscenti contributor Steve Almond is the author of 11 books of fiction and nonfiction. He writes Cog's advice column, #HeavyMeddle, and is the co-host of Dear Sugar Radio.

More

See original here:
Online Anonymity Is Not The Same Thing As Free Speech - WBUR

Thomas More Society has filed a lawsuit against Parkland High School and Parkland School District on behalf of students Elizabeth (Liz) Castro and Grace Schairer. The lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claims that school administrators have violated Liz and Graces free speech rights by denying their application to form a Students for Life club at the school and then conditioning approval on the students giving up certain speech rights.

Parklands initial denial and later attempt to impose extra requirements on Liz and Graces club are a far cry from the laws requirement that schools treat student clubs equally in every respect, said Jocelyn Floyd, special counsel for Thomas More Society. We hope that the court will quickly recognize the illegal and unconstitutional way the school has treated Liz and Grace and require Parkland High School to uphold their rights under both the First Amendment and Equal Access Act.

Liz Castro and Grace Schairer first approached the Parkland administration about starting Trojans for Life in September 2016. After numerous meetings and submitting a formal club proposal, their club was denied in March for being too political and controversial. Liz and Grace reached out for assistance to Students for Life of America (SFLA), a national organization that provides support to student pro-life clubs.

SFLAs attorneys at the Thomas More Society sent a demand letter to the school and the school district, challenging the administrators denial of the club as a violation of the federal Equal Access Act and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Society asked for the school to approve the club, giving it full access to the schools established expressive forum, equal to all other clubs.

SUPPORT PRO-LIFE NEWS! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation

In response, the district said it would approve the clubbut only if Elizabeth and Grace changed the clubs mission, abandoned certain activities, and gave up their rights to fundraise. Far from treating Trojans for Life equally, these are demands that no other clubs are required to meet.

The school is treating us like second-class citizens because we want to create a culture of life and be a positive influence to our peers, said Grace Schairer, who will be a senior this coming fall at Parkland High School. We want to educate our fellow students about abortion and at the same time be a visible resource for our peers facing unplanned pregnancies. The school has made it clear that it will not allow us to have this type of club, so we decided to file the lawsuit. We are hoping for a quick resolution so Trojans for Life can hit the ground running at the start of the fall semester, along with all the other clubs at Parkland High School.

Holding pro-life views and wanting to create a culture of life on campus is not grounds for the blatant discrimination shown by school administrators, said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America. It is our hope that Parkland High School swiftly allows the Students for Life at the school the same rights granted to every other group on campus.

The Thomas More Societys lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with assistance from local co-counsel Christopher G. Sweet of the American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc., asks for the court to order Parkland School District to approve Trojans for Life with the rights and privileges granted to all other clubs.

View post:
High School Sued for Denying Students' Free Speech by Rejecting Their Pro-Life Club - LifeNews.com