Daily Archives: December 1, 2019

Over the last few weeks, several congressional committees have debated the future of free speech online.

Since 1996, internet platforms hosted speech by users thanks to the protections in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This law holds individuals responsible for what they post online and it has enabled American companies to provide the worlds most cutting-edge technology in communication, business and entertainment. Removing Section 230 protections would threaten Americas global Internet and innovation leadership, cripple Internet small businesses, hurt investment in many Internet start-ups and trample our principle of free speech.

In about two dozen words, the law states: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. With that clear safeguard, Section 230 establishes the core, commonsense principle that responsibility for online speech lies with the speaker, not the host. It ensures the survival of the internet economy and creates the cornerstone of online free expression we enjoy today.

Without this unique provision in American law, an Internet platform could be held directly liable for any material posted by any user so there would be far less legitimate expression posted. This American framework is why U.S. online platforms are global leaders.

Without Section 230, platforms that moderate content could be held civilly liable for sponsoring the content that they allow to be posted. So they would have to choose between refusing to moderate any expression no matter how false or offensive or being far more restrictive in what they allow to be posted.

Critics argue Section 230 mainly protects big tech companies. Some politicians have even been pushing to [remove] the immunity big tech companies receive under Section 230 unless they submit to an external audit that would certify political neutrality. But the real casualties of any Section 230 amendments wouldnt be companies of scale; they would be Internet users, whose freedom of speech would be radically curtailed.

Rather than limit all expression, some politicians would impose instead a political test to [remove] the immunity big tech companies receive under Section 230 unless they submit to an external audit that would certify political neutrality. Some even suggest Section 230 be revised to allow the FCC or FTC to oversee online speech. By essentially letting political appointees decide what online speech is appropriate under vague definitions and standards, we would be cultivating an environment of suppression eerily similar to Chinas, where online expression is subject to government approval and whim.

This is not the American way. Aside from the potential for severe political abuse, the problem with this and similar approaches is that legitimate users would be punished by the loss of entire legitimate platforms. Beyond the countless individuals who benefit every day, Section 230 empowers marginalized groups to speak out powerfully without fear of censorship. It is hard to imagine the #MeToo or #BlackLivesMatter movements succeeding without this laws protections. The right to freely exchange ideas has helped make us the most innovative and free country in the world.

Weakening this law would promote allow an unprecedented level of online censorship, whether through new legal caution or a new regulatory mandate. In fact, to put this in perspective: Anyone who has ever forwarded an email, a picture, or any political speech has been protected by Section 230.

Consider a world without Section 230 protections. Large companies could find the massive resources to scour and filter their platforms of any potentially controversial content. Startups and small businesses, however, could not. Instead, these upstarts would be deluged by opportunistic lawsuits from all corners of the Internet. Small business would quickly go bankrupt, start-ups would not launch, and investors wouldnt invest. Americas vibrant culture of innovation would grow dim.

Further, a non-Section 230 world would mean internet platforms may choose not to moderate any third-party content at all. Currently, Section 230 ensures that internet platforms can perform the essential work of moderating harmful content without facing liability. Removing those protections would disincentivize platforms from removing content, allowing free reign to violent extremists, Nazis and other repugnant actors.

Section 230 is a uniquely American law. It has promoted free expression, enabled our global innovation leadership, and stoked our dynamic start-up ecosystem. Because of Section 230, startups can launch without massive lawsuits, Internet sites can host third-party reviews and individuals can communicate freely across global platforms.

Lawmakers should oppose any legislation that would chip away at this law and jeopardize the future of Americas vibrant, competitive internet economy. If you agree and value the irreplaceable value of free online speech, tell your lawmakers to protect your free expression rights online.

Michael Petricone is senior vice president of government affairs for the Consumer Technology Association (CTA).

Visit link:
Why dismantling Section 230 would shatter free speech and innovation | TheHill - The Hill

The Hechinger Report is a national nonprofit newsroom that reports on one topic: education. Sign up for our weekly newsletters to get stories like this delivered directly to your inbox.

Indiana University in Bloomington Indiana. Students at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana demanded that officials fire professor Eric Rasmusen, after he posted racist, sexist and homophobic opinions to social media earlier this month. Photo: Don & Melinda Crawford/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

If your professor at a public university regularly tweets out articles like Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably you would probably be confused as to why he taught students. If, after class, you read tweets by the same professor saying that black students are generally inferior academically to white students and that members of the LBGTQ community only want marriage rights to get spousal fringe benefits from the government, you might find fault with your professors boss for not firing the prejudiced chauvinist.

We should expect students, faculty and staff members with a modicum of dignity to call for that professors ouster. No student should be subjected to a professor who moonlights as a bigot. However, what may not be tolerated in other workplaces sometimes gets a free pass in colleges and universities, which adhere robustly to the value of free speech.

Free speech is tied to academic freedom the autonomy to teach and research ideas without the consequence of retaliation. The quality of a professors ideas is enhanced when scholarship isnt tethered to profits, political motives and/or the propaganda of hate groups. Colleges defend professors rights to pursue controversial topics of discussion such as climate change, police brutality, charter schools and pornography. University professors conduct clinical trials and other experiments in which the integrity of that work demands free speech.

Yet as noble as that sounds, higher educations loyalty to free speech can also protect chauvinists like Indiana University Bloomington professor Eric Rasmusen, who posted the bigoted tweets about women and others using his private social media accounts. Rasmusen understandably has come under fire for a history of racist, sexist and homophobic social media posts.

Protecting core principles matters but so does leadership. As the presence of hate groups spreads on campus, reflecting the growing diversity of beliefs in society, its important that university leaders properly balance free speech and academic freedom with facts, inclusion and social cohesion. A person who believes in the illogical notion that women, black and gay people are inferior to white men has as much a place in an institution of learning as a person who believes pigs can fly but the bigot is far more dangerous. How university administrators (and leaders in general) address past and present discrimination influences the kind of world we will live in in the future.

Related: HBCUs are leading centers of education why are they treated as second-class citizens?

Rasmusens boss, Lauren Robel, provost at Indiana University Bloomington, sets a fine example of the leadership we need. As absurd as it may seem, firing Rasmusen would compromise the pillars of higher education: free speech and academic freedom. However, Robel has done everything within her power to confront the discrimination that erodes basic values of truth, democracy and community. Robel is allowing students enrolled in Rasmusens class to transfer into another section. Students can also get out of taking a required course from Rasmusen. In addition, Robel will require Rasmusen to grade assignments without knowing the identities of the students in the class, an attempt to buffer against the biases he laid bare on Twitter.

Compare Robels actions to those of another university leader in the same state, and youll see why leadership is so important. In response to a students question on how to improve the campus for minority students, Purdue University President Mitch Daniels, a former governor of Indiana, touted an initiative to bring more inner-city students to campus. Daniels also said, I will be recruiting one of the rarest creatures in America: a leading, I mean a really leading African American scholar.

Students immediately took offense.

Creatures? said DYan Berry, president of the Black Student Union. Come on. Referring to African American scholars as rare creatures sounds right out of Rasmusens Twitter feed.

Responding to the backlash, Daniels explained he was referring to extraordinarily rare talent and told the Journal and Courier, part of the USA Today network, I never felt so misunderstood before.

Related: Students take their future into their own hands on climate change activism

To be clear, there are extraordinarily talented black scholars in many fields; predominately white higher education leaders simply dont hire and invest in black professors development in the same way as their white peers, resulting in their underrepresentation. Protected professors dont see the value in proactively championing diversity and inclusion. The beauty of Robels actions is that she showed how good leaders can work within systems to correct glaring problems. Its an approach Daniels should emulate.

According to the Journal and Couriers analysis of Purdues published diversity numbers, 8.3 percent (161 of 1,931) of tenured or tenure-track professors in 2018 were recorded as underrepresented minorities. In 2013, when Daniels started his tenure at Purdue, that stat was 6.3 percent (117 of 1,849).

Those numbers are moving in the right direction, but they still warrant scrutiny from concerned students, faculty and staff. Black, Latino, Asian American and Pacific Islander, and American Indian faculty make up 4 percent, 3 percent, 11 percent, and less than 1 percent of full-time professors in degree-granting postsecondary institutions.

We desperately need academic leadership that can stand up for whats right and stand up to white supremacists and white supremacy. Just last week, CNN reported five incidents of hate that occurred across the country. At the University of Georgia, someone drew swastikas on a whiteboard on the door of a Jewish womans dorm room. Another swastika was carved into a door of an Iowa State dormitory, and racist stickers and posters appeared around campus. Racist graffiti was found at the University of Syracuse during a two-week run of incidents of hate-driven harassment. At the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, a thread of a racist post from a private SnapChat account became public, setting off a firestorm of concern on campus. And a noose was hung in the common area of a dormitory. Lets hope that university leaders on these campuses address their issues as Robel did, because a lack of leadership is how we got here.

Related: As Republicans stress political fiction over facts, students math and reading scores fall

Academics dont have to tweet out bigotry to make their beliefs known. Colleges curricula and admissions policies do the talking on their behalf. For most of the twentieth century, Asians, Blacks, Latinos/Latinas and Native Americans were excluded or restricted from the academic offerings and leadership positions in most colleges and universities. People of color who were allowed on campus were insignificant in number or primarily relegated to service, housekeeping or grounds positions. If you want to learn more about racist customs of fraternities and sororities, including the tradition of wearing blackface, just thumb through a campus yearbook.

When campuses begin to value black and brown lives, youll see the presence of authors of color throughout course syllabi as well as more than a token handful of people of color in the student body and faculty. Youll see administrators commitments to affirmative action codified in policy and funding allocations dedicated to creating a positive racial climate. Over time, actions like these will seed the kind of campus where bigotry is cut off at the root and publicly condemned when it isnt.

Academic freedom and bigotry cant coexist on campus. Robel has demonstrated one way to tackle bigots who falsely claim the mantle of free speech. Now we need a new generation of college and university leaders to stand up for the values that create an inclusive learning environment for all.

This story free speech on campus was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechingers newsletter.

Join us today.

Read more:
We must not allow bigots to hide behind free speech on campus - The Hechinger Report

President Trumps use of Twitter to shape the narrative is notorious. True to form, he was tweeting fast and furious during the impeachment hearings. Negative testimony about the presidents interactions with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky repeatedly incited his aggressive retorts, prompting speculation about whether his outbursts may be viewed as witness intimidation. Citing the First Amendment, Trump claims he is free to say what he pleases, including name-calling and denigrating witnesses. But is it criminal witness intimidation?

A number of recent cases have examined the use of social media platforms to conduct witness intimidation. In 2018, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the witness tampering conviction of a woman who posted on Facebook the name of a potential witness in her brothers criminal trial who she warned not to get upon the stand, posting watch out little snitch. The Supreme Court too has had occasion to consider the criminality of Facebook posts suggesting that the defendants soon-to-be ex-wife should be killed. Even beyond our prolific president, the issue of improper use of digital media to harass or intimidate has seeped into the political realm. Earlier this year, House Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fl) was censured for tweets made on the eve of congressional testimony from former Trump attorney, Michael Cohen, suggesting that unfavorable information about Cohen would be released if he testified.

Recent impeachment-related tweets from Trump are not the first public statements from the president to be called into question. Critics previously argued that the president was obstructing justice by dangling a pardon to his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, during the Mueller investigation. Tweets expressing sympathy for Manafort and referring to him as a brave man in contrast to his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who cooperated with authorities and was referred to by Trump as a coward were viewed as a subtle message to Manafort to stay strong and possibly reap the benefits ala a presidential pardon.

Trumps tweets about the Whistleblower who filed the complaint that has instigated the impeachment hearings also have been questioned. A September 26, 2019 tweet likened the Whistleblower to a spy and further stated You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now. This tweet prompted the Whistleblowers attorneys to send a letter to the Acting Director of National Intelligence expressing concern for their clients anonymity and safety.

Most recently, a tweet from President Trump blasting Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, as she testified has been called witness intimidation. After hearing Trumps statement that everywhere she went turned bad, Yovanovitch herself stated that it was intimidating. Democrats opined that the Presidents tactics would, and were intended to, scare off other potential witnesses.

The Law of Witness Intimidation

Knowingly using intimidation or threats to influence testimony in an official proceeding, such as a proceeding before Congress, is a crime under Section 1512 of the United States Code. Whether a presidential tweet storm might be considered a violation of this statute centers on a few questions: 1) when can a tweet or public statement implicate Section 1512; 2) when are tweets or statements considered a threat under federal law; and 3) what is the requisite criminal intent?

Section 1512 has been applied to social media posts. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction under Section 1512 of Delexsia Harris, who took to Facebook two weeks before her brothers trial for murder. Harris posted threatening statements and depictions of guns and bombs pointing at police cars alongside broad references to individuals identified as potential witnesses in the case. (886 F3d 1120) Harris also named one witness directly. Stating that the question of whether a communication is a threat is a factual question to be resolved by a jury, the Court upheld the jurys determination that a reasonable recipient, familiar with the context of the communication, would interpret [Harriss posts] as a threat.

In Trumps case, Democrats argue that his tweet made during Ambassador Yovanovitchs testimony could have had an effect both on Yovanovitch, who was still in the process of providing information to Congress, as well as on other potential witnesses. The Second Circuit has held that the language of Section 1512 does not require the intimidating statement or threat be directly made to the threatened individual. (US v. Veliz, 800 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2015)). The statute states that a violation occurs when the defendant engages in wrongful conduct toward another person with the intent to influence any person in an official proceeding. Accordingly, a threat to X which causes Y to withhold information, qualifies as witness intimidation so long as the person making the threat had corrupt intent.

Section 1512 requires proof of specific corrupt intent to intimidate or persuade a witness either not to testify or to alter his or her testimony. Reasonable minds differ on Trumps motivation. The witness intimidation claims made against Representative Gaetz earlier this year suggest that even where the motivation to intimidate or persuade arguably is clearer, it may not rise to the level of criminality.

The night before Trumps former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was scheduled to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Gaetz, a staunch defender of Trump, tweeted Hey @MichaelCohen212- Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if shell remain faithful to you when youre in prison. Shes about to learn a lot . Gaetz defended claims that he was threatening Cohen by stating that he was only challenging the veracity and character of a witness. No criminal charges were brought against Gaetz and an investigation into his behavior by the Florida Bar resulted only in a written censure. In this highly-charged political environment, evidence of criminal intent may be difficult to prove.

Interaction with the First Amendment

The First Amendment may add another layer of protection to unbridled tweeters. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider what distinguishes a true threat from speech protected by the First Amendment in Elonis v. United States in 2014. The Court reviewed Eloniss conviction for transmitting in interstate commerce a communication containing a threat to injure the person of another under 18 U.S.C. 875(c). Specifically, Elonis made a series of posts on Facebook suggesting that his soon-to-be ex-wife should be killed. Other posts contained threats against police, the FBI and a kindergarten class. On appeal, Eloniss lawyer argued the conviction should be overturned because Elonis lacked the requisite specific intent to injure, was just venting about his personal problems, and did not mean to threaten anyone.

The question as phrased by the Supreme Court was whether the statute required that the defendant be aware of the threatening nature of the communication and, if not, whether the First Amendment required such a showing. Unfortunately, the Courts opinion did not resolve the question directly, but took issue with the Third Circuits application of a reasonable person standard a civil tort concept to determine the defendants criminal intent, stating that wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal. The conviction was reversed and the matter was remanded to the Third Circuit. Thereafter, the Third Circuit found the error to be harmless and affirmed the conviction because Elonis testified at trial that he knew his posts would be viewed as threats, thereby satisfying the knowledge element of the crime.

Conclusion

Courts and attorneys are going to have to contemplate how the use of Twitter and other social medium platforms increasingly used as a forum for political and commercial speech must be analyzed under criminal statutes. Like any other form of communication, courts correctly have determined that these types of public statements may be viewed as threats subject to criminal charges. Whether the conduct is criminal will depend upon first, whether a reasonable person familiar with the context within which the statement was made would view it as a threat, and second, whether the speaker intended to intimidate. Certainly, the words and the speakers power and ability to make good on the threat will play a part in that analysis.

To read more fromRobert J. Anello, please visitwww.maglaw.com.

View post:
Intimidation or Free Speech: Are Trump's Tweets Witness Tampering? - Forbes

German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke out against free speech this week, suggesting the government can and should regulate what people say to keep society free.

Merkel, speaking at an event for the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce in Berlin, stumbled up the stairs before taking the podium and suggesting the government ban speech she considers extreme and decrying freedom of expression.

We have freedom of expression in our country, Merkel said. For all those who claim that they can no longer express their opinion, I say this to them: If you express a pronounced opinion, you must live with the fact that you will be contradicted. Expressing an opinion does not come at zero cost.

But freedom of expression has its limits, she continued. Those limits begin where hatred is spread. They begin where the dignity of other people is violated. The house will and must oppose extreme speech. Otherwise our society will no longer be the free society that it was.

Of course, determining what speech violates the dignity of other people is not something politicians or anyone else should be deciding, especially in todays culture where liberals claim speech they disagree with is literally violence against them.

As Townhall noted, Germany passed a ban in 2018 that fined websites up to 50 million euros ($55 million) for not removing hate speech from their platforms quickly enough. The outlet also suggested Merkels attempts to suppress free speech were an effort to silence criticsof Merkels open-door immigrationpolicies.

Indeed, if one is to talk about violating another persons dignity, then Merkels policies toward immigration would be a prime example. Recall that on New Years Eve in 2015, upwards of 1,000 men sexually assaulted women on the streets in Germany. In the aftermath of the mass assaults, one German mayor blamed the women for being sexually assaulted, and the German government pledged to crackdown on those who criticize Muslim immigrants who were accused of perpetrating the attacks.

The definition of hate speech and limitation thereof is not as clear cut as people may believe. This is why Americas First Amendment doesnt have a hate speech exception. What is considered hate speech today may not have been considered so one hundred years ago, and what is acceptable today may not be acceptable in even 10 years, if current social justice trends are any indication.

Yet Europe continues to enact hate-speech laws that rest on the subjective analysis of those in positions of authority (and the most easily offended among us). For example, one county in the United Kingdom made catcalls and pickup lines illegal by labeling them hate crimes. The definition of hate crime in that county was defined as, Incidents against womenthat are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman and includes behavior targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.

These kinds of definitions plague anti-hate speech laws, as they open them up for abuse from those seeking attention and victimhood status.

The rest is here:
Angela Merkel Says 'Freedom Of Expression Has Its Limits,' Must Be Regulated To Keep Society Free - The Daily Wire

The recent interaction between student Michael Moreno and debate coach Ryan Wash caused significant controversy online and on campus after Moreno posted recordings of in-class interactions on YouTube. Since then, WSU faculty and staff have refocused on what it means to provide an environment of academic freedom and free speech while at the same time ensuring that all people on campus feel physically and intellectually safe.

Adrienne Andrews, WSUs Vice President for Diversity and Chief Diversity Officer, hosted a forum discussion for faculty and staff on the morning of Nov. 20. Andrews invited several faculty and staff members to share their ideas and to review the universitys official policies regarding these matters.

The panelists in the discussion included Professor of Economics Dr. Doris Stevenson; Dean of the Library Wendy Holliday; Director of the Womens Center Paige Davies; Professor of Chemistry Dr. Tim Herzog; Professor of Teacher Education Dr. Forrest Crawford and Dane LeBlanc the former chief of WSUPD and the current Director of Safety.

Academic freedom is one of the pillars of the university, Herzog said. It allows us to do things that are controversial and challenging, things that may be upsetting to other people.

Herzog believes that there are challenges with how others may interpret or use academic freedom. He also believes that curriculum should fall within an agreed-upon set of rules. The university has curriculum review processes and committees to ensure and approve curriculum quality.

Faculty cannot just teach any controversial topic they want outside of their disciplinary area, Herzog said.

Dr. Stevenson added to Herzogs sentiment.

You have the freedom to teach anything that falls within the purview of the legitimate pedagogical reason, Stevenson said. How do we balance student rights and teacher rights? You have to fall back on policy.

According to Stevenson, current university policy gives students the right and responsibility to determine whether they should or can complete a course. If a student has a problem with a courses material, they may drop the course. If the course is a requirement for degree completion, the student may ask the course instructor for a reasonable accommodation. It is up to the faculty member to determine what the accommodation will be. The faculty member may deny the request unless the denial is arbitrary, capricious or illegal.

After the panel discussed academic freedom and students options in courses they may have issue with, Crawford addressed the issue of free speech.

The student comes (to class) with the view that they have a wide range of consideration that they can explore, Crawford said. To me, I do not assume that free speech is whenever, wherever, however. Free speech has a particular obligation, a particular guideline, a particular way.

Crawford believes, from a faculty standpoint, that teachers ultimately want students to respond to questions, but in a responsible way. Teachers should provide a structured way for students to share a diversity of opinion.

Andrews concurred with Crawfords idea by suggesting that faculty, with their students consent, should establish rules of debate on the first day of class each semester. Andrews believes students can express dissent more constructively if they establish rules with their peers for expressing opinion.

Holliday continued the discussion on free speech by arguing that spaces for free speech must also be spaces of productive learning. She believes the university must ultimately fulfill its role, not as a public forum, but as a learning space. Holliday will not censor what students and faculty choose to read, but she hopes students and faculty will choose to address inequities.

The conversation then turned to LeBlanc to address issues of campus safety.

If someone wants to protest, we take an unbiased approach, LeBlanc said. Our job is to facilitate safe, free expression.

LeBlanc acknowledges that this sometimes means having to physically separate protestors from counter-protestors.

Davies reviewed and reinforced university policy that is meant to prevent any type of discriminatory harassment.

If a university employee or student is experiencing any type of harassment or feels physical danger, they can seek remedies through the Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity (AAEO) Office, Davies said. There are formal and informal measures to help students, faculty and staff.

An audience member asked about what students can do if they feel disrespected by a professor, but not harassed or unsafe.

In this case, students should report how they feel to the department chair, Herzog said. The department chair or dean can explore that. If the need arises, students can also file complaints with the AAEO Office or the Provosts Office.

See more here:
Balancing free speech and safety on campus - The Signpost

David Gunkel's "Perspective" (November 29, 2019).

Have you heard about TikTok?

TikTok is a video-sharing application developed by the Beijing-based Internet start-up ByteDance. The app has been wildly popular with teenagers all over the world. How popular? 1.2 billion installs as of June 2019, making TikTok the first Chinese app to achieve international scale.

But the app is not without its critics, and it is getting some push-back from U.S. lawmakers. So whats the problem? Like all social media platforms, TikTok collects, stores, and leverages user data. But what makes TikTok different from many of the other apps residing on your smart phone is the fact that ByteDance is a Chinese company incorporated under Chinese law.

What concerns US lawmakers is that the corporation could, under pressure from the Chinese government, either censor politically sensitive content or turn over data from American users to Chinese officials.

ByteDance has countered these concerns, explaining that it stores all U.S. user-data on servers located inside the United States and stipulating that legal jurisdiction for the service is located in Singapore. This means, on paper at least, that U.S. users and their data should be sufficiently insulated. But there are reasons to be cautious.

ByteDance is a Chinese company subject to Chinese law. The Chinese government has previously compelled other tech companies to censor content deemed politically sensitive. And there are already credible reports that TikTok has intentionally buried content concerning the protests in Hong Kong.

So the app may be free, but the speech might not be.

Im David Gunkel, and thats my perspective.

Read the original:
Perspective: Free App, Free Speech? | WNIJ and WNIU - WNIJ and WNIU

Where does the truth lie?

Re: Trumps assault on the truth has endangered our republic, Nov. 24 commentary and Nov. 24 cartoon

Guilty?

Or innocent?

It was a great cartoon by Christopher Weyant at The Globe.

The Denver Post makes obvious, by letter selection, which coverage it will offer.

Did The Post really receive no reader letters at all, pointing out that every witness who discerned a quid pro quo in Donald Trumps Ukrainian policy, inferred it without direct word from the president, save for these words?

I want nothing!

I want nothing!

I want no quid pro quo!

Meanwhile, in lamenting how little trust Americans place in our media, Doug Friednash ironically points to the 13,435 falsehoods attributed to Trump by the partisan fact-checker Washington Post.

I will say that the only presidential whopper I recall that had direct negative impact on my life was uttered multiple times without media challenge:

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

Colorado hospital prices increased 76% by The Denver Posts own count since.

Steve Baur, Westminster

Doug Friednash hit the nail on the head regarding Trump and his misrepresentation. More to the point, we have to ask whats become of the Republican Party.

Today, we have the Republican Party in denial of more far-reaching allegations against President Trump. Far from merely lying to Congress about an extramarital affair as in the Clinton era, Trump has stepped over the line by attempting to withhold nearly $400 million of military aid to a foreign country in exchange for that country fabricating dirt on a political rival.

In its effort to protect the president, the Republican Party has inadvertently presented itself as the party of double standards. Comparing the Clinton impeachment charges with those being leveled at Trump, theres no equivalency whatsoever between engaging in an extramarital affair and using a foreign power to tilt a presidential election.

Since the Bill Clinton days, the Republican Party has increasingly resorted to using false narratives, misinformation and outright lies to advance its political agendas. Trump has persisted in stonewalling any attempt by Congress to gain insight into the inner workings of Trumps administration. What has been revealed is a presidency surrounded by characters who, themselves, have been suspected of criminal activity or convicted of the same.

What is it that the Republican Party doesnt get about Donald J. Trump?

Make America Great Again? I dont think so.

Gary E. Goms, Buena Vista

Re: Impeachment testimony convincing enough, Nov. 24 letter to the editor

Mary Smith, former chair of the Denver GOP, thinks Congress and Sen. Cory Gardner should cast aside partisanship and do their sacred duty under the Constitution. Follow the impeachment process, focus on the facts, listen carefully to the actual evidence and consider the sources, and hold the president accountable.

First of all, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the impeachment process must be bipartisan. The only thing bipartisan about this whole thing is when Democratic House members voted not to proceed. As far as listening carefully, its obvious that the former chair didnt, unless it was to that pillar of truth CNN.

Presidents can and do withhold aid to foreign countries all the time. She might want to ask former President Barack Obama why he withheld some of the military aid the Ukrainian people so desperately needed, and while at it, look to the front- runner of the Democratic presidential wannabes for the integrity she is in search of. The man whose son got a high-paying job that he had zero qualifications for, and while that company was under scrutiny, this candidate the vice president of the United States had a prosecutor fired.

Larry E. Fries, Parker

Kudos to former Denver Republican chairwoman Mary Smith for her letter calling for GOP congressional leadership to hold President Trump accountable for undermining one of the most important parts of being an American free and open elections. The reference was to Trumps now-infamous phone call to Ukraine President Zelensky asking him to investigate a political opponent in exchange for a meeting in the White House.

Unfortunately, her message is likely to be ignored, and Trump will be acquitted in the Republican-controlled Senate if he is impeached by the Democratic House. His acquittal, in conjunction with his puppet Attorney General William Barr; the Republican Senate; a Justice Department ruling that a sitting president cannot be indicted; Trumps denial of Vladimir Putins interference in the 2016 election; and favorable 5-4 decisions from the conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court will create a situation involving the two things the founders feared most: a lawless president operating with impunity (a de facto king) and interference from a foreign government, in this case Russia. That scenario will pose a serious danger to our nations cherished values and institutions.

Frank Tapy, Denver

I want to decry President Trumps full pardon of 1st Lt. Clint Lorance and Maj. Mathew Golsteyn. Lorance was convicted for ordering the killing of unarmed men in Afghanistan. In the case of Golsteyn, it prevents his military trial for the alleged murder of a suspected bombmaker.

These pardons demean the reputation of the U.S. military. In history, armies of various countries have been guilty of allowing pillaging, rape and murder. That has not been the case with the U.S.I recall a personal experience in World War II. I was with the first infantry troops into Osaka, Japan, after the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending the conflict. I encountered a Japanese farmer working in his field. He feared me, doffing his hat and bowing. I got him to understand that I meant him no harm. The Japanese had been told we would be pillagers, rapists and murderers. With the good conduct of our troops, they soon learned that was not the case.

Our military courts usually get things right. The military in discharging its duty has to be humane. The United States reputation for the good conduct of our service personnel also affects how our American POWs are treated. This pardoning by President Trump has damaged our country.

James T. Watson, Highlands Ranch

Re: U.S. and Kurds resume eorts, Nov. 26 news story

Kurds resume efforts two months after Trumps abrupt withdrawal of troops.

Who did this temporary withdrawal serve? Well announced in advance, it invited Syria and Russia to advance their positions. The troops, who fought with the Kurds, had to leave them unprotected, and are now back under less safe conditions. President Trump destroys foreign policy, costs lives and troop morale, all to benefit our adversaries.

Donna Lucero, Lakewood

Re: RTD announces survey results, Nov. 22 news story

While watching and reading the coverage about the operator shortage at RTD, one thing keeps jumping out at me. Why is the board of directors so bent on a service cut? Is that their real agenda?If I ran an organization that had hired 177 operators and lost 201, that would be where my attention would focus. I know there are jobs out there that pay less then RTD, and can yet keep employees, so it must be something else.

Mandating! That is what it is. As long as youre forcing people to work on their days off, in fear of getting fired, most people wont stay. As an employer, you need to be better than the others, to keep a workforce.

When you tell an employee the bus or train route is more important than you and your family, it shows that you dont really care about him or her.

If RTD would fundamentally change its policy on forced overtime, invite some of those 201 operators to reapply, send out the buses and trains that can be consistently filled, I bet the head count would start to recover.

It would take a few months of a reduced schedule, but may avoid a significant cut in the future unless thats what the board actually wants.

Susan Gierga, Aurora

The controversy around quarterback Colin Kaepernick mostly deals with free speech and his right to kneel during the national anthem as a form of protest.

For me, it isnt about free speech. For me, everyone absolutely has free speech and that includes the right to kneel.

Instead of the right to free speech, I would frame the topic around something else namely, the content of that speech. What they say, or, in this case, the symbolism they choose.

When Kaepernick and others choose to kneel, they tell me something important about themselves and something important about their values. They tell me that they dont share my values at all. So much so that Im not interested in supporting them or the organization they represent.

David Jones, Aurora

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Read more from the original source:
Letters: In politics, where does the truth lie? (12/1/19) - The Denver Post

from the double-double dept

I'm not sure when or if this has happened before: this week we've got cross-category winners in both the first and second place spots, both in response to the latest example of a SLAPP suit filed by a supposed free speech supporter. Norahc won first place for both insightful and funny by putting a name to this increasingly common hypocritical phenomenon:

Hereafter, this should be referred to as the Nunes Effect.

Meanwhile an anonymous comment took second place for both insightful and funny with a response to someone misusing the notion of "freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences" as though it was meant to include lawsuits:

Interesting theory. Then for the US, I propose a new civil law that allows people to sue others for owning guns. Like, if you are unhappy that someone owns a gun, you can sue them for up to a million dollars. Thankfully this would not infringe on the 2nd Amendment, since they are still free to own guns, just not free from the consequences.

And since that's all the winners right there, we now move straight on to editor's choice for both categories! On the insightful side, we've got a pair of comments about the ongoing privacy wars on multiple fronts. First it's That One Guy responding to the states that argued against the Pennsylvania ruling that compelled password production violates the 5th amendment:

A telling, and worrying, argument

"In a joint amicus brief in support of the Commonwealth, various states provide an interesting history of modern encryption, press the troubling consequences of Appellants position including the altering of the balance of power, rendering law enforcement incapable of accessing large amounts of relevant evidence and warn that adopting Appellants position could result in less privacy, not more, in the form of draconian anti-privacy legislation."

'If you don't let us violate constitutional rights we'll pass unconstitutional laws in order to let us do so' is really not the sort of thing you want multiple states arguing, as that shows a mindset that considers constitutional protections and privacy of the public not limits to be respected and something to uphold respectively, but obstacles to be worked around and/or undermined.

Law enforcement has never had access to all of the evidence they've wanted, and the fact that there are more ways for people to protect their privacy, even if that includes really terrible people, is not grounds to start giving them that which they have never had and never will have, especially when it will come at such a great cost to the general public.

Next, it's Bergman responding to our post about the EU telling the US to ban strong encryption:

Nerding Harder

The US government has over a hundred times greater access to people's communications, personal papers and everything else now than it did when the Fourth Amendment was written. The US government has surveillance capabilities beyond the worst nightmares of our founders.

Our law enforcement has never had a problem finding anyone from petty thieves to traitors, from illegal immigrants to foreign spies. But they're saying now that their incredible wealth of information is insufficient, that we are at risk of them being unable to catch all these bad people if we return to a level of government surveillance that persisted for most of our history, that they had zero problems with then.

The answer is as simple as it is obvious. The tech sector is not the group that needs to nerd harder. They people who need to nerd harder are the government agencies that are apparently slacking off, because with greater capacity to find bad guys they are claiming a reduced ability to actually pursue them.

Giving them more tools when they aren't fully utilizing the ones they already have is silly, they just won't fully utilize those either.

They just need to nerd harder at the NSA, DOJ and ICE.

On the funny side, we start out with allengarvin responding to our post about the court that tossed 82 pounds of marijuana because of the deputy's pretextual traffic stop:

"The rental car was only doing 60 mph in a 70-mph speed zone"

That crime is far worse than carrying 82 lbs of marijuana. If you're not passing someone, GET OUT OF THE DAMN PASSING LANE!!

And finally, we've got an anonymous response to our post about cord-cutting in which we accused cable execs of sticking their heads in the ground:

Pretty sure that is NOT where they are sticking their heads...

That's all for this week, folks!

Read this article:
Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt - Techdirt