Monthly Archives: July 2020

The U.S. Armys esports team has come under fire for separate allegations of advertising fake giveaways and banning commenters who mentioned U.S. war crimes.

Streaming platform Twitch said the allegedly fake giveaways were in violation of their terms of service, and the ACLU is concerned that banning commenters prohibited free speech.

It looks like what happened was a violation of the First Amendment, ACLU staff attorney Vera Eidelman told VICE.

The Army denied such accusations, with a spokesperson saying comments regarding war crimes were meant to troll and harass the team, and that the giveaways were, in fact, real.

The Armys esports team, which began in 2018, has never had overwhelming public support. The use of popular shooter and strategy games such as Call of Duty; Counter-Strike: Global Offensive; Fortnite; Magic: the Gathering; and more to recruit gamers was seen as morally questionable by some.

On June 30, the official Army esports Twitter responded to an announcement by chat platform Discord with the text emoticon UwU and heart emojis. The emoticon is meant to display a happy anime face, and while some sections of the internet use it frequently, others find the emoticon annoying and frown upon its use.

Followers lashed out against the tweet, calling Discord pro-war and referencing incidents like Abu Ghraib. But the backlash didnt stop with Twitter.

Since early July, gamers and internet trolls have been swarming to the Armys Twitch streams and chat server on Discord to see just how quickly they can get banned for mentioning war crimes or mocking the Tweet that started it all.

Don't miss the top Army stories, delivered each afternoon

(please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Subscribe

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Army Times Daily News Roundup.

As a result of this flood of ban-seekers, the open chat room on the Armys Discord server was intentionally disabled by moderators.

Following the guidelines and policies set by Twitch, the U.S. Army eSports Team banned users from its account due to concern over posted content and website links that were considered harassing and degrading in nature, U.S. Army Recruiting Command spokesperson Lisa Ferguson told Military Times.

The Army encourages those who are genuinely concerned about war crimes to use FOIA reading rooms, elected representatives, and public forums with military leaders to engage in dialogue about war crimes, Ferguson said.

An ACLU tweet on July 10 called out the Army for the bans, saying: Calling out the governments war crimes isnt harassment, its speaking truth to power. And banning users who ask important questions isnt flexing, its unconstitutional.

Just when it seemed controversy over the bans might start to die down, it was alleged that the team was advertising fake giveaways of an Xbox Elite Series 2 controller, valued at more than $200.

The allegation was first reported by The Nation on July 15.

When clicked, animated giveaway advertisements in the Armys Twitch stream chat boxes led users to a recruiting web form with no mention of any giveaway, The Nation reported.

Twitch has since put an end to such advertisements.

This promotion did not comply with our Terms, and we have required them to remove it, a Twitch spokesperson told Kotaku.

USAREC spokesperson Lisa Ferguson said that the giveaways were legitimate and that the Armys esports team has given away 10 controllers, gaming stations, and chairs in the past year.

While the landing page looks generic, each giveaway has its own URL and marketing activity code that directly connects the registrant to the specific giveaway, Ferguson said.

As a result of recent events, Ferguson added that the esports team is reviewing ways to add clarity and customization to giveaways and has paused streaming to evaluate internal policies and procedures.

Continued here:
Army esports team denies accusations of violating First Amendment, offering fake giveaways - ArmyTimes.com

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, and president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute.

Theres a bit of an intellectual fistfight going on these days about free expression and we all have a stake in the outcome.

The early rounds have been going on for years: in essence, a theory that pops up periodically in history that some ideas simply are too dangerous to allow them to be voiced in public. The opponent to that theory: The longtime belief in the marketplace of ideas, where any person may advance any idea however repugnant, vile or even evil and be subject to the review, and perhaps revile, of all others.

Critics of the marketplace approach have several arguments. American critics note the amendment was adopted in 1791, carrying forward ideas about free expression that even then were centuries old, and thus see it as out of place in a modern world.

Another objection is that the internet, with its instant and global reach, makes ineffective the expected marketplace interplay of speaker and responder, through which the hope is bad ideas fail, good ideas improve and best ideas thrive.

Yet another criticism of the marketplace concept is that money, technology and power have created an elite group (or groups) in control of most meaningful communication (and perhaps content) across the web, rendering criticism, counterviews, unpopular or unconventional ideas and certainly revolutionary ones unable to reach a mass audience.

Critical race theorists believe that American jurisprudence essentially has elevated the liberty interests of the First Amendment over the equality interests of the 14th Amendment.

And finally, there is the claim that some ideas simply are too dangerous or misleading or manipulative to be allowed into the marketplace at all from race, ethnic and religious hatred to sexual exploitation and abuse to commercial messaging and political misinformation now aided and abetted by hidden algorithms and those in charge of a handful of private tech companies more intent on profits than seeking truth.

Whew. Thats a pretty strong set of arguments that some things need fixing when it comes to free expression in the early years of the 21st century. Most of us likely would agree with many, if not all of them on first glance.

Interestingly, the sides in this dispute dont automatically align along our current political fractures. Some liberals and conservatives see the web as too wide open, allowing dangerous ideas and speakers access to audiences that can be influenced; while others view the web as a tightly controlled funnel of filtered information combined with manipulation that blocks voices (either too conservative or too liberal take your pick) with a goal of shaping public opinion.

The current battle is not just over the criticisms, but over the solutions as well. Twitter and other sites gain praise and scorn for blocking some users for alleged violations of those sites terms of service, ranging from foul language to misleading health claims to personal attacks and what the sites deem deliberate misinformation. Tech firms can block, tag and take down posted content, in a bit of irony to some, because they have their own First Amendment rights as private companies.

So, some on either side of this dispute would bring government into the ring, where First Amendment freedoms would apply one side seeking exceptions to free speech protections for things such as violent content, or racist views, or demeaning portrayals of women, or LGBTQ persons; and the other combatants asking government to oversee and override those private companies decisions, in the name of protecting conservative voices they see as all-too-often excluded from public discourse.

Who are the combatants of late? In one corner, signatories to an open letter titled, A Letter on Justice and Open Debate, published July 7 in Harpers Magazine, include a number of the worlds best-known creative minds, such as J.K. Rowling, Wynton Marsalis, Gloria Steinem, Salman Rushdie and about 150 other authors, journalists, publishers and artists.

In the other corner of this particular bout are those who signed this week onto another letter published on the online commentary site The Objective which self-identifies as a place with information and views by and for historically ignored communities another group of literary, media and artists. This missive entered the fray acknowledging the fight even reaches into its signatures area, noting some could be identified only generally, usually by professional occupation and place of work, because of fears of workplace retaliation by the established communication masters for whom some work.

Their view of the Harpers letter, in a piece titled, A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate explains, Nowhere in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia and publishing and the letter does not deal with the problem of power: Who has it and who does not.

To be sure, many of latest blows in this intellectual boxing match have been struck via high-concept review of the theories of human communication and in well-founded critiques of who had and has access to tools of speaking out in public news media, book publishers, broadcasters and now social media companies.

But in the early rounds, the heavyweights punched the outmoded model of the marketplace of ideas for two reasons: One, that it never worked as intended because many minority groups, however defined, were denied access to speak and be heard a stark truth that cannot be denied; and two, there is such a thing as truth, and to knowingly permit non-truth is counter-productive to society and should not be permitted.

Boil it all down and it comes to a very simple First Amendment question: Is the response to speech you consider untruthful, disgusting or misleading more speech or less speech? If the former, what do you do as, with lightning speed and wide public acceptance by the unknowing, the web is flooded with true threats to public health, hate speech from white supremacists or deliberately misleading political ads and fraudulent electioneering from world adversaries?

If the latter, who gets to be the national nanny, defining truth, excluding some voices while inviting in others and monitoring the billions of social media posts each day all while remaining nonpartisan and apolitical in todays hyper-divided nation?

Wiser minds including, with hope, most of us will need to parse those questions and more as the First Amendments five freedoms (religion, speech, press, assembly and petition) are tested in court, on the street and occasionally on the pages of online magazines.

As for me, I theorize the nations founders would chuckle at the idea that all of this is new. The mechanisms of communications were different, but the goals in 1791 were the same: The exchange of ideas for a better life for us all, many at the time deemed too dangerous for society to hear ideas like all men are created equal and that democracy was favorable over monarchy.

While this fistfight is mainly staged in the mind, there are real-world examples of the cost of the fight. New York Times op-ed editor Bari Weiss resigned the other day, saying in a letter she self-published that she was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of the Times as their home.

In leaving the paper after about three years, she said, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isnt a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Weiss concludes her resignation by noting founder Adolph Ochs 1896 statement to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.

Ochss idea is one of the best Ive encountered, Weiss continues. And Ive always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.

More of us need to make our voices heard in this latest fight over the meaning of the First Amendments 45 words, lest we see them reshaped or lost without having ever set foot in the ring.

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, and president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at [emailprotected], or follow him on Twitter at@genefac.

The rest is here:
FIRST FIVE: Fighting over the meaning of First Amendment freedoms - hays Post

I was tagged in these pages last week as mystery man the person Town Moderator Mary-Jo Avellar reported to the police for handing out fliers criticizing her as I stood on Commercial Street outside her workplace. Im not really a mystery. Ive been a part-time resident and taxpayer here for 20 years.

After Ms. Avellar took my picture, her Finance Committee appointee Mark Hatch posted it on Facebook in an effort to divine my identity. It wasnt a coincidence that Hatch, who chairs that committee, anointed himself Avellars private investigator.

Under the town charter, Avellar is primarily responsible for reviewing recent allegations thatHatch authored social media posts that were misogynistic, anti-Semitic, and otherwise degrading toward immigrants and participants in Black Lives Matter protests. But like most of Provincetowns elected leaders, shes brushed off Hatchs pattern of intemperate online hate speech.

Instead of taking appropriate action, she foreshadowed the later comments of our witless President when she recently told the Banner, Even the Ku Klux Klan . . . are entitled to free speech. Yet no one has a constitutional right to serve on a town committee, much less chair it. Even House Republicans found enough guts to kick Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) off his committees for the bigotry he voiced.

In a true perversion of the First Amendment, several of Hatchs Facebook followers seem to think it was bad taste or even illegal to protest against a public official on a public street in front ofthat person'sworkplace. Heres what I think: Its bad taste not to mention, ignorant for the Town Moderator to invoke the Ku Klux Klan as an excuse for protecting the alleged hate speech of her own appointee. The Klan is a terrorist organization primarily known for beating and murdering African-Americans, as well as Jews, Catholics, immigrants, and their allies.

I took this step because Avellars outrageous excuse required an outraged response. Many people here today are immigrants, as were the ancestors of many Provincetown families. At least half the towns population is female. Our neighbors include Jews and people of color. We deserve better from the Town Moderator and the Finance Committee.

That committees Code of Conduct states, Remember that you represent the entire community at all times not just while sitting behind a dais. If Provincetown is supposed to be a loving, welcoming community, committee chairs shouldnt spew hate online, and a top elected official cant hide behind the KKK as a reason for refusing to investigate credible allegations that this Code of Conduct provision was violated.

The Town Moderator has already prejudged this matter, so it would be inappropriate for her to act on it. But under Chapter 3, Section 5 of the town charter, the Select Board may investigate and impose sanctions for the alleged misconduct of any member of a town board, commission, or committee. Theres been a formal complaint filed. Its time for the Select Board to step up and act.

Its also well past time the Town Moderator was reminded that her job, by definition, is to create order out of chaos not to keep sowing greater chaos, either among the Towns residents or leaders. If some confidantes would have the courage to tell her that, maybe shed take the message to heart.

Link:
My View: In Provincetown, strange views of the First Amendment - Wicked Local Provincetown

Former Ambassador and National Security Advisor John Bolton is hoping the First Amendment saves him from claims by the government that he violated his own nondisclosure agreements and should therefore be penalized for publishing his recent memoir about President Donald Trumps White House.

A 44-page motion to dismiss all claims against Bolton, filed by his attorneys late Thursday in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., leans heavily of the right to speak freely about matters of political importance in its opening paragraphs and subsequent arguments.

Speech on a politically important and controversial topic is the essence of First Amendment expression, the motion begins. No form of speech is entitled to greater constitutional protection.

Boltons motion comes after a federal district court judge ruled in late June that Bolton could publish his book as a matter of First Amendment law but that Bolton had gambled with the national security of the United States, exposed his country to harm, and furthermore exposed himself to civil (and potentially criminal) liability. Bolton, with his book now for sale worldwide, argues he should face no liability at all. (Given the federal judges June rebuke of Bolton, which called Boltons tactics a gamble, some arent so sure these arguments will work.) Still, Boltons motion takes aim at the governments use of nondisclosure agreements to prevent officials from speaking about how public business is conducted.

When the Government erects a scheme designed to foreclose that speech even before it is uttered by imposing a prior restraint upon the communication of news and commentary on current events, it must shoulder a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint, the document goes on to say (internal citations and punctuation omitted). And it has been settled since the Early Republic that the Government cannot escape First Amendment scrutiny by switching to the tactic of punishing core political speech after the fact.

That line is aimed at government claims that Bolton should be forced to forego royalties or even be punished criminally for publishing his book, The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir.

[A] law inflicting penalties on printed publications, would have a similar effect with a law authorizing a previous restraint on them, Boltons motion then says, quoting James Madison, the author of the First Amendment. It would seem a mockery to say, that no law should be passed, preventing publications from being made, but that laws might be passed for punishing them in case they should be made.

The Bolton motion invites the D.C. District Court to not forget these bedrock constitutional principles in evaluating the Governments attempt in this case to punish the Presidents former National Security Advisor, Defendant John R. Bolton, for publishing speech that is embarrassing to the President.

The Bolton motion invoked previous arguments that a nearly four-month pre-publication government review of Boltons book ferreted out classified information, that Bolton was free to publish, and that the Trump White House continued to assert that classified information existed in the book merely to prevent it from being published. To that end, Boltons motion asserts that neither of his own nondisclosure agreements imposes on a former government employee any obligationnone at allto submit for prepublication review:

The Governments claims are all foreclosed by the text of the very contractual documents upon which they purport to be based, since those contracts simply cannot reasonably be interpreted as imposing the contractual duty that the Government claims Ambassador Bolton breached: the duty to submit to prepublication review, and await written authorization before publishing, a book that he had no reason whatsoever to believe contained any classified material. And even if those contracts were susceptible to an interpretation imposing such a requirementin effect, a blanket prior restraint of virtually any speech by former government employeesthat requirement would be flatly contrary to the First Amendment. The Court thus labors under the solemn constitutional duty to avoid interpreting the contracts, if at all possible, as imposing such a blanket prior restraintand if such an interpretation is not possible, the even more solemn duty to invalidate that plainly unconstitutional requirement.

The motion concludes that even if the governments interpretations of Bolstons so-called Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement (SCI NDA) are true, they do not stand in the face of the First Amendment.

READ Boltons arguments in the document below:

John Bolton Motion to Dismiss by Law&Crime on Scribd

[photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Read more here:
John Bolton Gambles That Constitution Will Save Profits on Book That Was Embarrassing to the President - Law & Crime