Monthly Archives: March 2021

To The Eagle:

I rarely write a letter to the editor, but last week something really struck me odd. A lady wrote "Why, Mr. Editor, do you print such rubbish instead of the informative interesting stuff?

Having served in the military and being a red blooded flag waving American I totally believe in the first amendment. But the lady wanting the editor to restrict free speech and only print what she considers informative is why our country is splitting right down the middle. She reminds me of my niece from California that said the Constitution should be re-written because it was written by a bunch of old white men, what does that mean? Old white men have no vision, no understanding how other countries were governed and wanted the US to be different? So should it be written now by a bunch of young diverse people that have no clue what is going on in the world?

I have no problem with the lady explaining how she sees the world but calling the President of the United States a "Fascist" is really hard to read, I wonder if she really understands Fascism. If she studied World Wars I and II she would know the US fought for years and lost millions of military personnel fighting Fascism and Communism. What makes her think our president would ever want Fascism?

"Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[9] A fascist state is led by a strong leader such as a dictator and a martial law" Wikipedia.

Our president is elected by the people, serves in a Republic, holding one of the three branches of government, working with Congress and the Judiciary to forge laws to govern our country. I truly can't imagine that our country would ever re-write our Constitution and turn our country into a dictatorship with one party and total government control.

Richard Erickson

Cathlamet

Read more from the original source:
Do we not understand the 1st amendment? - The Wahkiakum County Eagle

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Decrying a dangerous movement to silence conservative ideas [and] religious beliefs, Gov. Greg Abbott touted a bill Friday that aims to crack down on the perceived censorship of conservative voices by social media companies.

They are controlling the flow of information and sometimes denying the flow of information, the Republican governor said at a press conference in Tyler. And they are being in the position where they're choosing which viewpoints are going to be allowed to be presented. Texas is taking a stand against big tech political censorship. We're not going to allow it in the Lone Star State.

Abbott was joined by state Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, who is sponsoring the measure and who chairs the powerful Senate State Affairs Committee. Hughes said the bill would give Texans the right to restore their accounts when theyre mistreated.

We have a handful of billionaires in San Francisco that run these tech companies, Hughes said. It doesn't make them the gatekeeper of free speech. But that's what they want to be.

Senate Bill 12 would prohibit social media companies including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube from blocking, banning, demonetizing, or otherwise discriminating against a user based on their viewpoint or their location within Texas.

It would apply to anyone who lives in, does business in or has social media followers in Texas. Under the proposal, a person who feels theyve been wrongly barred from a platform can file a claim in court. The Texas attorney general can also bring a claim on a persons behalf. If a social media company fails to comply, the bill stipulates that the court can impose daily penalties sufficient to secure immediate compliance.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Texas Senate, has identified the bill as one of his 31 priorities for this legislative session. Hughes filed a similar bill in 2019 that won Senate approval, but died in committee in the state House.

Facebook, Twitter and Google, which owns YouTube, did not respond to requests for comment.

TechNet, an industry association, said removing content restrictions could open the way for children to be exposed to harmful content of ill-intended users online.

This bill not only recklessly encourages companies to leave objectionable content in the public eye, but also creates a culture that supports frivolous lawsuits against American companies, said Servando Esparza, the groups executive director of Texas and the Southwest, in a statement.

Hughes said that his legislation would only apply to political and religious speech.

Were not talking about lewd, lascivious obscenity or anything like that, Hughes said.

The rhetoric about silencing conservatives ramped up following the 2020 election, when platforms including Facebook and Twitter removed former President Donald Trumps account for inciting violence during the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection.

Republican politicians have long targeted technology giants accusing them of an anti-conservative bias and for silencing free speech, even though the actions to ban members were often in response to credible evidence that communications were inciting violence.

Abbott spokesperson Renae Eze said in a statement, "If they were truly concerned about posts inciting violence, then accounts for people like Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Nicolas Maduro would've been banned years ago."

In January, Twitter banned an account that some in Iran believed to be linked to Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Associated Press reported, though his official account is still active. Nicolas Maduro in 2017 slammed Twitter as an "expression of fascism" after the platform suspended a handful of accounts linked to the Venezuelan president. And in January 2020, Twitter suspended more than a dozen accounts linked to Maduro and Venezuela's armed forces, according to Bloomberg.

Experts point out that the First Amendment which protects free speech only prohibits government censorship. That leaves private companies to choose their own protocols.

From a First Amendment perspective, social media companies are private actors and aren't subject to the First Amendment, Scot Powe, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, told The Texas Tribune in January. So it's a matter of constitutional law. They can be as biased as they want in any direction they choose.

Twitter in January purged more than 70,000 accounts linked to the dangerous conspiracy theorist group QAnon for the movements connection to the U.S. Capitol attack. Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist who often espouses violent and sometimes racist views, has been kicked off Facebook, Twitter and Spotify, among others. And Twitter in February permanently booted MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, a fierce Trump ally who continually spread false claims about election fraud.

Closer to home, state Rep. Briscoe Cain, R-Deer Park, had his Twitter account temporarily suspended in September 2019 when he tweeted "My AR is ready for you at then-Democratic presidential candidate Beto ORourke.

Cains tweet was in response to ORourkes calls for a mandatory gun buyback program.

Texans who feel they have been unfairly targeted by these companies should be able to use our judicial system," Cain said in a statement Friday. "No one is above the law. These companies should not benefit by receiving any tax dollars through government contracts.

Twitter in September 2020 took aim at Democrat candidate Elizabeth Hernandez, who was challenging Republican U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady for his U.S. House seat. The platform forced her to remove a tweet that violated its rules against voter suppression because it encouraged people to tell Trump supporters to vote on the wrong day.

Technology companies are also facing scrutiny from Congress from both sides of the aisle. Democrats and Republicans in recent weeks have set their sights on reforming or repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The provision shields technology companies from liability for content users post on their platforms.

In a congressional hearing last October, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told lawmakers that Democrats often say that we dont remove enough content, and Republicans often say we remove too much.

The fact that both sides criticize us doesnt mean that were getting this right, but it does mean there are real disagreements about where the limits of online speech should be, he said.

Abbott on Friday argued that the provision does not protect companies against lawsuits that could be brought under SB 12. Instead, he said it wires around Section 230.

We are making sure that these companies will be forced to comply with Sen. Hughes' bill to ensure the Texans conservative speech will not be canceled, Abbott said.

Abbotts office filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court that argued that states have the right to protect free speech, Hughes said.

Both President Joe Biden and his predecessor have expressed support for overhauling Section 230. Trump called for its complete repeal, as have a number of lawmakers within his party.

Three Democratic U.S. senators, meanwhile, have filed a bill that would overhaul the provision. Under the SAFE TECH Act, users could sue social media companies for content on their platforms that is threatening, harassing, discriminatory or otherwise abusive.

The state bill comes as Texas politicians, including Abbott, have tried to entice technology companies to relocate to the state from the pricey tech-hub Silicon Valley in California. Elon Musk, the CEO of electric car company Tesla Motors, recently announced he was relocating to the state. Software company Oracle in December said it was moving its headquarters from California to Austin.

SB 12 is scheduled for its first hearing before the State Affairs Committee on Monday.

Disclosure: Facebook and the University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Visit link:
Gov. Greg Abbott touts bill to stop Twitter, Facebook from banning Texans - The Texas Tribune

Editors Note:A judge last month ruled that Tim Eyman will no longer be allowed to have financial control over political committees and issued $2.6 million in fines after state Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a lawsuit against him in 2017 alleging he laundered donations, disobeyed campaign finance law and solicited kickbacks, accusations Eyman continues to deny.

In the past 22 years, by working together with our thousands of heroic supporters, weve qualified 17 statewide initiatives for a public vote. They all limited the governments power over us and have saved taxpayers $46.9 billion. And our four two-thirds-vote-to-raise-taxes initiatives have saved taxpayers billions more by stopping and deterring tax increases.

While other initiatives spend $1.2 million to qualify, we averaged $672,000 because we run a tight ship and I often risked my own money.

After two decades of effort, vehicle tabs and property tax increases are dramatically lower than they used to be (liberal judges vetoed those initiatives, but the publics overwhelming vote pushed politicians to adopt them anyway), government affirmative action is prohibited, the state auditor conducts performance audits of state and local governments, the King County Council was reduced from 13 politicians to nine, red-light ticketing cameras were banned in numerous cities and tax advisory votes allow voters to vote each November on tax increases imposed by the Legislature and inform voters which taxes were increased, their costs and how legislators voted on them.

These amazing accomplishments happened despite fierce opposition from liberals controlling the legislature, governors office, the judicial system and the media.

Because I led those efforts and constantly kicked the hornets nest of big government, politicians and the press have been gunning for me.

So in 2012, when a reporting complaint was filed against me by a disgruntled former vendor, I knew what was coming: a witch hunt. And because the government had unlimited resources and I didnt, I knew Id never survive it without assistance.

So I asked for help.

As my attorney (former supreme court justice) Richard Sanders said: Thousands of people voluntarily chose to help Mr. Eyman and his family there is nothing unlawful about that. People and businesses entered into voluntary business relationships with Mr. Eyman all of them were legal. Mr. Eyman never took money from anyone he wasnt a signer on anyones bank account except his own. In every instance, the money he received came from people who chose to voluntarily give it to him. And he consulted with professionals why wouldnt he? to ensure he was following state and federal laws.

Democrat Attorney General Bob Ferguson spent nearly $2 million of taxpayer money going after me, my family, friends and supporters. Thats more than all other reporting cases in the last eight years combined!

Generous people responded to my pleas for help, recognized this injustice and abuse of power and helped me fight back. Their checks were made payable to Tim Eyman Legal Defense Fund, Tim Eyman & Family and Tim Eyman Watchdog for Taxpayers LLC none were campaign donations. Their voluntary assistance, plus our own savings, went toward paying the lawyers and financially surviving this brutal eight-year onslaught.

A year ago, Sanders wrote: During the recent mediation conference, the AG made clear their priority: the lifetime ban. They dont care about the money, they want to shut you down. When you told the mediator it was blackmail, you were exactly right. This whole thing is about breaking you so you give up and agree to the ban. But you refused. Good for you! After hundreds of hours of examining the facts and researching the AGs case against you, its clear to me you didnt violate any laws. You were never the committees treasurer professional CPA Stan Long was your committees treasurer and he did not believe these transactions needed to be reported. He was right, the AG is wrong. Tim, in all my years on the court, Ive never seen such a miscarriage of justice. Seven years of investigation? Harassment of your wife? Frankly, Im astounded youre still functioning. Anyone else wouldve given up a long time ago. I admire your commitment.

As predicted, a former Gov. Chris Gregoire-appointed judge in Thurston Countys kangaroo court rubber stamped the AG, ignoring the law and the constitution. Go to tinyurl.com/FergusonHypocrisy to learn how the AGs bizarre claims are fundamentally flawed and reek of hypocrisy (How much has Democrat Bob Ferguson personally profited from politics? Over $2.8 million!).

Im committed to appealing these ridiculously unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment because if they get away with it with me, you could be next.

While it gets appealed, despite the risks, I will continue fighting for taxpayers because our efforts are needed now more than ever. Politicians have an insatiable tax appetite and are hell-bent to impose income taxes, carbon taxes and other taxes this session. Were committed to stopping them.

Fergusons fascist eight-year jihad has cost me everything I have. But Im not going to let him slow me down. Because like President Trump said: Theyre not after me, theyre after you, Im just in the way.

Tim Eyman is a longtime political activist from Yakima who graduated from Washington State University and now lives in Bellevue. He can be reached at 425-590-9363 or tim.eyman@gmail.com.

Read more:
Commentary: I'm committed to appealing these ridiculous restrictions on the First Amendment - The Reflector

Safety and first amendment rights.

That's at the top of the list for Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey going into the Derek Chauvin murder and manslaughter trial in the death of George Floyd.

Jury selection starts Monday, and double lines of chain-link fences, some topped with razor wire, surround the Hennepin County Government Center.

That's where the trial takes place.

"I know that the visual is jarring, and for some community members, a painful reminder of what has happened in our city," said Mayor Frey on the WCCO Morning News with John Hines on Friday morning.

"It is unfortunate, but I do believe that the precautions at this point are necessary," he said.

So far, the city has spent nearly $1 million on security measures, and National Guard troops are ready to assist local police, if necessary.

But the mayor said it will take more than that to keep things peaceful, no matter the rising tensions and ultimate verdict.

"The magnitude of the moment is going to call for all of us coming together," he said. "On a personal level, I hope that this marks a step forward utimately for Minneapolis. I hope that this marks a step forward ultimately for justice."

Mayor Frey said the trial will be a time of great tension and trauma in Minneapolis.

"Especially in the Black community," he said. "But we're prepared."

He said the city remains in constant contact with Black community leaders, in addition to the high-level security, growing police presence, and intelligence efforts to head off any planned actions.

"We want to make sure that we get through this with safety, and, of course, accounting for First Amendment rights."

The rest is here:
Mayor Frey tells WCCO radio that the city is ready for trial - 1033 Amp Radio

Clermont, FL.(ECWd) -

A "reporter" with a new company from Clermont, Florida has taken offense to an Illinois Township Trustee's [Benford] publication of a letter written in response to a letter received by DuPage Township. We covered both letters: the one threatening to sue the township (here) and Trustee Benford's attorney's response (here).

The "reporter" then posted an incoherent rambling accusing Benford of bypassing executive sessions, bypassing the township's attorney, opening up the township to the largest lawsuit its ever seen, violating security, and criminal action, among many other patently false and inaccurate statements, then she posted a comment in her Facebook group asking for Benford to "provide us with the authorization you have been given to represent the Township and speak on their behalf" - while obviously missing the language used in the response letter indicating it was from Benford and not from the township.

Next, she sent a Freedom of Information Act request to DuPage Township asking for "the authorization documents or emails that state Benford was given the right to represent the Township and speak on their behalf, and hire an attorney on their behalf, and any authorization to remove legal letters from the servers and [premises]to share unredacted with media" - while obviously forgetting no authorization nor permission is needed.

From reading the online ranting and subsequent FOIA request sent to DuPage Township, this "reporter" has apparently decided that a Black, Female, Township Trustee who is also a Candidate for Township Supervisor, is somehow violative of the law by hiring an attorney with her own money to respond to a letter from the former supervisor addressed to the current supervisor which referenced her, and by publishing that response letter on her Facebook page. She is also apparently offended that this Trustee may have given copies of both letters to the media and asks for proof of permission given for the Trustee to allegedly forward those letters to media.

The response given by Benford to Kurowski's FOIA request included the following (read it here):

We agree with Benford's response, especially in light of the months-long political campaign to discredit her, and now asking if she has permission to speak. What a ridiculous proposition - that a person must seek permission to speak freely.

This "reporter" allegedly "works" for a couple of newly established companies, with the principal business address of 3033 Santa Maria Avenue, Clermont, Florida, a business phone number of 630-300-8141, and a business email address (which ironically describes decisions she is making) of "[emailprotected]" along with "[emailprotected]." and several websites opened up since January 1, 2021- The aforementioned information was obtained by us through a subpoena pursuant to a Rule 224 Petition we filed in the Edgar County Circuit Court.

This company's filings with the State of Florida indicate three officers/directors: Bonnie Kurowski, Erik Phelps, and Eowyn Correl for its "not for profit" organization and only Bonnie Kurowski as the manager for its "for-profit" organization - neither of which had a tax ID number when registered in Florida. The aforementioned information is public record and can be obtained online through the State of Florida's business registration search.

Response to FOIA

Read this article:
Florida Reporter thinks Trustee needs permission to speak; received Emancipation Proclamation and First Amendment in response to FOIA request -...