Free Speech

[UKMikey]

Well sure, if you want to be pedantic, protect the speaker's ability to speak. I was just trying to be brief. Same outcome.

You really are a charmer. The outcome is that her message got through anyway. Free speech.

Short of killing her they're not going to stop her message from getting out. Maybe not even then as with martyrs like Mahatma Gandhi.

If people in the crowd merely "may have been booing her" then I doubt the police would've seen it as a danger to her safety. That the police were concerned enough to do something isn't denied by anyone, AFAIK.

I'm saying that the threat may not have been equal from everyone in the crowd. Only one person so far was agitated enough to break the law and cause her physical harm. We don't know that the police considered everyone in the crowd an equal level threat. According to her an officer advised her once. They didn't stop her from speaking again.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I gather that this refers to another occasion altogether, and from what I can tell observing the convoluted back-and-forth that followed your remarks, the circumstances of this "failing" aren't understood well enough for it to be deemed as such. Please advise if I'm mistaken.

I'd also like to add in response to a recent post that true threats may be uttered in a jovial crowd and that hyperbole may rise above the din of an angered one.

Here are the letters to and from the Police and the Free Speech Union detailing past events.

EDIT: I guess this speech is made even more poignant now



And wouldn't it be sad if speakers at Speaker's Corner do something equivalent to what Comedy Central did with that speech:

 

[TexRex]

edit: got the tawny back, sorry about that!

The effort is appreciated...particularly because it isn't expected. My text color is for my benefit alone--pride in my alma mater--and it isn't anyone's duty to preserve it in quoting.

I maintain that her message is still very much out there in the public domain and that this is therefore not a free speech violation.

I think free speech and censorship are being conflated here. Free speech implications are only present in censorship when said censorship is by government actors, and indeed an individual may have access to a platform for public speech at the very same time that their right to free speech is infringed upon.

Well sure, if you want to be pedantic, protect the speaker's ability to speak. I was just trying to be brief. Same outcome.

I don't think it's pedantry to expect one who takes exception to how the duties of police are performed to accurately represent the duties of police.

Here are the letters to and from the Police and the Free Speech Union detailing past events.

So...no free speech implications, then.

As an aside, it's curious that "Free Speech Union" presents itself as opposing "cancel culture," which necessarily involves speech. And when I say it's curious, of course I mean that it's not, because it's currently in vogue (it may always have been) to feel that some speech should be shut down so that other speech can stand out.

 

[Outspacer]

You really are a charmer. The outcome is that her message got through anyway. Free speech.

Short of killing her they're not going to stop her message from getting out. Maybe not even then as with martyrs like Mahatma Gandhi.

After a long discussion that has built up quite a lot of context to what we're each saying, I don't apologise for expressing frustration when you ignore it all and instead just nitpick the phrasing of my latest post.

The message getting out does not mean free speech exists. To wit, Ghandi's "Do or die" message while imprisoned. Conversely, he was martyred at a time when he wasn't under threat of imprisonment.
(Before you claim I'm making this point somehow relevant to the situation with Tash, I'm not, I'm just pointing out a fallacy).

I'm saying that the threat may not have been equal from everyone in the crowd. Only one person so far was agitated enough to break the law and cause her physical harm. We don't know that the police considered everyone in the crowd an equal level threat.

I have not claimed that the crowd as a whole represented a threat, equal or otherwise, so I'm glad you agree. We don't know what prompted police to assess the danger as they did, but the most likely explanation is that they heard something they believed to be a verbal threat of violence (which, as you've recently learnt, is a crime). So, most likely, not only one law breaker. Regardless, they did think there was a real danger so describing it as some people who may have been booing is downplaying the situation significantly.

According to her an officer advised her once. They didn't stop her from speaking again.

To reiterate, yet again, for the final time, I agree that's not a free speech violation, and have not claimed that it is at any point.

There is a secondary issue around providing a reasonable expectation of freedom from violence that enables a speaker to speak - which you seemed to somewhat agree with, in part. For a while we seemed to be finding some common ground around police failings and how they might improve (in an ideal world, at any rate), but now you're back to stomping "Free speech." as if I don't agree on that.

Considering that you appear to be arguing against a position that isn't mine, I can't see it being fruitful to take our discussion any further.

---

The effort is appreciated...particularly because it isn't expected. My text color is for my benefit alone--pride in my alma mater--and it isn't anyone's duty to preserve it in quoting.

No problem! I did that one the hard way, but now I've discovered that whole message quotes can be easily split it's much easier

I don't think it's pedantry to expect one who takes exception to how the duties of police are performed to accurately represent the duties of police.

Fair point that it doesn't read correctly viewed in isolation, but it isn't on its own. As a shorthand version, I'd say it was accurate enough in light of my previous, longer, posts on those duties of protection, and there's no reason for anyone to think it expressed a differing view compared to the previous posts. (I thought we'd reached a summing up and moving on phase).

 

[HenrySwanson]

So...no free speech implications, then.

Correct.

Instead it's what effect the bullies and police's actions (and inaction?) have on speech at Speaker's Corner and Britain in general.

The Christian Legal Centre are also taking her case against the Metropolitan Police

As an aside, it's curious that "Free Speech Union" presents itself as opposing "cancel culture," which necessarily involves speech. And when I say it's curious, of course I mean that it's not, because it's currently in vogue (it may always have been) to feel that some speech should be shut down so that other speech can stand out.

It's Toby Young dude - it shouldn't come as a surprise.

 

[UKMikey]

Good to have confirmation from the original poster that it's a policing issue after all and nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

There are a lot of takes on the thread by people who mistakenly thought their free speech was being threatened. It seems Hatun Tash's is just one more of those takes.

Her beef is not with the British state but with the Royal Parks Police and the Met. It'll be interesting to discover the nature of any measures they introduce to prevent any further danger to her assuming, as is quite likely, that she continues to preach an anti-Islam message.

It sounds to me like the FSU are demanding some form of active protection from the police for Tash or at least action against the individual who committed the crime against her.

 

[TexRex]

It sounds to me like the FSU are demanding some form of active protection from the police for Tash or at least action against the individual who committed the crime against her.

The former is irrational. While law enforcement may provide individuals with direct protection in some circumstances, it's certainly not something to be expected, much less demanded.

I'm good with the latter. Based on my understanding of the incident, the offense absolutely is actionable. But action should not exceed that which is appropriate for the offense, no matter how fervent the victim and those who support them.

---

This is why I love "1A Twitter"!

 

[UKMikey]

The former is irrational. While law enforcement may provide individuals with direct protection in some circumstances, it's certainly not something to be expected, much less demanded.

I'm good with the latter. Based on my understanding of the incident, the offense absolutely is actionable. But action should not exceed that which is appropriate for the offense, no matter how fervent the victim and those who support them.

It's difficult to parse the language in the FSU's letter but "what action are you taking to protect her rights to free speech"? could be taken to mean "I'm in danger from these people, protect me from them". I thought a bodyguard or police escort would be special treatment but was accused of creating a strawman for even talking about them. But it's difficult to imagine what form of protection Tash and the FSU would be happy with.

As for irrationality this is the lady who is complaining that Speaker's Corner is anti-Christian according to the Murdoch Times. To clarify, she means proselytising, evangelical Christians - I doubt Church of England vicars are in danger of attack for walking through the park with a dog collar.

Of course the police should detain the man who slashed her if as suggested they know who he is. He's a criminal and a danger to public safety.

 

[Outspacer]

It's difficult to parse the language in the FSU's letter but "what action are you taking to protect her rights to free speech"? could be taken to mean "I'm in danger from these people, protect me from them". I thought a bodyguard or police escort would be special treatment but was accused of creating a strawman for even talking about them. But it's difficult to imagine what form of protection Tash and the FSU would be happy with.

Thank you, I guess, for amply demonstrating how a strawman is arrived at.

This is the closest I could find in the letters to the quote you gave, although I may have missed yours if pdf search failed: "What further steps will officers take to ensure that Ms Tash can exercise her rights to freedom of religion and expression without risk to her personal safety?"

The question means what it says and is quite precise; there's no reason to take it to mean anything else.

The main thrust of the letters is requesting that the police stop arresting Tash, and instead investigate and prosecute the actual aggressors. In other words, in an ideal world, protection by removal of threat (i.e. those guilty of verbal threats of violence, bottle throwing, and any other actual crimes uncovered by investigation).

The requests center on protection while at speaker's corner. Although it's not clear that they would be limited to that, that is the primary request at this time.

In essence I think we agreed that the above points are reasonably within the police's existing normal duties.

Identifying a bodyguard or police escort as being special treatment is irrelevant. Such level of protection is at least two, perhaps three, steps of exaggeration beyond what is presented to us. Indeed, the letter notes that there is "a practical limit to the protection the police can offer to Ms Tash".

Hence, a strawman.

 

[UKMikey]

Thank you, I guess, for amply demonstrating how a strawman is arrived at.

This is the closest I could find in the letters to the quote you gave, although I may have missed yours if pdf search failed: "What further steps will officers take to ensure that Ms Tash can exercise her rights to freedom of religion and expression without risk to her personal safety?"

The question means what it says and is quite precise; there's no reason to take it to mean anything else.

The main thrust of the letters is requesting that the police stop arresting Tash, and instead investigate and prosecute the actual aggressors. In other words, in an ideal world, protection by removal of threat (i.e. those guilty of verbal threats of violence, bottle throwing, and any other actual crimes uncovered by investigation).

The requests center on protection while at speaker's corner. Although it's not clear that they would be limited to that, that is the primary request at this time.

In essence I think we agreed that the above points are reasonably within the police's existing normal duties.

Identifying a bodyguard or police escort as being special treatment is irrelevant. Such level of protection is at least two, perhaps three, steps of exaggeration beyond what is presented to us. Indeed, the letter notes that there is "a practical limit to the protection the police can offer to Ms Tash".

Hence, a strawman.

I'm sorry I misread the letter. I just wanted to know what kind of protection they were asking for. A strawman would be saying that Tash and the FSU actually asked for a bodyguard. I don't know what they're asking for so brought it up as an example. I'm sorry it seems to offend you so much that you have to accuse me of deliberately lying to make Tash look bad.

Perhaps you'd consider that another strawman but I feel we've long since ceased to find any common ground on this subject so your opinion has ceased to hold much relevance for me. I'm just fed up of being called a pedant and liar when I have no axe to grind against Hatun Tash.

You're welcome to have the last word but I'm afraid I won't be around to hear it as I have put you back on ignore.

 

[HenrySwanson]

To clarify, she means proselytising, evangelical Christians - I doubt Church of England vicars are in danger of attack for walking through the park with a dog collar.

I'm sure we can agree that that's just as bad as Speaker's Corner becoming anti-Christian, or anti-Islamic or anti-most reasonable things in terms of feeling safe to speak your mind.

 

[Outspacer]

I'm sorry I misread the letter. I just wanted to know what kind of protection they were asking for. A strawman would be saying that Tash and the FSU actually asked for a bodyguard. I don't know what they're asking for so brought it up as an example.

Misquoting the letter was not the problem, but applying your own interpretation of it subsequently was the first step away from the facts (intentional or not).

What they are asking for is laid out in the letters, which I thought you had read. I'm sorry if I've assumed knowledge you didn't have, and therefore responded inappropriately.

The question you asked me was this:

The news article suggests that the police are looking to change the way they police Speaker's Corner so I'm not sure whether they'll act in the same way if it happens again. However I'm not sure what actions they could take to prevent people threatening her which wouldn't potentially affect the rights of other people to protest against her. Are they legally obliged to provide her with a bodyguard?

The sentences leading up are fine, and we could certainly find common ground agreeing that policing a crowd in a balanced manner a knotty problem.

But then there's a leap to the exaggerated question. I didn't get the impression that it was an inquiry as to what Tash et al were asking for, given the lead-up being your personal thoughts on possible police actions.

I'm sorry it seems to offend you so much that you have to accuse me of deliberately lying to make Tash look bad.

I have not.

Perhaps you'd consider that another strawman but I feel we've long since ceased to find any common ground on this subject so your opinion has ceased to hold much relevance for me. I'm just fed up of being called a pedant and liar when I have no axe to grind against Hatun Tash.


You're welcome to have the last word but I'm afraod I won't be around to hear it as I have put you back on ignore.

There was common ground to be found, but it's quite telling how you deal with a perceived lack of it. And sadly it's quite clear that some of the disagreement was imaginary, given your insistence on repeatedly stating that there wasn't a free speech violation. Neither factor is a good basis for an open discussion.

Could I have behaved better? Been more amiable? Sure, but I'd rather reserve that for friendlier discussions, not ones with someone who put me on ignore for some other imaginary failing.

I always hope to fix my flaws, but it's impossible to do anything about imagined ones.

 

[TexRex]

 

[TexRex]

After FIRE turns up the heat, Iowa State revises unconstitutional guidance for instructors to self-censor

Following a letter from FIRE, Iowa State University is walking back its warning to faculty members that new legislation requires them to self-censor pedagogically relevant class discussions on race or gender.

www.thefire.org

Following a letter from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Iowa State University is walking back its warning to faculty members that new legislation requires them to self-censor pedagogically relevant class discussions on race or gender.

After FIRE challenged Iowa State’s misinterpretation of House File 802 on July 27, the university revised its guidance concerning the law’s application to the classroom. ISU threatened its faculty members’ First Amendment rights by warning — incorrectly — that the law designed to combat critical race theory requires administrators and faculty to censor class discussions. That interpretation, as FIRE’s letter noted, was inconsistent both with the law’s text — which broadly exempts in-class discussion — and with the University of Iowa’s correct interpretation, which pledged to faculty that the law would have “zero impact within the classroom as academic instruction is specifically exempted from the legislation.”

In a letter responding to FIRE, Iowa State defended its interpretation of the law and suggested that the question of whether faculty members have First Amendment rights in teaching is unresolved.

Iowa State’s doubt that its faculty members’ academic freedom is protected by the First Amendment is disappointing — courts across the country have recognized that the First Amendment treats faculty members’ speech differently than other public employees’ on-the-job speech — and reflects administrators’ reluctance to defend its faculty members’ expressive rights.

Nevertheless, the university invokes its academic freedom policy in revising its FAQ, which now notes that “academic instruction of the defined concepts where those concepts are germane to [the] subject matter of the course, pose little or no risk of drawing scrutiny under HF-802.” That walkback — coupled with the revisions to the FAQ, including removal of a troubling warning that a violation of the law was “likely . . . even though discussion of the concepts may be considered germane” — suggests that the university realized changes were necessary to bring itself into compliance with its First Amendment obligations.

“Iowa State’s response is imperfect, but does a better job of reassuring faculty members that the law does not require them to censor relevant class discussions, even if they touch on ‘concepts’ viewed dimly by the state legislature,” said FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “The law does not prohibit those conversations — nor could it, since the First Amendment protects discussion relevant to the subject matter of a class.”

The statute requires that mandatory trainings for faculty or students do not include prohibited “divisive concepts,” such as any belief or theory that ascribes “character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual’s race or sex.” The statute also makes clear that while it is intended to regulate teaching and classes in K-12 institutions, it only applies to administrative “training” — not instruction — in higher education.

ISU ignored the law’s focus on “training” sessions and warned faculty that the law requires the university to police not just trainings, but regular class instruction, including discussions, course materials, and invited speakers. The university’s guidance to faculty asserted that even pedagogically relevant material is subject to the law’s restrictions if presented in a class that might somehow be required — or simply hard to avoid — for any single student.

By declaring that the statute reaches the classroom, and advising that certain ways faculty might teach and discuss difficult topics could violate state law, ISU essentially told its faculty hoping to teach about race or gender to self-censor.

While pleased that ISU updated its FAQ and took out the most egregious example of self-censorship, FIRE remains concerned that ISU’s interpretation of the legislation has already produced a chilling effect on faculty speech. Further, its insistence that the law applies to classroom discussions at all — presumably reaching even passing references to prohibited “concepts” if they are not germane to the class — inappropriately invades classroom discussion, which the law does not require. As FIRE’s letter explained, if the law were applied to the classroom, it would limit a large range of protected speech.

“As long as Iowa State insists that this law can be applied to the classroom in any capacity — and insists that the First Amendment does not protect academic freedom — faculty will have reason to be concerned that administrators might use the statute to improperly scrutinize their teaching methods,” said Steinbaugh. “FIRE will be watching to make sure that ISU not only follows their updated guidelines, but refuses to chill any germane classroom discussion of race or gender.”

Faculty members at ISU — or in any state that has adopted similar legislation — are encouraged to contact FIRE if they’re required to change their teaching because of these laws or their institution’s implementation of them.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of students and faculty members at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of liberty.

Nevermind what CRT is or says, and whatever I may think of that, I look at efforts across the country to legislate it out of the curriculum, as well as attempts to legislate away the expressive rights of educators as referred to above, and I find myself wondering what happened to the supposed "marketplace of ideas" conservatives have frequently invoked while pleading to social network providers to not censor conservatives at the very same time that they attempt to use government action to punish social network providers for censoring conservatives.

 

[TexRex]

I'm taking those polling figures with a grain of salt, however credible Pew may be, but people are so unbelievably ****ing stupid that they could very well be accurate.

 

[TexRex]

Remember when Republicans fought against net neutrality and then, with majority control of the FCC, designated internet broadband as an information service not subject to the same regulations as common carrier services, specifically non-discrimination practices?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Now aggrieved Republicans across the country, such as those in Ohio proposing the bill mentioned in the clip above, want to designate social network providers, a fraction of the internet, as common carrier services. They want it both ways. Why? Because of alleged viewpoint bias and discriminatory censorship. Conservative victimhood is insane.

It doesn't matter that such a designation is unlikely to withstand legal challenge in the highest court--however amenable to it bat **** insane Justice Thomas may be--because social networks provide non-essential services and the nature of the service provided makes those who provide it are beneficiaries of First Amendment protections.

It doesn't matter that niche providers have availed similar services explicitly to them because those services don't offer anywhere near the reach that those with the alleged anti-conservative bias do.

It doesn't even matter that stripping the constitutionally-protected right to moderate from these providers is likely to make these services inhospitable to those who espouse family values because they are sure to become spawning pools for the worst the internet has to offer, up until the model can no longer be sustained due to drastically reduced traffic and the services just implode.

Victimhood and grievance are powerful drugs.

 

[TexRex]

This needs to be made clear. The state of Texas or any other government actor that attempts to punish anyone who will not carry the speech of an individual has no interest in preserving the right to free speech. The only thing these ****ers are interested in is weighting the speech of some against the speech of others. An online platform carrying speech is effectively speaking and forcing said platform to carry speech against its own interests or be subject to penalty imposed by government actors is infringement upon the right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Compelled speech is not free speech.

For Texas Republicans, the right to openly deny the Holocaust (and it is a right protected against government action by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution) is more important than the right to not carry denial of the Holocaust.

For Texas Republicans, the right to directly or indirectly express support for and promotion of domestic and international terrorist groups and acts of terror (and it is a right protected against government action--provided it can't reasonably be expected to directly incite unlawful acts, which is highly unlikely--by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution) is more important than the right to not carry direct or indirect expressions of support for and promotion of domestic and international terrorist groups and acts of terror.

For Texas Republicans, the right to spread vaccine mis/disinformation (and it is a right protected against government action by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution) is more important than the right to not carry vaccine mis/disinformation.

Texas Republicans have lost the ****ing plot.

This still has a couple of hurdles to clear but Gov. Gregg Abbott (R-TX) is highly unlikely to let this bill slide across his desk unsigned, as he called not one but two special legislative sessions after the close of the regular session in order to push through bills core to his agenda.

Of course, with this particular bill, Texas Republicans have blown a load completely devoid of swimmers. This is purely performative because it will not withstand legal challenge. This is a waste of time and money meant only to appease aggrieved idiot Republicans .

I do take exception to one thing Kovacevich said in his closing post. Republicans aren't standing up for free speech for anyone here. Passage of this bill into law will make speech no more or less free than it already is. Social media platform providers are not government actors.

 

[Imari]

This is purely performative because it will not withstand legal challenge. This is a waste of time and money meant only to appease aggrieved idiot Republicans .

And to demonstrate clearly to their base that their ideology is under attack from the US government and legal system. Which I suppose it is, since it's completely at odds with the ideals that the US was founded on and absolutely should be smacked down. The America that these dingbats want to "go back to" never existed in the first place.

 

[TexRex]

And to demonstrate clearly to their base that their ideology is under attack from the US government and legal system.

EXACTLY THIS!!!

I just addressed Gov. Ron DeSantis' vaccine mandate ban having taken hit in a federal circuit court in Florida and I sort of alluded to this fight being in DeSantis' favor when I called it a victory possibly limited in scope. It was absolutely a victory when it comes to addressing the present public health emergency, but DeSantis is likely to be the winner no matter the ultimate outcome because, in the likely event that the ban is struck down by the highest court in the land, the Republican base still sees him as having taken a stand against what they see as tryanny. And maybe they'll be driven to acts of physical violence, which is just gravy for DeSantis so long as it's in service to his and the Republicans' agenda.

 

[TexRex]

It's a garbage outlet, but this is an interesting take on the federal statute that aggrieved conservatives want reformed or repealed because they see it as benefitting social media platforms with supposed anti-conservative viewpoint bias.

Repealing Section 230 could undermine the Second Amendment - Washington Examiner

Debate surrounding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 most often involves social media. But what about gun sales? The question is worth asking because if Senate Democrats get their way, they’ll weaponize S230 reform to target online gun marketplaces. Conservatives urging...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Debate surrounding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 most often involves social media. But what about gun sales?

The question is worth asking because if Senate Democrats get their way, they’ll weaponize S230 reform to target online gun marketplaces. Conservatives urging repeal of Section 230 are playing right into their hands.

Section 230 enumerates in its "civil liability" clause that providers or users of an "interactive computer service" aren’t liable for third-party content posted there. Just as Facebook and Twitter aren't liable for their users' slander or misinformation, sites such as Armslist.com (the gun owner's Craigslist) aren't liable for illegal gun sales.

That doesn’t sit well with Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She recently introduced The Accountability for Online Firearms Marketplaces Act. If passed, her bill would "clarify" Section 230 to strip online firearms marketplaces, specifically Armslist.com, of immunity protections. "It’s time to start holding accountable those who turn a blind eye to illegal gun sales on their platforms," Feinstein said.

If sites such as Armslist.com really were helping criminals to get guns, Feinstein would have a point. But that argument is weak.

Removing protections from online firearms marketplaces would have no measurable effect on curbing crime perpetrated by prohibited possessors. That’s because criminals typically don’t get their guns online. A 2019 Bureau of Justice Statistics report examined the source of criminal activities involving firearms. After interviewing over 200,000 prisoners, it found only 1.3% of respondents obtained firearms through a retailer. The majority of firearms used in crimes were primarily stolen or illegally obtained through the black market.

Sites such as Armslist.com are hardly the criminal enterprises that Feinstein makes them out to be.

Undoubtedly, there’s already legal precedent for Armlist.com to be afforded S230 protections. In Stokinger v. Armslist, the Massachusetts Superior Court ruled the Good Samaritan clause applies to them because they don’t "create the third party classified listings, nor is Armslist directly involved in the transaction."

Alternatively, repealing the law’s civil liability clause would shift legal liability from federal firearms licensed dealers to sites such as Armslist. Not only would that undermine free speech, but it would also imperil lawful commerce involving private party transfers that may require background checks. Not to mention making these sites liable for the transactions they host does nothing to address criminal gun use. It just forces law enforcement to pursue cases against businesses instead of targeting criminals.

Feinstein and her Democratic Party colleagues deliberately misrepresent how firearms transactions are conducted. Whether a sale is processed online or in-person, a prospective buyer must be present for face-to-face transfers with a federally licensed dealer and complete ATF Form 4473. They also confirm their identity using a verified photo ID and submit to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Private gun sale buyers are also subjected to these rules.

In its terms of use, Armlist.com specifies for its users that any unlawful use of their website constitutes an "illegal purpose" and is therefore unauthorized. Their terms also state users must acknowledge that the website isn’t involved in transactions, that users are in accordance with applicable laws, and that users should field questions about firearms sales or transfers to the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives if they arise.

Instead of targeting lawful businesses, Democrats should start tackling actual crime.

To my fellow conservatives eager to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: Please reconsider. If you care about the Second Amendment and oppose frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry, it’s imperative to combat efforts like this one.

Section 230 protects speech. Stop trying to break it.

 

[TexRex]

Florida's GOP-backed 'anti-riot' law blocked by judge

A federal judge has ruled that Florida’s new “anti-riot” law championed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis as a way to quell violent protests is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced

abcnews.go.com

Florida's new “anti-riot” law championed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis as a way to quell violent protests is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The 90-page decision by U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in Tallahassee found the recently-enacted law “vague and overbroad” and amounted to an assault on First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly as well as the Constitution's due process protections.

People engaged in peaceful protest or innocently in the same area when a demonstration turned violent could face criminal charges and stiff penalties under the law, the judge said.

A key issue is defining what the word “riot” means in the statute. Walker noted that past Florida laws sought to prevent demonstrations that could threaten segregationist Jim Crow-era practices.

“If this court does not enjoin the statute’s enforcement, the lawless actions of a few rogue individuals could effectively criminalize the protected speech of hundreds, if not thousands, of law-abiding Floridians,” Walker wrote.

“It unfortunately takes only a handful of bad actors to transform a peaceful protest into a violent public disturbance,” the judge added.

DeSantis said during an appearance in New Port Richey that the state will take its case to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The governor called the ruling by Walker a “foreordained conclusion" and has said he frequently prevails when appealing Tallahassee judges' orders.

“I guarantee you we'll win that on appeal,” DeSantis said.

The lawsuit was filed against DeSantis and other state officials by the NAACP Florida conference, Dream Defenders, Black Lives Matter Alliance Broward and other groups who argue the law appears specifically aimed to halt protests by Black people and other minorities.

The measure was passed earlier this year by the GOP-led Legislature and signed into law in April by the governor. It was a reaction to demonstrations around the country following last year’s killing by Minneapolis police of George Floyd, a Black man, that stirred passions nationwide under the banner of the Black Lives Matter movement.

The plaintiff groups and the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida issued a joint statement praising the decision, saying the law “appears designed to target those who protest police violence.”

"As states around the country threaten to pass similar legislation, today’s decision serves as a powerful reminder that such unjust and unconstitutional efforts cannot stand,” the statement said.

State Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, a Democrat who is running for governor, called the law “dangerous and discriminatory” and said in a statement that Walker's ruling shows "the governor’s continued attempts to strong-arm and silence opponents are unconstitutional.”

The governor’s lawyers have argued that the law continues to allow peaceful protest but is an effort to draw a sharp distinction between that and a violent riot. Walker found that argument unpersuasive.

“Because it is unclear whether a person must share an intent to do violence and because it is unclear what it means to participate, the statute can plausibly be read to criminalize continuing to protest after violence occurs, even if the protestors are not involved in, and do not support, the violence,” Walker wrote. “The statute can also be read to criminalize other expressive activity, like remaining at the scene of a protest turned violent to film the police reaction.”

The law, also known as HB1, stiffens penalties for crimes committed during a riot or violent protest. It allows authorities to detain arrested protesters until a first court appearance and establishes new felonies for organizing or participating in a violent demonstration.

It also makes it a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to destroy or demolish a memorial, plaque, flag, painting, structure or other object that commemorates historical people or events.

In addition, the measure requires that local governments justify any reductions in law enforcement budgets.

 

[TexRex]

This still has a couple of hurdles to clear but Gov. Gregg Abbott (R-TX) is highly unlikely to let this bill slide across his desk unsigned, as he called not one but two special legislative sessions after the close of the regular session in order to push through bills core to his agenda.

And he didn't.

https://www.cnet.com/news/texas-gov-greg-abbott-signs-social-media-censorship-bill/

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Thursday signed a bill that prohibits large social media companies from banning users or blocking content based on their political viewpoints.

The law targets companies with at least 50 million monthly users in the US, including Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube. The legislation, billed by the governor's office as protecting Texans "from wrongful censorship on social media platforms," would allow residents of the state to sue companies for reinstatement of accounts.

"There is a dangerous movement by some social media companies to silence conservative ideas and values," Abbott, a Republican, said in a video posted to Facebook. "This is wrong and we will not allow it in Texas."

The new law comes amid rising pressure from several Republican lawmakers who alleged that Twitter, Facebook and other social networks harbor anti-conservative bias. The social networks have denied those charges.

In June, a federal judge blocked a Florida law from taking effect that would that would have allowed the state to punish social media companies for banning politicians or political candidates from their platforms. The Florida bill, signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, was proposed after the high-profile banning earlier this year of President Donald Trump from Twitter and Facebook for violating their policies after the deadly Jan. 6 riot on Capitol Hill.

Facebook declined to comment, while Twitter and Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The victimhood is strong with this one. It's still performative. It's still unconstitutional. Moderation up to and including prohibition of any individual is a right protected against government action by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

[McLaren]

This guy just tweeted out 3 hours ago that Biden's vaccine mandate is an assault on private businesses, and he's in Austin signing bills that tell private businesses what they can't do.

 

[HenrySwanson]

This isn't just exclusive to GOP conservatives.

Look under the heading "Protecting freedom of expression and democratic and journalistic content" of this proposed Bill to see what the Government want to do with social media companies in the UK. Here's what Hungary and Poland are doing.

Could it be that the ideology of conservatism can't stand up to robust criticism?

 

[TexRex]

North Carolina Banned This Beer Because Bureaucrats Dislike the Label

Now they'll have to explain to a federal judge how this isn't a violation of the First Amendment.

reason.com

Alcohol regulators in North Carolina have banned Flying Dog brewery from selling one of its beers in the state due to a label that's been deemed "in bad taste."

Flying Dog CEO Jim Caruso, who has tangled with beer label bureaucrats—and beaten them—in other states, says the North Carolina Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Board needs to crack open a copy of the U.S. Constitution. The North Carolina ABC's decision to prohibit sales of Flying Dog's Freezin' Season Winter Ale over the beer's label design "seems like a blatant violation of the First Amendment to me," says Caruso (who is a donor to the Reason Foundation, which publishes this website).

Later this week, a federal judge will have a say. Flying Dog has filed a lawsuit and is seeking an injunction to prevent the North Carolina ABC from blocking the distribution of the beer in the state. A hearing on the injunction is scheduled for September 9.

The offending label—like all Flying Dog beers—contains a distinctive cartoon image by illustrator Ralph Steadman, whose work with the Maryland-based brewery dates back to its roots in the gonzo-lands near Aspen, Colorado. It's not clear exactly what the state's regulators object to—though the naked, humanoid figure on the beer's label does sport a small appendage between its legs. Caruso says he suspects that "tail-like thing" is what triggered the ban.



Officially, however, all Flying Dog has been told is that the label is "inappropriate" and "in bad taste." That is all it takes for North Carolina to prohibit the beer from being marketed, sold, and distributed. The North Carolina ABC did not return requests for comment on Tuesday.

"The regulation is, on its face, in constitutional 'bad taste,' as it is in clear violation of the First Amendment," attorneys for Flying Dog, including veteran First Amendment lawyers Greg Doucette and Marc Randazza, argue in court documents. They say banning the beer label is an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction on speech, similar to restrictions that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down.

One of those cases is Matal v. Tam, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) could not prevent all-Asian dance-rock band The Slants from trademarking its name, even if the name violated PTO rules against disparaging "persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute." Restrictions on commercial speech must serve a "substantial" government interest and must be "narrowly drawn," the high court held in Matal.

Since that 2017 ruling, Matal has been cited by courts that have overturned government agencies' bans on blasphemous personalized license plates, obscene-sounding clothing brand names, supposedly "illegal" Mexican food chains, and more.

"But, the North Carolina government thinks that it can get away with calling something 'in bad taste' and thus restricting commerce?" Randazzo wrote in an email to Reason. "We're not OK with that."

This is not the first time that North Carolina's beer regulators have attempted to censor a product being sold in the state. WECT Channel 6, based in Wilmington, North Carolina, reported in 2019 that the state ABC had blacklisted about 230 beer and wine brands since 2002 for having labels or names that offended the board's sensibilities. Among the "inappropriate" products banned from the state are beers with names like "Daddy Needs His Juice," and "Beergasm."

Ironically, the North Carolina ABC reportedly told Utah-based Wasatch Brewing Company that its "Polygamy Porter" could not be sold in the state because "polygamy is illegal." But the board also banned a beer named "Kissing Cousins" despite the fact that it is literally legal to marry your first cousin in North Carolina.

Perhaps alcohol regulators shouldn't be deciding what can and can't be sold in the state based on the silly assumption that beer branding will encourage people to engage in certain behaviors—as if anyone is making decisions about how to live their lives based on the content of beer labels. Is this a problem in other states with less aggressive branding police?

This also isn't the first time Flying Dog has gone to bat for free speech. The brewery's "Raging Bitch" beer was banned by Michigan in 2009 for having a name like "Raging Bitch." After a lawsuit challenged that ban on First Amendment grounds, Michigan's regulators put their tails between their legs and allowed the beer to be sold. Caruso continued to press the case in federal court and, in 2016, they won on the merits of the case—and used the damages won to launch a new pro–free speech legal center.

The new lawsuit in North Carolina, Caruso tells Reason, "is about defending the First Amendment against petty bureaucrats who want to censor whatever they personally dislike."

 

[TexRex]

Who looks at Republicans violating free speech protections and decides they want a piece of that action?

Elizabeth Warren Demands That Amazon Crack Down on COVID Misinformation

Amazon's customers are apparently unable to judge the veracity of COVID-related information for themselves.

reason.com

In the 19th century, we had snake oil salesmen. Today, we have Amazon—or so Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) seems to suggest.

If not the salesmen themselves, then Amazon is certainly the enabler, the means by which the salesmen successfully lure their gullible customers, at least according to Warren. Last week the senator sent a letter to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy with "concerns that Amazon is peddling misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and treatments through its search and 'Best Seller' algorithms."

"During the week of August 22, 2021, my staff conducted sample searches on Amazon.com of pandemic-related terms such as 'COVID-19,' 'COVID,' 'vaccine,' 'COVID 19 vaccine,' and 'pandemic,'" wrote Warren in her letter. "The top results consistently included highly-ranked and favorably-tagged books based on falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines and cures."

"Warren asked Amazon to conduct a review within 14 days and provide public reports on both the extent to which Amazon's algorithms are directing consumers products containing misinformation and on a plan to change the algorithms," reported The New York Times.

She's right: The top result for COVID-19 in Amazon Books includes Joseph Mercola and Ronnie Cummins' "The Truth About Covid-19: Exposing the Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, and the New Normal," which has been blasted for its inaccuracies. Mercola has been a natural health proponent since the 1990s, hawking alternative remedies on his website, sounding off about everything from grain-free diets to the purported harms of 5G. He casts doubt on the efficacy of COVID vaccines, playing fast and loose with efficacy percentages, implying that medical journals and public health officials have lied about the vaccines working. His book may have some nuggets of truth in it—questioning the efficacy of lockdowns, though not appreciated by the public health establishment, is a worthwhile pursuit—but plenty of writers out there manage to question COVID public policy while not peddling bad scientific information that strains credulity.

Still, Mercola's books should not be banned; people should have access to alternative information, however foul, and be able to judge the veracity for themselves. Other books that pop up when you search COVID-19 in Amazon Books include those authored by mainstream sources like Scott Gottlieb, former Food and Drug Administration commissioner, carried alongside charlatans like Alex Berenson, New York Times reporter turned COVID quack. ("As his conspiratorial nonsense accelerates toward the pandemic's finish line, he has proved himself the Secretariat of being wrong," wrote The Atlantic's Derek Thompson.) There's a self-published book on COVID through the eyes of the author's Jack Russell terrier. Even former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's pandemic memoir on what a great governor he is/was pops up on the first page of search results for COVID-19. Just as I don't recommend following Cuomo's leadership advice, I wouldn't recommend following Mercola's COVID prevention and curing advice, or Berenson's. Content moderation decisions are hard, and Amazon customers are, by and large, adults who don't need to be nannied by the government.

But Warren's complaint, which hinges on the idea that Amazon already engages in content moderation, choosing to remove some books rife with misinformation from its virtual shelves, suggests that the American public truly cannot decide for themselves which authors and products to trust. She attempts to insert the government into the buyer-seller relationship, purporting to act for the public's own good. Warren, a font of bad ideas, does this a lot, proffering the idea that the government ought to intervene out of an always-benevolent, vested interest in consumer welfare.

Amazon doesn't need to explain its content moderation framework to her, nor should it err on the side of doing more of it; employees have circulated petitions calling for the removal of Abigail Shrier's book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters and the company already made the controversial decision not to run sponsored ads from Shrier's publisher promoting the book. (It ultimately chose to sell the book despite the outcry.) When the company wades into ultra-politicized topics like whether people ought to be able to buy books that critique trans orthodoxy—or COVID vaccines, or the efficacy of lockdowns—it runs the risk of making the wrong call, bending to the employees and naysayers who shriek the loudest. It's probably better for Amazon to allow the Mercolas of the world to sell their products, to let people judge for themselves what to read, and to stave off potential persecution complexes the grifters can later capitalize on.

Time and time again, Warren reminds us that she views wealth in America as a fixed pie, one where the richest overlords are hoarding money, creating little of value at the expense of the poor and downtrodden. She's been chomping at the bit to regulate Amazon (and those affiliated) for years. So maybe Amazon does need to explain its process to Warren, since she's appointed herself the guardian of right-think, here to protect the American public from themselves.

I would prefer government entities not even talk about what they consider to be misinformation, but they really need to not tell private entities what they consider to be misinformation and tell them to do something about it. First and foremost, misinformation is protected speech unless very specific speech involving misinformation crosses over into unprotected territory--and even then it's not the misinformation that's unprotected--but you really have to be aggressively ****ing stupid to open that door when there's a good chance the next president will be a COVID-denying, anti-vax, anti-mask Republican.

I realize this is unrealistic, but I desperately want Warren to relocate to a monastery somewhere and never again attempt to make contact with the outside world.

 

[TexRex]

 

[TexRex]

 

[TexRex]

This is a fun one. Pornography is actually protected speech, of course. At least in the United States. It must be said, however, that "pornography" in this context doesn't include child pornography or documentation of illegal acts such as rape. Also not considered is "revenge porn," in which one or more participants has not consented to documentation and/or distribution of materials--and this is a matter of public disclosure of private fact rather than just a pornographic material concern. "Pornography" implies that acts depicted are lawful and those who are shown to be engaged in the acts have consented to all acts performed with all individuals with whom they have been performed, as well as the production and distribution of the performances.

The porn industry turns to K Street to fight Trump-fueled internet regulations

A trade organization for the adult entertainment industry has hired a D.C. lobbying firm to build its relationships with lawmakers and to advocate on behalf of key policies that affect the industry. Most notably it is trying to beat back major changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — a shield for internet platforms that safeguards them from liability for what their users post. The provision has become a flashpoint for conservatives after former President Donald Trump seized on the issue as a means of firing back at the platforms that have policed his posts.

Like the large and powerful social media companies, the porn industry says that Section 230 is key to its ability to exist. The same law that protects Instagram and YouTube from being sued over illegal content posted by its users — such as threats or hate speech — also protects sites like PornHub and OnlyFans from their own unlawful content, like child pornography or revenge porn. But many lawmakers of both parties, who have yet to reach a broad consensus on what legislation should look like, want to strip parts or all of that protection away.

The Free Speech Coalition, a trade organization for the adult entertainment industry, has enlisted two lobbyists at Clarity Consulting, a D.C.-based lobbying firm: Keith Nelson, a former Republican Hill staffer and Bush White House alumnus, along with Shawn Delaney, a longtime lobbyist with Democratic ties. In doing so, it became the first group to register to lobby on behalf of the porn industry in Washington.

Nelson said that he signed with the Free Speech Coalition in June and would be paid $30,000 per quarter to lobby Congress and the executive branch, including the Treasury Department. So far, he has been meeting with lawmakers and their staff to address what he called “a huge vacuum of information” about the adult entertainment industry.

“If Section 230 is gone, we are not going to exist on the internet,” said Alana Evans, a pornographic actress and the president of a union for the industry’s performers who also serves on the legislative committee for the Free Speech Coalition. “Our workers vote, they pay taxes, we are strong members of our community. We deserve representation.”

Evans said that she and others in the industry had already met with staff for Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), primarily to discuss banking discrimination. Representatives for the industry, Evans among them, say that financial services companies have long mistreated members of the industry by refusing to do work with them, simply because of their profession.

But it is concern about changes to internet regulations that is likely to draw more and more web-based operations and platforms into the influence peddling game.

“Anybody that operates a platform that has any kind of user-generated content of any size relies on Section 230 on a pretty daily basis to limit the scope of risk that they have in terms of hosting user-generated content,” said Blake Reid, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School who specializes in technology policy.

Though Democrats and Republicans agree that Section 230 requires reform, they have different targets in mind. Many Democrats argue that web platforms have skirted responsibility for the dangerous content that they host. Republicans, meanwhile, have accused the social media giants of discriminating against conservative voices, spurred by Trump’s obsession with the provision — which only accelerated after he was booted off Twitter and Facebook during the final month of his presidency.

As a result, lawmakers have failed to reach any sort of widely-agreed upon consensus over what Section 230 reform legislation should look like. But the faceoff has created some remarkable fault lines: Trump and conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill versus Facebook, Twitter, and porn.

The adult entertainment industry has historically been on the vanguard of internet law issues, said Eric Goldman, co-director at the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law. He maintained that Section 230 benefits the smaller players — those who can’t afford powerhouse lobbying teams to defend their interests in Washington — far more than Silicon Valley’s tech behemoths.

“The adult entertainment industry generally has had a negligible voice in the political sphere,” he said. “Given the moralistic norms in politics ... having the adult entertainment industry weighing in was usually going to backfire.”

Though the Free Speech Coalition is new to Washington, the group dates back to the early 1990s, when it formed in response to a series of arrests of adult movie manufacturers. Back then, it was difficult to get a firm to take the Free Speech Coalition on as a client, said Jeffrey Douglas, its board chair and chairman emeritus of the First Amendment Lawyers Association. Still, the group became a force in California politics, where much of the industry’s production is located and where it built up a state lobbying arm.

The coalition successfully defeated efforts in California to establish a tax on the industry years ago. It also beat back a statewide ballot measure that attempted to force performers to wear condoms and won a Supreme Court case in 2002 that found the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 — which banned sexually explicit content that appeared to depict minors who were not actual children — to be overly broad.

In addition to membership dues, the Free Speech Coalition is also raising money for its own lobbying fund. And unlike decades ago, K Street seems open to their business. Around the end of last year and the beginning of 2021, the group interviewed about six firms before settling on Clarity Consulting.

Nelson, for one, said he was no stranger to the “seven deadly sin realm.” He has also represented the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association, a trade association for the e-cigarette market, and the Hobby Distillers Association, a group advocating for the legalization of “home-based, hobbyist distillation of spirits,” according to lobbying disclosures.

The porn industry’s interests before Congress extend beyond Section 230. In recent years, it has found itself in the crosshairs of the #MeToo movement and faced its own reckoning after The New York Times published an exposé of PornHub, a massive website that allows users to post their own content, and its myriad of videos depicting child abuse and violence.

Nelson said that in the absence of information, those on the Hill seemed to “assume the worst.” But ultimately, he added, the objective was to “maintain that immunity for these platforms so that they’re not treated as a publisher for content.”

 

[TexRex]

Not a great way to celebrate First Amendment Day.