Florida State Police Raid Home Of COVID Whistleblower, Point Guns At Her & Her Family, Seize All Her Computer Equipment

from the this-is-fucked-up dept

This is insane. Earlier this year, we wrote about Rebekah Jones, the data scientist working for Florida, who put together that state's COVID-19 database (that had received widespread praise), and who was fired by the state for her failure to fake the data to make it look like Florida was handling the pandemic better than it actually was. Governor Ron DeSantis had made it clear he wanted data showing good results in order to justify reopening the state.

As Jones herself explained after being fired:

I was asked by DOH leadership to manually change numbers. This was a week before the reopening plan officially kicked off into phase one. I was asked to do the analysis and present the findings about which counties met the criteria for reopening. The criteria followed more or less the White House panel's recommendations, but our epidemiology team also contributed to that as well. As soon as I presented the results, they were essentially the opposite of what they had anticipated. The whole day while we're having this kind of back and forth changing this, not showing that, the plan was being printed and stapled right in front of me. So it was very clear at that point that the science behind the supposedly science-driven plan didn't matter because the plan was already made.

Since then, Jones has been running Florida COVID Action, which is a dashboard of Florida COVID information, like the one she used to run for the state.

And apparently Florida's Governor Ron DeSantis couldn't allow that to stand. This afternoon Rebekah posted a short Twitter thread, with video, showing Florida state police raiding her home. As she notes, when they asked her who else was in the home, she told them that her husband and children were upstairs, and they pulled out their guns:

This is horrifying on so many levels. Why was her home raided? Why did they pull out guns? Why did they do it after she told them that it was her children upstairs? Why did they seize all of her electronics equipment? Why are they doing any of this?

Jones has been doing everything to better inform the public of what's happening in the middle of a pandemic, and this is the thanks she gets? Having her home raided by the police and having guns drawn on her children?

This is not supposed to happen. This should not happen. It is horrifying and I hope that Jones is able to retain powerful legal help to fight back against this clear violation of her civil liberties, and a clear authoritarian overreach by Governor DeSantis.

Update: Since the original story broke, Florida state police claim that the search warrant was in response to someone breaching an emergency alert system and sending a group text saying: "It's time to speak up before another 17,000 people are dead. You know this is wrong. You don't have to be a part of this. Be a hero. Speak out before it's too late." The warrant claims that the breach was tied to an IP address at Jones' house. Jones has vehemently denied she had anything to do with this:

"I'm not a hacker," Jones said. She added that the language in the message that authorities said was sent was "not the way I talk," and contained errors she would not make.

"The number of deaths that the person used wasn't even right," Jones said. "They were actually under by about 430 deaths. I would never round down 430 deaths."

Later in the evening, the full search warrant was published, and it raise serious questions... not about Jones, as much as what the fuck Florida's Dept. of Health is doing with its communications systems. The service that Jones is accused of using involves a shared password among a ton of people:

On November 10, 2020, at approximately 1420 hours and 1442 hours, an unidentified subject gained access to a mull—user account group StatoESF— 8 Planning" and sent a group text stating the following: "it's time to speak up before another 17,000 people are dead. You know this is wrong. You don't have to be part of this. Be a here, Speak out before it's too late— From StateESF8 Planning". FDOH estimates that approximately 1,750 messages were delivered before the software vendor was able to stop the message from being transmitted.

FDOH has several groups within ReadyOp's application platform, one of which is StateESF8.Planning. ESF8 is Florida's Emergency Support Function for Public Health and Medical with which they coordinate the state‘s health and medical resources, capabilities, and capacities. They also provide the means for a public health response, triage, treatment, and transportation. The group StateESF8.Planning is utilized by multiple users, some of which are not employees of FDOH but are employees of other government agencies. Once they are no longer associated with ESF8 they are no longer authorized to access the multi—user group.

All users assigned to StateESF8.Planning group share the same username and password. SA Pratts requested and received a copy of the technical logs containing the Internet Protocol (IP) address for users accessing the ReadyOp web—based platform for the multi—user StateESF. Planning.

As security pro Jake Williams notes, it is bizarre beyond belief that (1) you have an important system relying on a single shared username and password and that such login info is not changed after someone is fired:

Still, it sounds like we may end up seeing a classic CFAA-style case here, regarding "unauthorized access." Unfortunately, there are some cases on the books where logging into a system where you had a password after you've been instructed not to do so any more means you've violated the CFAA. This is kind of stupid, because it should be on the organization itself to actually change the password, rather than putting the burden on the user... but if there's real evidence here that she did access the system, she could be in serious CFAA trouble.

Even so, that's no excuse for raiding her home with guns drawn.

Filed Under: covid, covid-19, data breach, florida, florida state police, intimidation, raids, rebekah jones, ron desantis, warrant, whistleblower

DOJ Is Suing Melania Trump's Ex-Friend Over Her Book, Despite Never Being A Government Employee

from the why-are-taxpayer-dollars-being-spent-on-this dept

On Tuesday, the Justice Department sued Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former close friend of the First Lady, Melania Trump, who recently published a book about her relationship with Melania, including revealing phone conversations that Wolkoff had recorded.

It seems important to note a few things: the First Lady is not an employees of the US government. Also, while Stephanie Winston Wolkoff was an "aide" to Melania Trump, it was an uncompensated volunteer role, and not as an employee. However, for reasons that remain unclear to me, Wolkoff still signed a ridiculously broad "Gratuitous Services Agreement" with the White House. It is, in fact, gratuitous. Of course, if she's not getting paid, you might wonder what is the "consideration" for the contract to be considered valid. According to the contract it is the following:

"being allowed access to the White House."

And what does she give up for "being allowed access to the White House"? Well, a ton. But the key thing for the sake of this lawsuit is her apparent ability to talk about anything. The agreement contains a ridiculously broad non-disclosure agreement (NDA):

I understand that I may have access to nonpublic, privileged and/or confidential information in the course of performing my gratuitous services. I hereby agree that I will protect from inadvertent or intentional release or unauthorized disclosure any and all information furnished to me by the Government under this Agreement, information about the First Family, or other information about which I may become aware during the course of performance. I acknowledge that I am specifically prohibited from publishing, reproducing or otherwise divulging any such information to any unauthorized person or entity in whole or in part. I further acknowledge that, while this information is in my possession, I shall take all reasonable measures to protect it from unauthorized disclosure and to restrict access to those who have a bona fide requirement for such access. Requests included within this paragraph include, but are not limited to, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Congressional requests, and litigation-related requests. I will direct all questions around the sensitivity of any such information or any other issue concerning disclosure of information to the Office of White House Counsel. These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter my obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive order relating to (1) classified information (2) communications to Congress (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection. The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling Executive orders and statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and are controlling.

That's a mouthful. However, a few notable points: there is no end-date on this. Most NDAs I've seen last for a defined period (often five years). Also, most NDAs I've seen have clauses that remove the restrictions if the content becomes public through other means. Either way, it's insanely broad especially for a volunteer role to basically be "official friend" to someone who is not even a government employee themselves.

For a few years now there has been quite a lot of controversy over the White House forcing employees to sign NDAs. Experts have generally said such NDAs are unconstitutional. There are some governmental NDAs that are legit, but they tend to be limited to situations involving classified information. Beyond that, though, no dice. In McGeHee v. Casey, the DC Circuit made this pretty clear:

The government has no legitimate interest in censoring unclassified materials.

Or in the US v. Marchetti in the 4th Circuit, in a case about a CIA agent publishing a book:

We readily agree with Marchetti that the First Amendment limits the extent to which the United States, contractually or otherwise, may impose secrecy requirements upon its employees and enforce them with a system of prior censorship. It precludes such restraints with respect to information which is unclassified...

And the case here is even more ridiculous, given that we're talking about someone who was a volunteer for the spouse of a government employee, rather than a government employee directly.

That the DOJ thinks this is a legitimate lawsuit to file again shows just how corrupt this Justice Department has become. There is no legitimate basis for bringing such a lawsuit. It serves no purpose other than to intimidate others writing such "tell all" books about their time in or around the White House. It's the US government filing a massive SLAPP suit to suppress speech, and is an affront to the 1st Amendment.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, doj, free speech, intimidation, melania trump, stephanie winston wolkoff, volunteer

Tweeters Were Criminally Charged For The Crime Of Trying To Identify A Police Officer... Who The Police Revealed In The Charging Docs

from the that's-DETECTIVE-'This-Bitch,'-mister dept

The Nutley, New Jersey Police Department fears for the safety of its officer. It fears so much it tried to bring criminal charges against people who retweeted a tweet asking Twitter users to identify an officer who was policing a protest. Georgana Sziszak is one of the five people charged for interacting with the tweet, as Adi Robertson reports for The Verge.

The Nutley Police Department filed its complaints in late July over a tweet posted during a June 26th protest. The now-deleted message included a photo of a masked on-duty police officer with a request that “If anyone knows who this bitch is throw his info under this tweet.” Because of the mask, the officer is not readily identifiable from the photograph, and there do not appear to be any replies revealing his identity.

The original poster and the retweeters are charged with cyber harassment, a fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 18 months in jail. Activist Georgana Sziszak, one of the retweeters, revealed the complaint in a GoFundMe campaign last week.

The original poster didn't find any takers for their request for the identity of the masked officer. The Nutley PD has, however, doxed its own officer by filing this criminal complaint. Here's the tweet -- since deleted -- asking for the officer's identity:

If you can't read/see the tweet, it says:

If anyone knows who this bitch is throw his info under this tweet

The Nutley PD knows who "this bitch" is and has provided all the info the original tweet was seeking:

The department charged Sziszak and others on behalf of Detective Peter Sandomenico, who the complaint identifies as the officer in the tweet. It alleges that the photo and accompanying caption threatened the officer “acting in the performance of his duties, causing Detective Sandomenico to fear that harm will come to himself, family, and property.”

Yes, it's decorated officer Peter Sandomenico -- an officer whose salary is 884% higher than the median salary in the town he serves. Sandomenico was once honored by the department for "going above and beyond" and was photographed receiving this really vague commendation. He was also photographed twice for NJ Cops Magazine, where he attended a ceremony honoring Nutley's "Police Officer of the Year." Sandomenico is a state delegate for his police union.

Like far too many officers around the nation, Peter "PJ" Sandomenico appears to have removed anything identifying him personally while working at the protest in Nutley. This sort of thing never plays well with the public, which often responds by crowdsourcing officer info -- not necessarily to harass officers but to let officers know their efforts to dodge accountability have been undone.

Of course, after this story started getting attention, the Essex County Prosecutor's office announced it was dropping the charges with a weak excuse:

The prosecutor’s office confirmed the five people who were charged and told the Asbury Park Press on Friday that “we concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain our burden of proof.”

Even though the charges were dropped, this was still a blatant attack on the 1st Amendment rights of protesters -- many of whom may now be scared off from documenting law enforcement activities during these protests out of fear of facing a similar nuisance fight.

The First Amendment protects the right to photograph on-duty officers. It also protects the speech that accompanied the tweeted photo, which only asked for someone to identify the cop, not to encourage violence against the officer. The imagined parade of horrors springing from the identification of Detective Peter "PJ" Sandomenico belongs solely to the minds at the Nutley Police Department, which provided info that the five charged Twitter users failed to dig up. Great job, guys! Perhaps the PD will again be cited for going above and beyond by violating the Constitution to protect an unidentified officer the PD decided to identify on its own. Presumably when the PD does it, it results in less fear for Sandomenico's safety.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, chilling effects, criminal charges, free speech, intimidation, new jersey, nutley, protests

Hong Kong Uses New National Security Law To Arrest Prominent Pro-Democracy Media Tycoon

from the exactly-the-reason-the-law-was-writtenq dept

Hong Kong's new national security law -- foisted upon it by the Chinese government -- has nothing to do with securing the nation and everything to do with silencing pro-democracy voices. It criminalizes advocating for secession from China, as well as other forms of dissent, under the bogus theory that speaking out against the government makes Hong Kong -- and China -- less secure.

Basically, the new law equates dissent with terrorism and punishes accordingly. Life sentences possibly await arrested pro-democracy protesters and advocates. The government has put its words into action, using the new law to effect dozens of arrests. But one recent arrest shows the Chinese government doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks about its anti-democracy tactics.

In the highest-profile attack yet on free speech and press freedom in Hong Kong, police on Monday arrested Jimmy Lai, a prominent pro-democracy media tycoon, and raided the offices of his newspaper, demonstrating China’s resolve to silence dissent and bring the city to heel.

The government claims it wants to ensure the safety of residents and shut down riots. But the law, in practice, means arresting one of the most recognizable pro-democracy advocates -- one who's run a successful business for years and has met with prominent politicians around the world. This arrest is China racking the slide of its anti-freedom shotgun, letting the rest of its citizens know that no one is untouchable.

The entire arrest was recorded by employees of Lai's newspaper, the Apple Daily. As officers carted away "evidence," they took time to threaten those witnessing the raid.

The live footage showed a tense scene in the newsroom. When an editor demanded to know the exact boundaries of the area being searched, he was shoved by shouting officers. “Remember his face,” an inspector said, raising his index finger. “If he still behaves like this, give him a warning. And if he doesn’t listen to the warning, arrest him.”

Livestream footage also showed plainclothes officers at a restaurant owned by one of Mr. Lai’s sons in Hong Kong’s Central district. The officers loaded a crate filled with electronic devices they had seized into a private vehicle and did not respond when reporters asked if they were national security officers and whether they had search warrants.

While Lai faced charges earlier this year for participating in "unauthorized" protests, this arrest has everything to do with the new law. Lai is accused of "colluding with a foreign country or external elements" -- something that's vague enough to cover the everyday elements of his international business dealings. The New York Times notes Lai visited Washington, DC last year to meet with the Vice President and the Secretary of State, but the new law supposedly only applies to activities occurring after its implementation this June.

Hong Kong will not remain democratic or independent. The Chinese government will run it the way it runs China. The Chinese government agreed to limit its interference into Hong Kong's governance for fifty years when it acquired it from Great Britain. It may not have to replace the Hong Kong government with its own to achieve its goals. With laws like this -- and the acquiescence of Hong Kong political leaders -- the Chinese government can violate the spirit of the agreement for next 27 years without violating the letter of its "hands-off" assurances to the British government and the residents of Hong Kong.

Filed Under: censorship, china, democracy, free speech, hong kong, intimidation, jimmy lai, national security, pro-democracy

If You're Reporting On Trump's Supposed Plans For 'Anti-Conservative Bias' Panel, Shouldn't You Mention The 1st Amendment?

from the just-saying dept

Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported that "President Trump is considering establishing a panel to review complaints of anti-conservative bias on social media." That story is likely behind a paywall, though Fox News (natch) reposted most of it and lots of tech news sites wrote up their own versions of the report.

The basis is exactly what you think it is. A bunch of Trump supporters have been falsely insisting that social media companies are unfairly "biased" against conservatives. There is exactly zero evidence to date to support this. There are a few anecdotes of whiny assholes, who violated terms of service, losing service, and a few anecdotes of just not very good content moderation (though, those seem to fall pretty broadly across the political spectrum). There is no indication that any of the moderation activity is unfairly targeting conservatives or even that there is any "bias" at all. I'm sure some people will rush to the comments here with one of two reactions: they will either call me "blind" and complain that I'm simply not looking around (though they will present no actual evidence) or they will cite a few meaningless anecdotes, ignoring that a few anecdotes on platforms that have to make literally millions of moderation choices, is not evidence of bias.

But, more importantly: the government can't do anything even if they were biased. And this is where all of the reporting I've seen so far falls down. Most clearly, the government simply cannot force platforms to moderate in a certain way. That would violate the 1st Amendment. So even if a panel is formed, it couldn't actually do anything to change things, beyond just being an annoying pest. But, it seems like the media should be making this clear. Any panel cannot force internet companies to treat political viewpoints in some different manner. That's a blatant 1st Amendment problem.

Separately, even the formation of the panel may very well present a 1st Amendment problem on its own, because it is clearly the government using its will to try to pressure private companies into treating certain political viewpoints differently. Remember what Judge Posner wrote in Dart v. Backpage, in which he dinged a sheriff, Thomas Dart, for merely sending a letter that was vaguely threatening to the free speech rights of an internet platform: " Some public officials doubtless disapprove of bars, or pets and therefore pet supplies, or yard sales, or lawyers,... or men dating men or women dating women—but... it would be a clear abuse of power for public officials to try to eliminate them not by expressing an opinion but by threatening ... third parties, with legal or other coercive governmental action."

Just because government officials are upset with 1st Amendment protected speech choices of the companies, that does not mean they can do something that is obviously a threat of coercive action.

Anyone -- including the Wall Street Journal -- reporting on this stuff owes it to their readers to make that clear. Tragically, so far none of the reports I've seen have done so.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-conservative bias, bias, cda 230, donald trump, intimidation, section 230, social media
Companies: facebook, google

In A Blatant Attack On Press Freedom, Brazilian Government Charges Glenn Greenwald With 'Cybercrimes' For Reporting On Leaked Documents

from the silencing-the-press dept

I don't always agree with Glenn Greenwald, and over the last few years have grown increasingly frustrated with either his confusing and contradictory positions or his bizarre stubbornness in being purposefully obtuse in his explanations of his positions. However, his general commitment to freedom of the press is hard to question. Over the last few years, Greenwald has been particularly focused on reporting about the federal government of Jair Bolsonaro in his adopted home of Brazil. Given that Bolsonaro has a reputation for attacking the press, many people wondered how long it would take for the Brazilian government to go after Greenwald.

And, indeed, today it was announced that Greenwald has been charged with "cybercrimes" for his reporting on leaked documents regarding the current Justice Minister, Sergio Moro, who was the federal judge who oversaw the trial of former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Many in Brazil, including Greenwald, have argued that the corruption trial and jailing of Lula was a corrupt show trial designed to get Lula out of office and prevent his re-election in 2018 (when Bolsonaro was elected). The leaked documents showed that Moro, while presiding over the trial, worked closely with prosecutors and helped them strategize.

Since then, there has been speculation that the government was trying to build a case against Greenwald. In July, Greenwald was called before a Congressional committee in which he was directly told he should be jailed. Back in August, the Brazilian Supreme Court actually put a stop to an attempt to investigate Greenwald, after Bolsonaro himself called for Greenwald to be jailed.

However, that appears not to have actually stopped the government's attempts to find some reason to throw Greenwald in jail. The charges against Greenwald argue that he wasn't just reporting on the leaked documents, but that he was part of a "criminal organization" and worked with people to hack into the phones of officials in order to access the documents:

Citing intercepted messages between Mr. Greenwald and the hackers, prosecutors say the journalist played a “clear role in facilitating the commission of a crime.”

For instance, prosecutors contend that Mr. Greenwald encouraged the hackers to delete archives that had already been shared with The Intercept Brasil, in order to cover their tracks.

Prosecutors also say that Mr. Greenwald was communicating with the hackers while they were actively monitoring private chats on Telegram, a messaging app.

Some may argue that there is a fine line between reporting on leaked documents and encouraging people to hack to get those documents, but from what's described so far, Greenwald's actions sound like pretty typical efforts by a journalist to work with whistleblowing sources to help them protect themselves. Telling people to delete their archive is just good security advice for a source to protect themselves, and should never be seen as meaning that you're a part of the hacking activity. But, of course, when an oppressive government wants to blur the lines, that's what happens. Indeed, this is quite similar to many of the DOJ's charges against Julian Assange, taking standard journalistic practices and arguing that they make you an accomplice.

For now Greenwald is (as you would expect) not backing down, and claiming (with good reason) that this is an attack on a free press in Brazil. In a lengthy statement he gave to the Daily Beast, it's clear what he thinks of these charges:

“The Bolsonaro government and the movement that supports it has made repeatedly clear that it does not believe in basic press freedoms—from Bolsonaro's threats against Folha to his attacks on journalists that have incited violence to Sergio Moro’s threats from the start to classify us as ‘allies of the hackers’ for revealing his corruption,” Greenwald said in a statement to The Daily Beast.

“Less than two months ago, the Federal Police, examining all the same evidence cited by the Public Ministry, stated explicitly that not only have I never committed any crime but that I exercised extreme caution as a journalist never even to get close to any participation,” he continued. “Even the Federal Police under Minister Moro's command said what is clear to any rational person: I did nothing more than do my job as a journalist—ethically and within the law.”

He also calls out that Supreme Court ruling from last August:

“It is also on an attack on the Brazilian Supreme Court, which ruled in July that I am entitled to have my press freedom protected in response to other retaliatory attacks from Judge Moro, and even an attack on the findings of the Federal Police, which concluded explicitly after a comprehensive investigation that I committed no crimes and solely acted as a journalist.

“We will not be intimidated by these tyrannical attempts to silence journalists. I am working right now on new reporting and will continue to do so. Many courageous Brazilians sacrificed their liberty and even life for Brazilian democracy and against repression, and I feel an obligation to continue their noble work.”

No matter what you think of Greenwald, this appears to be an intimidation technique by the Bolsonaro government, and an outright attack on a free press.

Of course, it also has one other effect: I hadn't followed closely that original story about Moro and his collaboration with prosecutors while being the judge in a case. Yet now I've gone back to read all of the reporting on it, and it certainly suggests a deeply, deeply corrupt Brazilian government.

Filed Under: brazil, corruption, free speech, glenn greenwald, intimidation, jair bolsanro, journalism, press freedom, reporting, sergio moro
Companies: the intercept

Turkey Continues Its Attempt To Pass China In The 'Most Journalists Jailed' Category

from the WEEEEEEEEEE-ARE-THE-CHAMPIONNNNNNNNS-MY-FRIEND dept

Turkey continues to be awful. The President of the country, Recep "Gollum" Erdogan, continues to fight his own personal brand of "War on Terror." So far, this "war" is mostly on critics and journalists, since actual terrorism isn't something Erdogan seems to care about as much as his own reputation.

Critics located all over the world have felt the proxy wrath of the frequently-besmirched PM. Some countries have been especially obliging, turning over their own citizens to face criminal charges for insulting the Turkish head of state.

Journalists all over the world are feeling the heel of Erdogan's boot, the size of which is inversely proportional to the thickness of his skin. Rather than limit his censorial efforts to the war at home, Erdogan frequently calls on US tech companies to engage in censorship on his behalf. Twitter is a favorite.

You're nothing if you're not on the leader boards. Erdogan sees himself as a living superlative. So it's no surprise his government is seeking to overtake the Red Granddaddy of Censorship -- China -- in the category of "Most Journalist Jailed." Presumably, the Guinness people will just mail him his award, rather than risk being swept up in his "War on Terror" for listing Nobel Prize winners or whatever.

More journalists have been convicted of crimes against Herr Erdogan. Unfortunately for the authoritarian, not too many of them will actually be jailed, which isn't going to help him overtake China in the jailed journalist race. Prosecution in absentia is the new normal for Turkey since local journalists have realized staying in the country means forced retirement from their chosen profession.

Alert Interpol, I guess, as though that international partnership is really interested in converting itself into an extension of Turkey's government. The "War on Terror" continues, with Turkish courts fighting the war at home by sentencing journalists self-exiling abroad.

A Turkish court on Friday convicted six journalists and one other employee of an independent newspaper of aiding the network of a U.S.-based cleric who is accused of masterminding the failed coup in 2016, the state-run news agency reported.

Conjecture and hearsay are kinds of evidence, the Turkish lawyers certainly argued. Some of those sentenced will actually be headed to jail post-appeal, since there's no reason to believe this kangaroo courtship will be annulled upon further review.

Others will just spend their sentences not living in Turkey, as the supposed coup "mastermind" is doing.

[T]he primary target of Erdogan's wrath is Fethullah Gulen, an Islamic scholar in his late 70s living in exile in the United States. Erdogan blames Gulen for masterminding the failed coup attempt. The government has declared Gulen's movement a terrorist organization.

Jailing someone in their late-70s seems unusually cruel. (We do it here so stop throwing stones.) But it's just not going to happen as long as Gulen lives in the United States. Anyone with any connection to Gulen is being branded a terrorist, even if most of them are just journalists who had nothing to do with the failed coup that has led directly to the jailing of over 100 journalists.

Criticizing Erdogan from abroad really doesn't do much to diminish his power at home. But it does keep him busy. It keeps his courts tied up trying cases of suspects the government can never jail and it keeps the busybodies in the censorship department active filing social media complaints. Now, if only we (the US and its tech companies) weren't so eager to help...

Filed Under: free press, free speech, intimidation, jailing, journalists, recep tayyip erdogan, turkey