Judge Blocks White House From Pulling Jim Acosta's Press Pass, But The Battle Continues

from the freedom-of-the-press dept

Update: The White House has officially restored Acosta's press pass, and also established new rules for press conferences. We'll bring you more info on those rules after we've had a closer look.

Last week I wrote about the case that CNN and its reporter Jim Acosta had filed against the White House for the removal of his press pass over some trumped up claims that he had "assaulted" a White House intern (he did not, he simply resisted returning the microphone to her after she attempted to grab it from him). As we noted, the removal of the pass was clearly based on the content of his questioning and it seemed fairly obvious that the White House would lose the lawsuit, especially based on the existing precedent in Sherrill v. Knight, which gave CNN clear basis under both the 1st Amendment and the 5th Amendment.

Perhaps not surprisingly, a bunch of Trump supporters quickly ran to the comments to screech at me about how wrong and biased I was against them. Let's be clear: this is bullshit. I would have written the same article had Obama removed the press pass of a Fox News reporter under identical circumstances (and, frankly, the Trump supporters here should learn to think beyond their obsession with defending "dear leader" in everything he does, because the same rules will apply when other Presidents are in charge, and they may not always like it in the other direction). The Constitutional elements here are pretty clear. The White House is allowed to set non-content-based rules for who gets a press pass, but once they do that, they absolutely cannot remove a press pass for anything having to do with content, and they can't simply make up rules to remove someone without any form of due process.

The judge in this case, Timothy Kelly, (who, we'll note, was appointed by Trump, even though it shouldn't make a difference), moved quickly on this case, issuing a temporary restraining order on the White House and ordering it to return Acosta's press pass Friday afternoon. The basis for his ruling from the bench was the 5th Amendment due process question, noting that there was no clear reason at all given by the White House:

the government must provide Mr. Acosta due process if it is to revoke his hard pass. Accordingly, the likelihood that the plaintiffs succeed on the First -- on the Fifth Amendment claim hinges on whether the government provided adequate due process to Mr. Acosta. The court in Sherrill held that this process must include notice, an opportunity to rebut the government's reasons and a written decision. And all the court -- although the court in Sherrill did not have occasion to address it, when an important interest is at stake and when the government is able to provide this process before deprivation, it generally must do so. There is no evidence that one of the few exceptions to this rule would apply here such as some kind of emergency. So I do hold that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claim that adequate process was not provided to Mr. Acosta. Indeed, whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the Government could not tell me at oral argument who made the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta's press pass -- his hard pass.

Now, it is true that the public and Mr. Acosta were eventually provided two things. First, explanations as to why his hard pass was revoked through Ms. Sanders's tweets; and a written statement of explanation, apparently prompted by this litigation, but given their timing and their lack of connection to Mr. Acosta's opportunity to rebut -- which we'll talk about in a moment -- these belated efforts were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process.

Of course, in typical White House fashion, members of the Trump Administration have continued to trip over each other to make the dumbest statement possible in response to all of this, some of which mean that CNN has already gone back to court in this case, and it's going to continue. First, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders made the following nonsense statement:

"...the court made clear that there is no absolute First Amendment right to access the White House."

Except... that's not what the court said at all. The court actually said that reporters absolutely are protected by the 1st Amendment once they are given a press pass, but that it was premature to rule on the 1st Amendment question when the 5th Amendment procedural question could be dealt with first.

Then the President himself stepped in with more nonsense claiming:

"We want total freedom of the press."

Uh, no you don't. You're constantly whining about the press, threatening them and their revenue sources, or threatening to "pull" some non-existent licenses. And, of course, Trump then went on to misstate what Kelly's ruling said:

But you have to act with respect when you're at the White House, and when I see the way some of my people get treated at news conferences, it's terrible. So we're setting up a certain standard, which is what the court is requesting.

No, the court is requiring (not requesting) due process, which is not that you get to make up new rules to kick out reporters who are asking you questions you don't like (or even ones who are grandstanding). And, reporters don't need to "respect" the President. Indeed, it's better if they don't, because their role is to challenge the President and to ask tough questions that no administration likes.

Then, over the weekend, things got even more ridiculous, with the White House telling Acosta they plan to remove his press pass again once the 14 day temporary restraining order is up, and arguing that this is part of their due process to get around the 5th Amendment issues:

After CNN won a temporary restraining order on Friday, forcing the White House to restore his press pass for 14 days, White House officials sent Acosta a letter stating that his pass is set to be suspended again once the restraining order expires.

From the looks of the letter, the W.H. is trying to establish a paper trail that will empower the administration to boot Acosta again at the end of the month.

Of course, as Julian Sanchez points out, telling a reporter ahead of any process that you'll be removing his press pass would seem to be evidence of your own lack of due process, so this might get rejected on 5th Amendment grounds again (while still avoiding the 1st Amendment questions, which would likely go against the White House as well...).

The letter itself is quite ridiculous. It still says that they're planning to remove the press pass for his actions back at the November 7th press conference, when the court already made clear that the White House had no legitimate reason to do so based on that conference.

In response to this, CNN has already gone back to court, saying that this retrospective due process is not nearly enough. They ask for a hearing as quickly as possible to deal with the White House making this move.

Either way, this whole fight seems particularly stupid, and one that the White House simply cannot win in any court other than the one of Trump's super fans insisting that everything the President does must be perfectly correct. It is not. It is unconstitutional. And the sooner Trump's kneejerk fans recognize that Trump can and does make mistakes, the sooner they can get back to actually respecting the Constitution they now only pretend to support.

Filed Under: donald trump, due process, fifth amendment, first amendment, free speech, jim acosta, white house
Companies: cnn

Donald Trump Suddenly Pretends To Care About Comcast Antitrust Violations

from the dysfunction-junction dept

For years, smaller cable companies have complained that giants like Comcast do everything in their power to make life miserable (and expensive) for them. These smaller providers have complained that Comcast often mandates they buy and include NBC channels and regional sports networks in their lineups, driving up costs. Many of these companies have considered getting out of the TV business entirely as their margins get tighter and they find themselves increasingly out-maneuvered by ever-growing, vertically-integrated media, telecom, and broadcast giants like Comcast and AT&T.

This week, the American Cable Association, a coalition of around 700 mid-sized and small cable providers, simply issued yet another request to the DOJ to, you know, actually maybe do something about Comcast's growing monopoly power:

"To help secure the benefits of a competitive pay-TV and broadband market for millions of consumers, the American Cable Association has asked antitrust law enforcers at the Department of Justice (DOJ) to open an investigation into the business practices of the vertically integrated media giant Comcast-NBCU, focusing on harms stemming from the dominant communications firm’s control of cable systems, TV stations, and regional sports networks (RSNs) concentrated in some of the largest local markets in the country."

Their complaint notes that with the conditions now expired on Comcast's 2011 merger with NBC, the company has greater leeway than ever to use its size, wealth, growing broadband monopoly and political power to bully smaller cable operators and consumers alike.

Normally these cries would simply be ignored in M&A manic America. Much like the TV market, smaller cable companies can't compete with the immense political power Comcast's wealth and size buys on Capitol Hill, so their concerns are pretty consistently ignored. As a result, whether we're in the throes of Obama or Trump administrations, blindly letting the biggest media and telecom companies merge, then standing around with a dumb look on our collective faces as these titans do what they always do (raise rates and use their newfound power to hamper competitors) is kind of our thing.

Like many small businesses, the ACA pretty consistently issues these cries for help without anybody much giving a damn. But that dynamic changed when President Trump this week curiously decided to wade in and comment on the ACA's filing:

So for one thing, it's unlikely that Donald actually cares about Comcast's monopoly power. After all, if he did, his FCC wouldn't have just effectively neutered itself and net neutrality (and most meaningful oversight of predatory monopolies) at direct Comcast request. Don probably just saw something on NBC news that made him mad, and decided to punish Comcast for it in a passive aggressive way. And punish it did: Comcast's stock dropped steeply on Monday of this week, and a dozen furrow-browed stories exploring Comcast's antitrust power were published that would have otherwise never have been written.

Oddly, many outlets took the potential for a DOJ inquiry into Comcast's monopoly power seriously. But there's zero real indication that's the case. As the assault on net neutrality should have made pretty clear, letting giant telecom operators like Comcast largely dictate most tech policy has been the Trump administration policy thus far, and that's not likely to change. The DOJ isn't going to suddenly investigate Comcast just because Don ran his mouth on Twitter, and it's certainly not going to suddenly pursue remedies for an eight-year old merger.

Don was likely just being Don: jumping into the fray of a subject he doesn't know much about because he saw some shit on TV that made him sad. And while it's true that Don's DOJ did sue AT&T to thwart (unsuccessfully) its Time Warner merger, it's likely that had less to do with actually helping consumers, and more to do with hurting CNN or helping Trump ally Rupert Murdoch, who spent most of 2017 trying to scuttle the deal for competitive reasons. So yeah, it's possible that the DOJ could ruffle some feathers at Comcast as punishment for critical NBC coverage of the President, but it's just not likely with Comcast already having gotten most of what it wanted (most notably in the form of a self-immolating FCC in the hands of Ajit Pai).

Meanwhile, the ACA has made a pretty consistent habit of complaining about Ajit Pai's failure to keep an eye out for the little guy, despite being breathless supporters of Pai's appointment. Perhaps at some point the ACA can connect the dots between supporting politicians that don't care about monopoly power, and policy that pretty clearly doesn't care about monopoly power.

Filed Under: antitrust, cable, donald trump
Companies: at&t, comcast

Don't Throw Out The First Amendment's Press Protections Just Because You Don't Like President Trump

from the not-how-it-works dept

Back in April, when the DNC first sued a whole bunch of people and organizations claiming a giant conspiracy between the Russians, Wikileaks and the Trump campaign, we warned that beyond the complaint including a ton of truly nutty claims, it was also an attack on the 1st Amendment. Much of what was described as violating the law by Wikileaks and others was classic journalism activity -- and a ruling in favor of the DNC would do massive harm to the 1st Amendment. Indeed, as the case has continued to move forward, more and more media organizations are warning about the possibility of a catastrophic outcome for news media should the DNC win this case.

Perhaps ironically, this puts Donald Trump on the same team, legally, as the people he repeatedly insists are "the enemy of the people." His lawyers, of course, don't mind the double standard and have been quick to correctly wrap themselves in the First Amendment to try to get the lawsuit dismissed. This is the proper result.

Unfortunately, Trump derangement syndrome means that otherwise competent people keep searching for a "but, Trump... " exception to the 1st Amendment. Over at Just Security, two former Obama White House lawyers -- Bob Bauer and Ryan Goodman -- try to argue the case for why the 1st Amendment doesn't protect the Trump campaign in this case. The crux of their argument is that the campaign was a lot more involved in seeking damaging information, rather than just passing it around once it had been leaked.

It is on fundamental factual distinctions between Bartnicki and the Trump case that the campaign’s First Amendment theory founders.  Unlike Bartnicki’s radio host, the campaign is not free of involvement in illegal activity. It did not merely comment on what the Russians and WikiLeaks conspired to make public. It willfully engaged with both the Russians and WikiLeaks in both the pursuit and the publication of the stolen emails—actions that bump up against clear prohibitions in federal campaign finance law. Foreign nationals may not contribute or spend funds to influence an American election, and, crucially, a U.S. political campaign cannot assist or act in coordination with foreign electoral intervention.

We know that the Russians were peddling assistance to a receptive campaign, that the campaign learned as early as April 2016 that Russians possessed stolen emails, th... Jr. advised the Russians on when to release derogatory information (“later in the summer”), that the Russian hacking operation continued long after the Russians first made contact with and were greeted receptively by the campaign, that the president himself publicly encouraged the Russian government to locate the so-called “missing“ Clinton emails, and that Russian spies quickly followed by trying to hack Clinton’s personal email. There are also reports that the Russians may have previewed the plan to disseminate the emails before ever doing so.  For the purposes of the ongoing civil suit, those allegations alone rob the campaign of its current defense.

But those paragraphs make a ton of assumptions, often without enough evidence to back it up. But much, much, much worse is the following paragraph that Bauer and Goodman put in, claiming that the media shouldn't be concerned about the 1st Amendment impact of this case:

There is misplaced concern that a defeat for this First Amendment defense puts media protections at risk. Federal campaign finance regulation supplies useful guidance here: It exempts standard journalistic activity, but denies those protections to conduct outside the “legitimate press function.” It is clear from disclosures by an internal WikiLeaks critic and other materials that Julian Assange targeted Hillary Clinton and sought to work with the Trump campaign and the Russians to secure her defeat. This is not a “legitimate press function.” And the conflation of Wikileaks’ plan of campaign attack with standard journalistic activity undermines important distinctions critical to the protection of the free press.

That paragraph is frightening and should worry anyone who believes in the 1st Amendment's protections for the press. These lawyers are basically arguing that they get to decide what is and what is not a "legitimate press function" and that working with a campaign automatically makes it not a legitimate press function. As Glenn Greenwald notes, there's a viable argument that under the description that Bauer and Goodman lay out here someone could just as easily argue that Vox or MSNBC aren't protected by the 1st Amendment either:

Some will argue that there are differences of degree and level of cooperation, but even if that's true (and it's not clear that it is), you've already wiped out the basic 1st Amendment protections because now every media outlet will need to argue, over and over again, whether or not any of its activity counts as "a legitimate press function." That would create massive chilling effects, and is a standard that could be easily abused.

Hell, just to bring this all back around, it doesn't take a stable genius to figure out what President Trump would start doing if he could argue the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to publications engaged in things that are "not a legitimate press function." And, incredibly, the DNC seems to want to hand him this very power. It's mind-boggling.

Dan Froomkin has an excellent reply to the Bauer/Goodman piece. He agrees that there may be some violations of the law buried in everything, but lumping in Wikileaks (even as he calls Julian Assange's recent activities "despicable") here is an attack on the basic 1st Amendment protections for journalists. Even if you dislike Trump massively, supporting these arguments is an attack on the press that will come back to bite everyone by handing the government and others a tool to argue that certain press activities are somehow not protected for not being "a legitimate press function."

Filed Under: bob bauer, collusion, donald trump, first amendment, free speech, press freedom, ryan goodman
Companies: wikileaks

Dear HBO: Just Shut The Fuck Up About Trump's 'Game Of Thrones' Meme, Please

from the stupid-is-coming dept

There has been a drumbeat punctuating the past decade or so that goes something like: everything is political. It's not really true, of course, but that mantra is used by those who want to inject politics into everything as an excuse for doing so. That makes the world a much more tiresome place to exist. Unfortunately, it seems both that politics really does infect aspects of our lives it should not, as does intellectual property bullshit.

Which brings us to Donald Trump and his fairly lame Game of Thrones meme he tweeted out, apparently as a warning shot of TBA foreign policy towards Iran.

Herr Trump tweeted this out on November 2nd and did indeed follow up with new sanctions on Iran on the fifth. The analogy, of course, doesn't really work, since the "winter" from GoT refers to the whitewalker zombies and the whole phrase is a warning about what this evil army will do when they arrive, rather than being some kind of call to arms against an evil army... but I digress. Whatever you think of the meme or Iran sanctions generally, there was very little offense to find in any of this.

But there was a great deal of fun to be had by the internet in response.

Folks began responding with memes of their own—”Indictments Are Coming” etc.—and even the show’s cast got involved. Sophie Turner, who plays Sansa Stark, replied“Ew,” and Maisie Williams (Arya Stark), in perhaps the best Twitter drag of the day, retweeted the president and just added “Not today.” (“Not today,” for those who don’t remember, is what Arya Stark’s swordfighting instructor, Syrio Forel, told her is what she should say to the god of death.)

Pretty standard fare in our Twitter politpocaplyse through which we are all living. And, again, judging by other news cycles we're forced to endure on what feels like a weekly basis, this is pretty tame and non-offensive.

Which is what makes it strange that HBO decided to pretend there was a trademark issue in any of this.

Despite being a fan of the show, I don't know the answer to this question. Which doesn't really matter, because it's an irrelevant question to begin with. Nothing about Trump's tweet and meme is in any way trademark misappropriation or infringement. There is no public confusion. No common marketplace. This is purely fair use. And HBO should know as much, so litigious and bullying have they been in the past -- both generally and specifically when it comes to Game of Thrones.

So, HBO... just don't. It already seems like politics invades everything, and intellectual property invades everything. Combining the two? That's way worse than any army of whitewalkers.

Filed Under: donald trump, game of thrones, iran, politics, trademark

Pharrell Is Not At All Happy About Trump Using 'Happy' At His Rally... And He Might Actually Have A Case

from the didn't-see-that-coming dept

It happens basically every election cycle: at a political event or rally a politician that a musician dislikes uses one of that musician's songs to get the crowd excited. The musician gets upset and speaks out about it, and maybe even sends a legal threat letter. We've written about this many, many times before going back many years. And in most cases, the complaints are bullshit. Most event venues and and most competent campaigns have the appropriate blanket performance licenses from BMI and/or ASCAP, and that allows them to play whatever they want at the events, and the musicians really can't do much about it (other than complain publicly, which makes lots of news -- and which is why we're still amazed that campaigns don't first check to make sure they play music of musicians who support them).

But... there are some rare exceptions to this general rule, and not only have we found one, but it involves quite an impressive legal threat. It appears that on Saturday evening, just hours after 11 people were murdered in Pittsburgh, President Donald Trump decided to still hold a political rally, because when the choice is put in front of Trump between "appropriate silence" and "pointless spectacle that makes Trump feel worshiped" he will always choose the latter*. But at this highly inappropriate rally, Trump apparently played Pharrell Williams' incredibly upbeat earworm of a pop song "Happy."

* Hey, I get that some of you are going to be upset about this line, and will come up with all sorts of bullshit rationalizing and excuses for why the rally was appropriate, and all I will say to you is: make better life choices, and maybe, take a serious look at yourself in the mirror and ask "what the fuck happened to me?"

And, yes, such a song on such a day at such a stupid rally certainly feels inappropriate to anyone with even the slightest sense of decorum or empathy. But, for Williams, it went a bit further. Because, as reporter Eriq Gardner notes, unlike most popular musicians, Pharrell ditched ASCAP four years ago and moved all his music to Irving Azoff's "Global Music Rights" organization (GMR). GMR is kind of sketchy, and feels like a giant shakedown play for internet sites, but, ignoring that, what is known is that neither the venue nor the campaign have a license from GMR.

And that enabled Pharrell's lawyers to send quite the letter to President Trump. It doesn't just talk about the infringement, but the sheer insanity of playing such a song on such a day.

If you can't read that, it says:

Dear Mr. Trump:

We write you on behalf of our client, Pharrell Williams, composer and performer of the hit song "Happy." On the day of the mass murder of 11 human beings at the hands of a deranged "nationalist," you played his song "Happy" to a crowd at a political event in Indiana. There was nothing "happy" about the tragedy inflicted on our country on Saturday and no permission was granted for your use of this song for this purpose.

Pharrell Williams is the owner of the copyright in "Happy," with the exclusive right to exploit same. Pharrell has not, and will not, grant you permission to publicly perform or otherwise broadcast or disseminate any of his music. The use of "Happy" without permission constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501. This also violates Pharrell's trademark rights under the Lanham Act.

I guess it's possible that Trump could claim fair use in the use of the song, but I doubt that would fly. The trademark claim seems incredibly unlikely, but if the lawyers actually pursued the copyright claim, it seems like they'd have a chance to make it stick.

Filed Under: campaigns, copyright, donald trump, happy, music, performance license, pharrell williams, political rallies, rallies, trademark
Companies: global music rights, gmr

The President's Phone OPSEC Continues To Be, Well, Crap

from the ill-communication dept

By now the President's unwillingness to adhere to anything close to reasonable security when using his mobile phones has been made pretty clear. Whereas the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) and the NSA usually work in concert providing state leaders with "hardened" devices that are heavily encrypted, routinely updated, and frequently swapped out, Trump has refused to use these more secure DMCC-S devices (effectively a Samsung Galaxy S4 device utilizing Samsung's Knox security architecture), because it might infringe on his ability to Tweet.

Past reports have suggested that security advisors have at least convinced him to use two iPhones: one locked down specifically for Twitter, and the other specifically tasked with making phone calls. But as a new report this week from the New York Times makes clear, Trump's lax phone security is being pretty routinely taken advatage of by foreign intelligence agencies:

"When President Trump calls old friends on one of his iPhones to gossip, gripe or solicit their latest take on how he is doing, American intelligence reports indicate that Chinese spies are often listening — and putting to use invaluable insights into how to best work the president and affect administration policy, current and former American officials said."

Senators sent a letter to Trump back in April expressing concern at his abysmal operational security, but that message still hasn't gotten through to the aggressively cocksure President, according to the Times report:

"Mr. Trump’s aides have repeatedly warned him that his cellphone calls are not secure, and they have told him that Russian spies are routinely eavesdropping on the calls, as well. But aides say the voluble president, who has been pressured into using his secure White House landline more often these days, has still refused to give up his iPhones. White House officials say they can only hope he refrains from discussing classified information when he is on them."

The Times quotes numerous anonymous experts who say their claims come from sources in these foreign governments. And while the Times story doesn't get technical about how foreign intelligence agencies are tapping into the calls, many surmise they're exploiting, among other things, the cellular network Signaling System 7 (SS7, or Common Channel Signalling System 7 in the US) flaw that the industry has been refusing to fix for the better part of the last decade. The flaw can be exploited to track user location, dodge encryption, and even record private conversations if strict countermeasures aren't adhered to.

That said, security experts were quick to point out there's an ocean of ways that foreign intelligence agencies could be intercepting Trump's calls in transit via passive decryption as the calls travel between the phone and cellular tower:

Of course intel agencies could also be targeting his most-commonly called individuals on the other end. As is his way, the President was quick to issue a Tweet insisting the entire story was false...while using his iPhone:

To let Trump's ego dictate his security practices is obviously still problematic, potentially even to the point of putting lives at risk. It's also incredibly ironic given all the time Trump spends complaining about potential Chinese spying habits, including the Trump-driven blacklist of all Huawei products in the United States. It's a blackballing that's not based on much in the way of evidence, but is certainly appreciated in a protectionist capacity by the U.S. networking and cell phone vendors who didn't want to have to compete with cheaper Chinese gear. Huawei, for its part, was quick to make light of the report:

Trump's phone habits continues to be a giant middle finger toward transparency (like adhering to the Presidential Records Act) and fundamental opsec, but neither Trump nor the adults tasked with his daily supervision appear to much care.

Filed Under: china, donald trump, iphone, listening in, opsec, phones, russia, surveillance, wiretap

PEN America Sues Donald Trump For 1st Amendment Violations In Attacking The Press

from the shall-not-be-infringed dept

PEN America, the well known human rights group that focuses on protecting freedom of expression for writers has now sued President Trump for a bunch of different attacks on the First Amendment -- using Trump's repeated tweets and threats as the key evidence in making these claims. The complaint lists out a bunch of different statements and actions by the President that PEN America argues all violate the 1st Amendment. There are four separate actions by the President described in the lawsuit, and let's go through them one by one.

First up is the President issuing an executive order about raising postal rates in retaliation against Jeff Bezos and Amazon, because Bezos (not Amazon) owns the Washington Post, and the Washington Post has been doing pretty strong reporting in revealing all sorts of Presidential misdeeds.

Defendant Trump has repeatedly threatened to use the U.S. Postal Service (“Postal Service”) and its rate structure to retaliate against Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post (also referred to as “the Post”), whose coverage he dislikes.

On April 12, 2018, he followed through on his threats by signing an Executive Order directing the Postal Service to review its rates. This Order, on information and belief, was aimed at Bezos’s company, Amazon, and was motivated by Defendant Trump’s displeasure at the reporting of Bezos’s other company, the Washington Post.

From the beginning of his campaign for President, Defendant Trump has repeatedly attacked the Post for its coverage of him, calling it biased, fictitious, and “a disgrace to journalism.” In a 2016 interview, he called the Post “a political instrument” that was writing “bad” and “wrong” stories “with no proper information,” and accused its reporters of writing a “false” book about him. He has routinely called the Washington Post “fake news” and personally attacked its writers.

During his presidency, when the Washington Post published unflattering stories about the inner workings of his Administration, Defendant Trump frequently responded with pointed denunciations of the accuracy of the Post’s work. On April 8, 2018, for example, after the Post ran a story about John Kelly’s frustrations as Chief of Staff, Defendant Trump tweeted: “The Washington Post is far more fiction than fact. Story after story is made up garbage - more like a poorly written novel than good reporting. Always quoting sources (not names), many of which do not exist. Story on John Kelly isn’t true, just another hit job!”

Defendant Trump has turned his ire over the Washington Post’s coverage into a vendetta against its owner Bezos, targeting Bezos’s main asset, Amazon, by issuing a series of threats to take governmental action that would harm Bezos and Amazon, and which were eventually acted upon.

During his campaign, Defendant Trump repeatedly threatened future action against Amazon, regularly tied to objections over the Post’s coverage. On information and belief, he did this to signal to Bezos and Amazon shareholders that he could – and would – use his official powers to adversely impact Amazon’s tax status and subject it to antitrust enforcement. As candidate Trump put it at a rally on February 26, 2016, while referring to Bezos and Amazon: “If I become president, oh do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems.”

There's a lot more along those lines... and then it talks about Trump's threats concerning the postal rates:

On December 29, 2017, following a Washington Post story on the Administration’s internal deliberations on how to handle “worries of a tough year ahead,” and a satirical end-of-year piece entitled “Was 2017 the end of something or just the beginning,” Defendant Trump tweeted that the Postal Service should be charging more to deliver Amazon’s packages: “Why is the United States Post Office [sic], which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer? Should be charging MUCH MORE!”

On information and belief, Defendant Trump has since repeatedly been told by his staff that his assertions about Amazon’s harmful impact on the Postal Service are incorrect, but he continues to repeat them.

Defendant Trump recently renewed and escalated his threats of action against Amazon following unflattering reporting in the Washington Post detailing the damage done to Trump’s family businesses by allegations involving adult film actress Stormy Daniels and Robert Mueller’s investigation into the 2016 election. Defendant Trump repeated his false claims about costs to the Postal Service and his threats to raise Amazon’s shipping rates. Once again, he left no doubt that his motivation was animus against the Post, again calling it a “lobbyist” and “weapon” for Bezos.

In a series of tweets from March 29, 2018 to April 3, 2018, Defendant Trump made repeated false statements about Amazon and issued repeated threats to raise its postal shipping rates. Over the course of these threats from President Trump, Amazon sustained a $60 billion dip in market value.

On information and belief, Defendant Trump’s attacks on Amazon were motivated by animus toward Bezos and the Washington Post on account of its coverage of him and his Administration. For example, in an April 13, 2018 article by Maya Kosoff, Vanity Fair quoted White House sources as saying that President Trump “has zero respect” for the Washington Post and wants to “[f--k] with” Bezos as a result.

On April 12, 2018, Defendant Trump followed through on his retaliatory threats, issuing an Executive Order directing a review of the Postal Service’s “unsustainable financial path.” The order included several provisions directed at Amazon, including an order to review the “expansion and pricing of the package delivery market.”

On information and belief, President Trump had by this time repeatedly and personally directed the Postmaster General to raise Amazon’s rates.

Even during the pendency of the review, Defendant Trump continued to threaten further action against Bezos and Amazon and linked his motivation clearly to the Washington Post’s coverage. On July 23, 2018, immediately following reports in the Post that President Trump was unhappy with the progress of talks with North Korea, the President tweeted that “[t]he Amazon Washington Post has gone crazy against me ever since they lost the Internet Tax Case in the U.S. Supreme Court,” i.e. South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. He then renewed his threats to take antitrust action against Amazon and to raise its postal delivery rates. President Trump tweeted “Next up is the U.S. Post Office [sic] which they use, at a fraction of real cost, as their ‘delivery boy’ for a BIG percentage of their packages. . . In my opinion the Washington Post is nothing more than an expensive (the paper loses a fortune) lobbyist for Amazon. Is it used as protection against antitrust claims which many feel should be brought?”

On October 11, 2018, the Postal Service announced proposed rate hikes for its services, to include rate increases of up to 12 percent for the Parcel Select service used by Amazon. On information and belief, this action by the Postal Service would not have been taken but for the President’s clearly expressed desire to punish Amazon for the reporting of the Washington Post.

This really seems like a case where Trump's own words and tweets could potentially sink him. Normally, it would be pretty difficult to directly link something like raising postal rates on Amazon to direct retaliation for coverage in the Washington Post, but as the complaint lays out, because Trump himself has directly (incorrectly) argued that Amazon and the Washington Post are the same, and that the effort to raise rates was to punish Bezos and the Post, it seems like there's a stronger argument here.

The larger issue may be standing. There appear to be strong arguments here for the Washington Post and possibly Bezos himself and/or Amazon to have better standing, but PEN America is a tougher one. The organization tries to get around this by arguing that its members write for the Washington Post and that this has the potential to harm them. That seems like the key point that will be challenged in court. If they can get over the standing question, then it seems like they have a strong argument, mainly because Trump can't keep his mouth shut.

The second issue seems like more of a long shot to me. It's about the DOJ's effort to block the AT&T takeover of Time Warner (that effort has mostly failed). PEN America's suit argues that the DOJ's antitrust enforcement here was really about Trump's well-known animus towards CNN. And he did sometimes mention the merger, as detailed in the complaint:

Defendant Trump has done far more than exercise the right to make known his dislike of CNN’s reporting. At a rally during the 2016 campaign, Defendant Trump threatened to block a proposed merger between Time Warner, CNN’s parent company, and AT&T, once he gained control of the DOJ, and made clear his retaliatory motive for doing so. On October 22, 2016 in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, he denounced the AT&T–Time Warner merger, telling his audience that CNN was part of the media “power structure” trying to suppress his votes. “AT&T is buying Time Warner and thus CNN,” Defendant Trump said, declaring it “a deal we will not approve in my administration.”

Once in office, Defendant Trump followed through on this threat. On information and belief, during the pendency of the AT&T–Time Warner merger review process, advisers to President Trump discussed using the merger approval application as “a potential point of leverage over [CNN].”

On information and belief, DOJ demanded the sale of CNN as a condition of its approval of the merger, leading a source close to the merger process to opine that “[t]his has become political . . . It’s all about CNN.”

This claim seems much weaker than the first. To be clear, it has the same standing issues as the first, but even if we get past those, vague threats to use antitrust action here doesn't mean that's actually what happened. Obviously, the discovery process here would be a big deal, and perhaps they can turn up a smoking gun. But there were plenty of legitimate antitrust reasons to block this merger, so the direct causal line here does seem tough to prove.

Separate from that, however, are threats to use DOJ enforcement powers against Google and other social media companies over the (made up) claim of political bias in search and recommendations. Here, as we've argued, the DOJ appears to be directly positioning the First Amendment-protected moderation and ranking decisions of internet companies as some sort of anti-trust violation. That's clearly in violation of the First Amendment, and the PEN America complaint highlights this as well:

Defendant Trump’s threats to use the DOJ to influence the flow of information to the public is not limited to CNN. On August 28, 2018, he complained, via Twitter, that:

Google search results for ‘Trump News’ shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake News Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of . . . results on ‘Trump News’ are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous. Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!

Hours later, White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow, standing outside the White House, threatened that the Trump Administration is “taking a look” at imposing regulations on Google.

On September 5, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced his intention to convene a meeting of Republican state attorneys general to discuss a possible federal investigation of whether Google, Facebook, and other social media companies are violating antitrust and free speech laws.

On September 22, 2018, the White House leaked a draft Executive Order that would instruct federal law enforcement and antitrust agencies to open investigations into social media companies. This leak was intended to, and did, have a negative market impact on these companies. The intent of leaking this information was to show these companies and other speakers the President dislikes that his White House has the power to significantly injure them with a simple leak if it dislikes their content. The intent of leaking this information was also to incentivize investors to pressure these companies to modify their content to be more to the liking of the President in order to avoid retaliatory actions that could impact the investors’ bottom line.

Once again, the standing issue is a big one here that may be difficult for PEN America to get past. But this kind of activity has clear First Amendment problems. We detailed out a bunch of cases that highlighted how the courts have ruled against politicians and government officials who use the power of their office to intimidate companies into publishing (or not publishing) protected speech.

Next up is Trump's semi-regular threats to "pull" the licenses from major TV networks over negative coverage of his Presidency. He does this every so often even though there aren't any such licenses to pull. Even networks like NBC, ABC and CBS have local licenses for their affiliates, but not a general license for their parent companies -- and Trump can't "pull" those non-existent licenses anyway.

Minutes later, Defendant Trump followed that tweet with another threatening NBC’s broadcast license. “With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!”

Later the same day, Defendant Trump broadened his threat to more outlets: “Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!”

Beyond the standing question (again), the issue here will be the lack of action. It's just Trump venting stupidly on Twitter, and again such licenses don't even exist. Obviously, PEN's argument here is that the local affiliate licenses do exist, and these threats to pull general licenses may be interpreted by them as a threat to pull the local licenses -- and that could impact and influence coverage at the local level. But... that seems like much more of a stretch than the other claims.

Next up are attempts to limit the access of White House reporters to information in the White House.

Defendant Trump’s behavior in denying journalist critics access to information from the White House and about his Administration is a pattern dating back to his campaign. Prior to the election, on August 25, 2015, Defendant Trump had Jorge Ramos, Univision’s lead anchor, removed from a press conference after Ramos tried to ask Defendant Trump a question about immigration policy.

While on the campaign trail, Defendant Trump barred reporters from several news organizations, including the Washington Post, from obtaining press credentials at his rallies, news conferences, and other events.

As President, Defendant Trump has continued to threaten journalists whose coverage or questioning he found unfavorable to him or his Administration with revoking their access to official Administration and White House events.

On information and belief, Defendant Trump has repeatedly directed White House staff to ban reporters critical of his Administration from covering official events or to take away their press credentials. This included reporters from the Washington Post, CNN, and NBC News, and Defendant has specifically told his staff to consider blacklisting Jim Acosta of CNN and April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks in retaliation for their coverage, of which he disapproves.

Again, there's a standing issue here, and I'm a bit surprised PEN America didn't find a journalist to be a co-plaintiff at least on this claim, as that would make it stronger. Beyond that, there are some questions about what standards the White House uses in favoring some journalists over others, that could potentially raise some First Amendment issues. If the decisions are specifically based on their coverage and if it's positive or negative, then there's a stronger case there. The White House, of course, will likely suggest there are other reasons for limiting access to certain journalists.

In the end, this should be an interesting First Amendment case to follow, though I do think the standing question will be a tough hurdle for PEN America, without specifically naming individuals or organizations directly harmed by these actions (some of which do appear to raise big First Amendment questions).

Filed Under: 1st amendment, doj, donald trump, first amendment, free speech, postage rates, standing
Companies: pen america

Will Donald Trump Support A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Now That It's Helped Him Win Stormy Daniels' Defamation Suit?

from the fixing-libel-laws dept

Every few months, it seems, President Trump trots out some nonsense about how our current defamation laws are unfair and he promises to open them up. It keeps happening. And it's not surprising because Trump himself has threatened defamation lawsuits many times, and even occasionally filed an actual defamation lawsuit, such as the one against Tim O'Brien, which Trump lost completely -- though, tellingly he later admitted that he felt like he succeeded in forcing O'Brien to spend money in court:

"I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.'"

Of course it's this kind of thinking that is the reason why we support stronger anti-SLAPP laws and, in particular, a federal anti-SLAPP law to protect people from having to deal with potentially life-ruining defamation lawsuits from those better positioned to handle them. Of course, this is also why we figure that any movement on a federal anti-SLAPP law is dead in the water while Trump is still President. Given his comments on moving libel laws in the other direction, it seems unlikely he'd ever sign such a bill.

But... Trump just won a defamation lawsuit filed by Stormy Daniels, and it was because of a strong anti-SLAPP law in Texas, that might now allow him to go after legal fees as well. Of course, there have been moments when Trump has recognized that "opening up our libel laws" might come back to bite him. As he said in a NY Times interview, when asked about opening up libel laws:

Actually, somebody said to me on that, they said, ‘You know, it’s a great idea, softening up those laws, but you may get sued a lot more.’ I said, ‘You know, you’re right, I never thought about that.’ I said, ‘You know, I have to start thinking about that.’

And now that Trump has successfully used an anti-SLAPP law to get out of a lawsuit, perhaps he'll be a bit more open to the idea of anti-SLAPP laws as well.

This particular lawsuit, brought by Stormy Daniels, represented by Michael Avenatti, was always an incredibly stupid lawsuit that Trump was obviously going to win. There are a bunch of legal disputes and arguments among these two, but just to clarify, back when Daniels was on 60 Minutes, she claimed that she had agreed to tell her story of her affair with Trump back in 2011, but was allegedly threatened in a Las Vegas parking lot:

Then in 2011, after she had agreed to tell her story to In Touch magazine for $15,000, Daniels said she was threatened by a man in a Las Vegas parking lot who warned her to "Leave Trump alone. Forget the story."

Sometime after this, Stormy Daniels had a sketch artist sketch the man she said approached her in Las Vegas. Some Trump supporters noted what they believed to be an uncanny similarity between the eventual sketch and Daniels' ex-husband, and tweeted this. Trump then retweeted one such tweet along with the following text: "A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!"

And it's that tweet that Daniels/Avenatti sued over. Again, this was clearly going nowhere. That tweet is not at all defamatory under the 1st Amendment. In his defense, Trump, who was represented by Charles Harder*, filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that Trump was protected under Texas' anti-SLAPP law, that the case should be dismissed, and that Trump should be awarded attorneys' fees. And the court easily agreed.

* Big disclaimer here: Harder is at this moment representing a plaintiff in a still ongoing lawsuit against me personally (as well as Techdirt), claiming defamation, and in which we made a motion using California's anti-SLAPP law. In the Trump case, however, it is Harder/Trump making use of anti-SLAPP laws (in this case, Texas') and I agree with Harder and Trump that this claim was a SLAPP suit and am glad the case was dismissed.

In their motion for the anti-SLAPP dismissal, Harder argued that Trump's tweet was clearly protected by the First Amendment, and thus the anti-SLAPP law should lead to the dismissal of the case. Frankly, I think Harder makes a very strong argument here:

Here, the Comment nowhere implies that President Trump has any special information or insight as to what did or did not happen in a Las Vegas parking lot in 2011. Rather, he gives an opinion that he does not find Plaintiff’s account credible. This is constitutionally-protected and therefore nonactionable, especially because the Comment arose from a public dispute between a major politician and one of his adversaries.

It does not matter that the President used strident language (“nonexistent,” “con job,” and “fake news”) in expressing his opinion doubting the veracity of Plaintiff’s allegation rather than using more genteel terminology. Rhetorical hyperbole is not actionable as defamation. Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52, 83-84 (Tex. 2013). Courts throughout the United States have routinely held that terminology similar to that used by the President is constitutionally protected opinion and non-actionable. See e.g., McCabe v. Rattiner, 814 F.2d 839, 843 (1st Cir. 1987) (“scam” not defamatory); Oilman v. Evans, 750 F.2d 970, 987 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (en banc) (political columnist labeling a political figure a “Marxist” not defamatory); Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 282-83 (1974) (use of term “scab” in labor dispute not defamatory); Buckley v. Littell, 539 F.2d 882, 893-94 (2d Cir. 1976) (labeling political writer a “fascist” not defamatory); Greene v. State, 21 So.3d 348, 352 (La. App. 2009) (labeling state employee “pathological liar” not actionable).

Any finding by the Court that the Comment has a defamatory meaning and is not protected opinion could have a chilling effect on political debate throughout the United States forever. Politicians frequently express their opinions about their political adversaries, often in strident and blunt terms. In 1964, for instance, Lyndon Johnson ran an advertisement that implied his opponent, Barry Goldwater, would start a nuclear war. John Kennedy campaigned against incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon in 1960 based on claims of a “missile gap” with the Soviet Union that turned out to be grossly misleading. Bill Clinton allegedly misstated the budget deficit in his 1992 campaign against George H.W. Bush. None of these statements were anything more than opinions, and none could or should form the basis of a defamation suit.

Indeed, since the founding of our republic, politicians have often expressed their opinions by branding their opponents as “liars.” Doing so does not subject every such politician to a defamation claim. President Trump himself has expressed his opinions regarding multiple adversaries, sometimes referring to his opponents by colorful names such as “Lyin’ Ted” and “Crooked Hillary.” A defamation standard that turns typical political rhetoric into actionable defamation would chill expression that is central to the First Amendment and political speech.

It's a strong argument. And the judge easily agreed, noting that the tweet was clearly rhetorical hyperbole:

The Court agrees with Mr. Trump's argument because the tweet in question constitutes "rhetorical hyperbole" normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States. The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement.

"It is well settled that 'the meaning of a publication, and thus whether it is false and defamatory, depends on a reasonable person's perception of the entirety of a publication and not merely on individual statements." See Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561, 579 (Tex. 2002) (quoting Turner v. KTROK Television, Inc., 38 S.W. 3d 103, 115 (Tex. 2000)). To assess whether a statement is "rhetorical hyperbole," this Court looks to the statement "as a whole in light of the surrounding circumstances and based upon how a person of ordinary intelligence would perceive it."

Furthermore:

The instant case is similar to Rehak in that Mr. Trump, as President, made a hyperbolic statement against a person who has sought to publicly present herself as a political adversary to him. In filings before this Court, Ms. Clifford has challenged the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's victory in the 2016 Presidential election. Mr. Trump's tweet served as a public rejoinder to allegations made by Plaintiff. If this Court were to prevent Mr. Trump from engaging in this type of "rhetorical hyperbole" against a political adversary, it would significantly hamper the office of the President. Any strongly-worded response by a president to another politician or public figure could constitute an action for defamation. This would deprive this country of the "discourse" common to the political process. In short, should Plaintiff publicly voice her opinions about Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump is entitled to publicly voice non-actionable opinions about Plaintiff. To allow Plaintiff to proceed with her defamation action would, in effect, permit Plaintiff to make public allegations against the President without giving him the opportunity to respond. Such a holding would violate the First Amendment.

And thus, in the end, Trump wins his anti-SLAPP ruling and can now move to seek legal fees if he so chooses. Of course, Avenatti -- in a now deleted tweet -- called the ruling "limited":

It is not, in any way, limited. It is the proper application of Texas' anti-SLAPP law to a bogus defamation claim which Avenatti himself admits is part of an effort to cost Trump more money through the other lawsuits Avenatti has going against Trump. Soon afterwards Avenatti posted that he had already appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit appeals court:

He and Daniels will almost certainly lose this appeal and Trump will almost certainly win. But the real question is whether or not this helps Trump recognize the value of strong anti-SLAPP laws. It seems like now would be a good time for Congress to finally move on the federal anti-SLAPP law, while reminding Trump that it may have just saved him a bunch of money...

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, charles harder, donald trump, first amendment, free speech, michael avenatti, stormy daniels, texas

DOJ, Trump Decide The Federal Government Needs To Give Chicago The Police Department It Doesn't Want

from the Judge-Dredd-appointed-to-advisory-role dept

In a move that's tone deaf if nothing else, the DOJ is going to court to block a consent decree put in place to overhaul Chicago's unconstitutional policing. This announcement comes days after a jury convicted Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke of second-degree murder for killing 17-year-old Laquan McDonald. He was also convicted of 16 counts of aggravated battery -- one count for each bullet he fired at the teen as the teen walked away from him.

This also follows more tone-deafness from the "law and order" presidency. Trump's speech to a law enforcement convention contained several comments about Chicago and its perceived police problem. But the problem Trump sees is police not policing hard enough. Trump wants stop-and-frisk brought back -- one of the key modifications contained in the consent decree.

Stop-and-frisk programs encourage unconstitutional stops. Just ask the NYPD, which saw its program changed drastically following a lawsuit brought against the city. Police officials and then-mayor Mike Bloomberg promised a dramatic spike in crime if officers weren't allowed to engage in suspicionless stops/frisks. This never materialized. Crime went down across the board.

Trump thinks a return to unconstitutional practices will solve Chicago's violent crime problem, but there's no evidence out there that provides a basis for this belief. Violent crime is already declining in Chicago, even without unconstitutional stops. What Trump wants is something people in Chicago don't want. And that includes the people who matter -- like Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel said he welcomes federal reinforcements — in the form of more ATF, DEA and FBI agents — to “take down gang leadership” and stop the “drug trade.”

But that’s not the kind of help Donald Trump is offering. Returning to the more intensive “stop-and-frisk” procedures would run contrary to Chicago’s ongoing effort to repair shattered public trust between citizens and police, the mayor said.

“The failed policies he’s talking about have no place for a city that’s working together with communities about how to build — not only trust, but a collaborative and cooperative relationship,” the mayor said Monday.

“So, while resources are always welcome, the idea of what President Trump is talking about is not only not welcome — it’s antithetical to what we’re working on, and that is about a strong, pro-active, professional police department.”

Nonetheless, the DOJ will try to block the consent decree that might rebuild some of the trust the Chicago PD has thoroughly destroyed over the past several years. Why? Because the president said so.

Following an order from President Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions today announced that he is providing more resources for law enforcement in Chicago and filing a brief opposing a proposed consent decree on Chicago police.

The rationale is even worse. According to AG Jeff Sessions, the spike in violent crime in Chicago (which, again, has declined 20% over the last year) is due to police being hampered by the Constitution and not enough respect being shown by the general public.

There is one government institution, and one alone, that has the ability to make Chicago safer—that is the Chicago Police Department. Our goal should be to empower it to fulfill its duties, not to restrict its proper functioning or excessively demean the entire Department for the errors of a few. Make no mistake: unjustified restrictions on proper policing and disrespect for our officers directly led to this tragic murder surge in Chicago.

At a fundamental level, there is a misperception that police are the problem and that their failures, their lack of training, and their abuses create crime. But the truth is the police are the solution to crime, and criminals are the problem. The results of the ACLU settlement in November 2015, as revealed by Judge Cassel’s study, established this fact dramatically, conclusively, and most painfully for the City of Chicago. When police are restrained from using lawfully established policies of community engagement, when arrests went down, and when their work and character were disrespected, crime surged. There must never be another consent decree that continues the folly of the ACLU settlement.

"Unjustified restrictions on proper policing" apparently includes the Fourth Amendment. That's just the beginning of this garbage. From there, Sessions moves on to cite the only study on policing he agrees with -- one that decides correlation equals causation and ties increases in violent crime to a civil rights lawsuit settlement. The study has nothing to say about similar cities undergoing similar modifications to police programs that have not experienced violent crime increases. It's almost as if its authors started from their conclusion and worked backwards.

Sessions loves this faulty study and thinks it provides some sort of scientific basis for encroaching on civil liberties under the guise of making the city safer. But he's wrong about this, just like he's wrong about everything else in his statement.

Zachary Fardon, a former US attorney working in Chicago, says the DOJ's plan to block the consent decree will make things worse for the city and the Chicago PD. The problem isn't Constitutional restraints on policing. The problem is the relationship the PD has with the people it's supposed to protect.

What’s at stake here is not just constitutional policing. Lives are at stake. People are dying. Children are dying. Our city suffers, year after year.

Law enforcement is not the entire solution, but it’s a big part. A consent decree will give our cops support, training and the credibility they need to engage in effective and constitutional policing. A consent decree will give our South and West side citizens greater trust in our officers and institutions, and greater safety in their neighborhoods.

If Sessions spent more time in violence-afflicted neighborhoods, he would know that we still have kids who are growing up more afraid of police than of gangs. When that changes, we mark the beginning of a new Chicago.

The Chicago Tribune's editorial board is even more scathing in its assessment of Jeff Sessions' bumptious interloping:

Thank you for your interest in Chicago’s police consent decree, now in its final stages of development. We are confident your “statement of interest” will be given due consideration by U.S. District Judge Robert M. Dow Jr., who will hold public hearings on the draft agreement later this month.

We have just one question: Where were you in early 2017, when Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel pledged to follow through on the consent decree prescribed by the U.S. Department of Justice you took over when the White House changed hands?

Oh, now we remember: You wanted no part of it. You believed then, as you do now, that worrying about the civil rights of suspects gets in the way of fighting crime. Instead of doubling down on the hard work that had been done in Chicago, you tried (unsuccessfully) to torpedo Baltimore’s consent decree, which was then at this same public hearing stage.

If citizens don't trust the police, they won't report crimes, provide testimony, or supply evidence. All of this exacerbates the city's violent crime problem. When they see officers unwilling to do their jobs at all, let alone Constitutionally, they see there's no point in asking them for help. And when they see officers routinely escape punishment for misconduct and excessive force deployment, they begin to believe the cure might be at least as bad as the disease.

As the editorial points out, if Sessions really wanted to solve Chicago's problems, he wouldn't be trying to block a consent decree crafted with an eye on rebuilding destroyed trust. It ends with this extended middle finger.

Chicago doesn’t need or appreciate your drive-by assessment.

Trump and Sessions both believe the problem with American policing is that officers aren't being given the respect that is their God-given right. That's the beginning and end of it. The Constitution is just standing in the way of enforcing the law. Both are telling law enforcement agencies what they want to hear: that they're persecuted and misunderstood. Not a single member of this administration is willing to tell them what they need to hear: that destroyed trust takes time to rebuild and it can never be restored by engaging in the same behavior that destroyed it.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, chicago, consent decree, doj, donald trump, jeff sessions, policing, stop and frisk

Court: Trump's 'Get 'Em Out' Order Directed At Campaign Rally Protesters Is Protected Speech

from the hope-he-remembers-how-much-1st-A-covers-the-next-time-he-issues-legal-threats dept

The Sixth Circuit Appeals Court has taken a look at some of President Trump's campaign trail trash talk and decided urging fans to remove protesters wasn't incitement, even if the phrasing was a bit graceless. (h/t Elizabeth Joh)

The plaintiffs -- Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah, and Henry Brosseau -- attended a Trump campaign rally for the express purpose of protesting it. There's nothing wrong with that. It's the sort of thing that happens all the time, even if Trump tends to draw more detractors than most. During his speech, Trump had his critics ejected, telling attendees to "get 'em out of here."

The plaintiffs, having been unceremoniously ejected (with some extra jostling from Trump supporters), sued, claiming Trump's "get 'em out of here" directly caused them harm and violated the state of Kentucky's riot incitement law.

The Appeals Court disagrees [PDF] with this assessment, using the plaintiffs' own statements to undo their assertions. But it's not happy with the lower court's decision to apply a less strict standard to Trump's wording to give the plaintiffs a better shot at hitting the mark with their state claims ("incitement to riot"). Applying the plausibility standard -- that Trump's "get 'em out of here" could have conceivably incited a riot -- makes no sense if the lower court wasn't willing to apply that same standard to words Trump said directly after that.

Focusing on the former statement, the district court held that it “implicitly” encouraged the use of violence. Id. at 727. Yet, even if “get ’em out of here,” standing alone, might be reasonably construed as implicitly encouraging unwanted physical touching, the charge here is “inciting to riot.” The notion that Trump’s direction to remove a handful of disruptive protesters from among hundreds or thousands in attendance could be deemed to implicitly incite a riot is simply not plausible—especially where any implication of incitement to riotous violence is explicitly negated by the accompanying words, “don’t hurt ’em.” If words have meaning, the admonition “don’t hurt ’em” cannot be reasonably construed as an urging to “hurt ’em.”

Even if the appeals court had decided Trump's words (but only some of them) didn't mean what they appeared to mean ("don't hurt 'em" = "hurt 'em"?), the president would still be able to walk away from this lawsuit intact. What Trump said during his campaign was not a threat nor any other speech standing outside the protections of the First Amendment.

Under the Brandenburg test, only speech that explicitly or implicitly encourages the imminent use of violence or lawless action is outside the protection of the First Amendment. This looks like a close analogue for the kind of speech required to make out the charge of inciting to riot under Kentucky law. It follows that if we were to hold that plaintiffs’ allegations do state a plausible incitement-to-riot claim under Kentucky law, the claim might be expected to fall outside the protection of the First Amendment under the Brandenburg test. What comes with the constitutional standard, however, is an illustrative body of case law. And what this case law makes clear is that, even if plaintiffs’ allegations could be deemed to make out a plausible claim for incitement to riot under Kentucky law, the First Amendment would not permit prosecution of the claim.

As the court notes, what Trump said may have been taken by attendees as an invitation to inflict violence. Trump may even have hoped some would act on these urges even with the tossed-off addition of "don't hurt 'em." But what he said was Constitutionally protected, no matter how unsavory or subjectively threatening the expelled protesters might have felt his statements were. For the court to step in and declare these words illegal would be a step too far.

[A]s a nation, we have chosen to protect unrefined, disagreeable, and even hurtful speech to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. The First Amendment demands governmental tolerance of speech, in the name of freedom…

The court isn't there to second-guess the speaker's intent. It's there to weigh the Constitutionality of the statements. "Get 'em out of here" isn't capable of directly inciting violence. The government has steered clear of punishing far worse speech in far more volatile situations. The court says it's not willing to cross that line, especially not when the perceived incitement was immediately negated by the next words out of Trump's mouth.

Filed Under: donald trump, first amendment, free speech, henry brosseau, incitement, kashiya nwanguma, molly shah, protestors, rallies