Rhode Island Governor Dumps Revenge Porn Bill In Favor Of Upholding First Amendment

from the saving-rights,-making-enemies dept

In an unexpected turn of events, Rhode Island's governor has chosen the First Amendment over the hot button issue of revenge porn. One of several bad bills recently introduced by legislators (the others being a dreadful CFAA clone and badly-written "cybercrime" bill) is dead, killed by a politician who actually realized the potential damage to free speech it might have caused.

In her veto message signed late Monday night, [Governor Gina] Raimondo said: "The bill is apparently intended to curb the dissemination of private sexual material over the internet, but its sweep is much broader. It could also cover works of art that depict the human body. And unlike virtually all other similar state statutes, H7537 does not include basic safeguards such as the requirement that 'intent to harass' be demonstrated for conduct to be criminal."

"The breadth and lack of clarity may have a chilling effect on free speech," she wrote. "The right course of action is to follow the example of other states, and craft a more carefully worded law that specifically addresses the problem of revenge porn, without implicating other types of constitutionally protected speech."

The bill, as many of them are, was introduced in a misguided attempt to solve a problem by bashing away at it with the largest legislative hammer. Almost everyone agrees revenge porn is terrible, but only a small minority of those seem interested in handling the issue with the finesse it demands. Instead of narrowly-crafted bills, we get broadly-worded bluster that threatens to swallow up protected speech along with the revenge porn the bills so poorly target.

This veto is unusual, because there's hardly anything more damaging to a political career than refusing to accept "do something" as an answer -- especially when opposing such a bill tends to get a person painted as sympathetic to repulsive humans who traffic in other people's misery.

But wanting to do something, and doing something that isn’t unconstitutional, are different things. Much as the main movers against revenge porn have shamelessly “lied and denied” about the constitutionality of criminalizing protected speech, and state legislatures have enacted laws following their model. Thus far, only one has been tested, in Arizona, and it failed miserably.

Governor Raimondo has the honor of the first veto, which is something to be quite proud of. No one gives a prize for respecting the Constitution anymore, particularly in the face of sad tears and stories of woe.

That's the problem with issues like these: the forward motion is usually propelled by emotion... and little else. All too often, legislators are somewhat aware of the constitutional issues, but somehow rationalize the damage away as being minimal compared to the evil being fought.

The answer to the revenge porn problem isn't simple. On the plus side, it's evident from multiple prosecutions of revenge porn site owners that existent laws are capable of handling the problem. In some cases, the approach is indirect, but it still achieves the same ends. People who profit from revenge porn tend to violate other laws, rather than limit their actions to this particular legal gray area.

But it's a bold move for a governor to step up and shut down a bad bill, rather than allow the courts to do her work for her. For that, Governor Raimondo should be applauded, especially as she's already being portrayed as sympathetic to revenge porn site operators, rather than to everyone else whose free speech would have been negatively affected by the legislation.

Filed Under: due process, first amendment, gina raimondo, revenge porn, rhode island

State Treasurer Cites Anomalous Kidnapping Case, Office Distraction In Denying Newspaper Access To State Pension Fund Records

from the because-DANGER-and-also-office-gossip dept

In the supposed interest of safety (among other things), Rhode Island's state treasurer is seeking to keep management contracts a secret -- but only for a select group of managers. Here's the impetus:

Citing the case of Eddie Lampert, an investor who was abducted in 2003 by ransom-seeking kidnappers, the letter to Assistant Rhode Island Attorney General Michael Field from Raimondo’s office further argued that disclosing too much information about financial fees and compensation could endanger the lives of hedge fund managers.

Notice that it's only hedge fund management Rhode Island treasurer Gina Raimondo is concerned about. Although upper level management in other industries is likely compensated at rates attractive to ransom-seeking kidnappers, Raimondo just wants this select few to be exempt from public disclosure. This is for several reasons, but mostly this reason:

Raimondo is a Democrat who founded one of the financial firms that manages Rhode Island pension money.

Raimondo's letter, in addition to raising ridiculous kidnapping fears (the thing that happened ONE TIME, more than a decade ago), also claims that publicizing hedge fund managers' compensation makes it hard to get any work done around the office.

"Fund managers keep this information confidential to help preserve the productivity of their staff and to minimize attention around their own compensation..."

These reasons were all cited in the state's refusal to disclose details of hedge fund management contracts to Rhode Island's largest newspaper, the Providence Journal. Not covered in the refusal letter was Raimondo's involvement in steering billions of dollars of state pensions into funds with higher risks and higher fees, or that Raimondo's firm, Point Judith, receives a cut of the $7.7 billion at stake.

Of course, the spokesperson for the treasurer's office claimed the office was all about transparency.

“Rhode Island has become a national leader in disclosing management and performance fees paid to all investment managers, including hedge funds, private equity, equity and fixed income managers." The state has disclosed the total fees paid to financial managers while merely withholding the management contracts, the treasurer's office maintains.

Her office also maintains that Raimondo has done everything possible to insure her position avoids any conflicts of interest. And yet, her office tells journalists it won't be releasing public records about state pensions. If I were a government official foisting some sort of new surveillance on the public, I would say this lack of openness indicates Raimondo has something to hide. But I'm not one of those people. Instead, I'm just more than a little cynical which, oddly enough, brings me to the same conclusion.

It's hardly surprising that a government official would try to use fear (kidnapping!) as an excuse to keep public records away from the public. This tactic informs nearly every FOIA request refusal from our nation's investigative and intelligence agencies. This misdirection is used to excuse all sorts of misconduct from law enforcement officers. This is also used to ensure backroom deals stay hidden in the back room. If Raimondo has truly "taken all recommended steps" to avoid conflicts of interest, then she should have no problem turning over these contracts. But she's gone the other way, surprising no one and further widening the distance between her office and the public it's supposed to be serving.

Filed Under: eddie lampert, foia, gina raimondo, public records, rhode island, state treasurer