Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Announces On Twitter The Livestreaming On Facebook Of His Signing Of A Bill That Removes 1st Amendment Rights For Both

from the you-did-what-now? dept

We've talked a bunch about just how incredibly unconstitutional Texas's social media content moderation bill, HB20 is, so I don't really need to cover any of that again. You can look it up -- or just read how a court found Florida's similar bill unconstitutional.

Still, the entire point of this bill is to play up a culture war for grandstanding politicians, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott wants to grandstand with the best of them (even if he's a pathetic copy of some of the other grandstanders in his party). Even so, it still was quite something to see Abbott announce on Twitter that people should watch him on Facebook as he signed the bill into law -- a bill that would attempt to remove the 1st Amendment rights against compelled speech from both companies.

He's doing this on the same day that the Justice Department is suing Texas for its equally unconstitutional anti-abortion "let everyone sue everyone and let the courts sort it out" bill.

I know that some people are concerned about this bill, and what awful things it will do for social media, but all it's really going to do is waste a ton of taxpayer money in Texas, which Abbott and the other faux culture warriors want to use as basically taxpayer-funded campaign dollars to get their names in the headlines, talking about they're "fighting for free speech" when all they're doing is removing 1st Amendment rights, abusing the power the voters entrusted with them, and throwing their money away on lawyers who have nothing legitimate to defend.

It's political theater, with your speech and your tax dollars being held hostage. No one should accept this as reasonable, but these are the times we live in, where corruption and violations of the oath of office for the sake of some dumb culture war are more important than governing and doing what's right.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, compelled speech, content moderation, greg abbott, hb20, social media, texas
Companies: facebook, twitter

US Attorney Blames Violent Crime Spike In Austin, Texas On Police Budget Cuts That Haven't Even Been Implemented Yet

from the despite-reforms,-tables-continue-to-be-pounded-by-law-enforcement dept

Movements to "defund" law enforcement agencies have sprung up around the nation, trailing the protests against police violence that spread across the country following the killing of an unarmed black man by Minneapolis police officers in May.

In most cases, no one's looking to completely dismantle the local police force. Instead, legislators and activists are seeking to move some of their funding to other areas -- like social services, mental health care, and other crime reduction efforts that shouldn't involve armed officers. This hasn't stopped police departments -- which often command outsized percentages of city budgets -- from complaining they're being dismantled and that these efforts will lead to outbreaks of violent crime.

One of the agencies complaining about defunding and violent crime is the Austin Police Department. And a federal official is pitching in with the complaining. A recent press conference held by the US Attorney's Office claims Austin's defunding effort has led to more crime.

With murders in Austin up 55% over the previous year, U.S. Attorney Gregg N. Sofer, joined by dozens of federal, state and local law enforcement officials, announced in Austin today the implementation of Operation Undaunted, a program designed to tackle the rising violent crime rate, interrupt violence, protect innocent life and restore peace to Austin neighborhoods.

“When you defund the police, relax enforcement of existing criminal law, and release repeat offenders and violent criminals into our streets, increased violence is exactly what you can expect,” said U.S. Attorney Sofer. “Despite the challenges of the coronavirus and the unfair vilification of the entire law enforcement community, we remain undaunted in our commitment to protect the residents of central and west Texas.

More dubious than the assertion that any "vilification" of law enforcement is "unfair" is Sofer's claim that defunding the Austin PD has led to an increase in violent crime. The Austin PD is losing some funding (but will still command 40% of the city's general fund), but almost none of it has taken effect yet.

The only thing the Austin PD has "lost" at this point is some officers who aren't even officers yet.

In August, the council voted unanimously to eliminate upcoming cadet classes in the troubled police academy, diverting $20 million to programs that address homelessness, mental health, and family violence prevention.

A crime rate increase in 2020 is completely unrelated to budget cuts that won't take effect until 2021.

Over the course of the year following the budget vote, another $80 million will be reallocated from the department by placing some functions, such as forensics and 911 dispatch, within other parts of the city’s government. The council also flagged another $50 million for “community led” review.

The problem the US Attorney is trying to externalize as defunding is actually an internal problem.

Notably, not a single officer was laid off to accommodate the budget changes.

The Austin PD still has all of its officers and almost all of its resources. All it's missing are some graduates from the police academy. And it may not be missing those for long.

[T]he council said it may allow one or two cadet classes to begin in fiscal year 2021 if a revised curriculum is completed and a "more appropriate recruitment program" is implemented. It will also consider attrition rates, pension impacts and additional funding as factors influencing its decision on cadet classes.

This is the unfair vilification of police reform efforts -- ones that route some funds to social and mental health support services, which should hopefully allow the PD to focus on more dangerous crime, rather than send officers to arrest homeless residents or those suffering from mental health episodes.

If violent crime is spiking, it's still on the PD. It hasn't lost any resources yet. And -- despite idiots like Governor Greg Abbott swallowing this BS about defunding and crime spikes -- an increase in crime is just that: an increase. Crime rates may return to their historic lows. Or it may be the leading edge of years of increased crime. But all it is right now is an increase over last year's rate, which indicates almost nothing on its own. It's certainly can't be attributed to budget cuts that haven't even been implemented yet.

Filed Under: austin, crime, defund the police, doj, greg abbott, gregg sofer, texas, us attorney

Texas Governor Latest To Ask For A 'Hate Crime' Law That Covers Attacks On Cops

from the red-tape-around-a-blue-line dept

Yet another politician can be added to the list of people who think police officers just don't have enough protections as is. Following in the footsteps of legislators in New Jersey and Minnesota -- along with Rep. Ken Buck (CO) -- Texas governor Greg Abbott has decided it's time to treat attacking officers as a "hate crime."

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) wants the targeted killing of a police officer to be deemed a hate crime in Texas and urged lawmakers to send him such a bill to sign during next year’s legislative session.

Abbott announced Monday his plan to lobby for adding his Police Protection Act to Texas law. Along with extending hate-crime protections to law enforcement, the measure would also increase criminal penalties for any crimes in which the victim is a law enforcement officer and “create a culture of respect for law enforcement by organizing a campaign to educate young Texans on the value law enforcement officers bring to their communities,” according to a statement from Abbott’s office.

Nothing "creates a culture of respect" like handing beneficiaries of a host of "extra rights" even more protection in the form of stiffer penalties just because the victim was wearing a certain uniform. As Fault Line's JoAnne Musick points out, "hate crime" laws are generally enacted to provide greater protections for historically underprotected classes, not those already in positions of power.

Are police an otherwise vulnerable group? Is violence against an officer intended to hurt or intimidate the entire police community? Are crimes against officers underreported and in need of encouragement to prosecute them? Plain and simple, the answers are no. Police are not particularly more vulnerable. In fact, they are better trained and greater equipped to protect each other and themselves. Crimes against police are rarely underreported. They are most definitely heavily prosecuted – as they should be. So, why is there a need to create a special class?

The Dallas shooting that left five officers dead is the only reason this call for legislation even exists. It's a kneejerk reaction that shifts even more power to the powerful. It's sure to gather support from legislators because who could possibly be opposed to punishing cop killers? Add to that the further consolidation of power it represents and there's very little chance someone won't run this up the legislative flagpole. After all, the governor himself is calling for legislation, so it's guaranteed to become law if it hits his desk. That's an easy win -- something legislators like almost as much as jingoism and "tough on crime" posturing.

Rather than address the issues that have led to this (seeming) flashpoint (despite the recent murders of police officers, numbers are still on track for another "normal" year in on-duty officer deaths), politicians like Abbott have decided to give law enforcement yet another tool to use to significantly harm anyone who doesn't immediately comply with their commands. And this is in a state that already adds years to sentences if the crime victim is a police officer.

[A] simple assault is a class A misdemeanor carrying a punishment of up to one year in jail; however a simple assault against a police officer is a third degree felony punishable up to 10 years in prison.

That's the current law. Abbott wants something above and beyond this. Simple assault, under current Texas law, includes simply threatening someone or "provocatively" making physical contact. Push back when being arrested? That's assault. Accidentally bump an officer's elbow while attempting to comply with a frisk? Assault. The law already encourages prosecutors to pile on. This would make it even worse.

The underlying issues, which have prompted a horrifically violent reaction, aren't going to be mitigated by giving law enforcement and prosecutors even more leverage. Greg Prickett -- a 20-year veteran of law enforcement -- points out that the current miserable state of affairs can't be blamed on anything other than law enforcement's own actions over the past few decades. According to Prickett, this is what's prompted the shooting of law enforcement officers.

It’s simple, really. It is militarization of the police coupled with a lack of accountability for their actions.

Law enforcement has shifted away from being an integral part of the communities they serve and opted instead to view themselves as an occupying force in a war zone. The weapons and vehicles are repurposed military gear. Officers' training goes heavy on force deployment. Very rarely are tactics like de-escalation or actual community-oriented policing given any priority. While there's no condoning the actions of people who kill cops, the reality is that law enforcement itself has shown over the years that its preferred method of communication is violence. It's the only thing it truly understands.

Governor Abbott may think he can reverse this course by throwing more prison time at certain criminals, but it's not going to stop people from killing cops. All it's really going to do is give officers and prosecutors a way to inflict maximum pain for the most minimal injury or perceived slight.

Filed Under: cops, greg abbott, hate crime, police shootings, texas

Texas Attorney General 'Investigating' Google, With Little Basis In Reality

from the not-this-again dept

I'm beginning to think we need a series of posts on "State Attorneys General Gone Wild." We've discussed the insider's view from Topix' Chris Tolles about how state attorneys general grandstand against tech sites, despite having absolutely no legal basis. We've seen it happen over and over and over and over and over again (most recently with Craigslist -- a favorite target).

Late Friday, the news broke that Texas' AG was "investigating" Google for antitrust violations, using the trio of companies that have been mentioned for a while now -- Foundem, MyTriggers and TradeComet -- who have all been making a stink about how Google is somehow violating antitrust laws because those three sites don't like their rankings in Google. All three claim that they're competitors to Google, and Google is somehow trying to hold them down. This is, frankly, ridiculous. As has been explained over and over again, rankings are an opinion, protected by free speech rights. And, furthermore, if Google was really trying to keep competitors down, wouldn't it actually focus on players that actually matter in the space? Besides, if you look on Google, you can easily find highly ranked links to all sorts of Google competitors. It's also worth mentioning, of course, that all three of these companies have some sort of connection to Microsoft.

So, once again, we have some silly grandstanding, and it's not at all clear what Texas has to do with any of this. None of the companies are based in Texas, and Google's not breaking any laws here. It seems like just more grandstanding by a state AG against Google. It'll be interesting to see what happens, because unlike sites like Topix and Craigslist, Google might actually have enough clout to not just give in and settle.

Meanwhile, Danny Sullivan does a nice job summarizing the ridiculousness of this (that's the link above):

My view is the arguments are generally absurd. None of these companies are large enough to pose any threat to Google, to the degree it would be compelled to take such stupid action. Moreover, if Google's going to act to block a competitor, I'd expect it to pick bigger targets -- say like Microsoft.

And for the legal view, we turn to Eric Goldman who sums it up with the title "Are You Kidding Me???":

I'm always amazed by people who forget that Google's organic search and ad ordering are editorial processes fully protected by the First Amendment. Part of this myopia is Google's own fault. It has so successfully sold itself as a technology platform that we forget about the editorial processes embedded in its core business. As a result of those judgments, any legal challenges to Google's search practices runs squarely into serious First Amendment considerations.

I'm also intrigued by the potential role of 47 USC 230(c)(2), a federal law which basically insulates websites' filtering decisions from any state law causes of action (except state wiretapping laws and possibly state IP claims). The interplay between 230(c)(2) and antitrust claims is hardly clear, but it's possible that the Texas AG's efforts are completely preempted by the federal statute.

Goldman also wonders what the actual result would be if Texas AG Greg Abbott "succeeds" in forcing Google to change its ranking process: "Let's assume Texas can actually establish a case against Google's algorithms. Then what? Will Greg Abbott start telling Google how it should run its search engine? It's hard to imagine that the cure will be better than the disease."

Finally, and in a way that no one else can, the folks over at Groklaw has an astoundingly detailed look at how ridiculous this claim is.

Filed Under: antitrust, greg abbott, texas
Companies: foundem, google, microsoft, mytriggers, tradecomet