California Cities Voting On Ridiculous Resolution Asking Congress For Section 230 Reform... Because Of Violence At Protests?

from the what-the-even-fuck-is-this? dept

I attended an Internet Archive event (virtually, of course) yesterday, and afterwards one of the attendees alerted me to yet another nefarious attack on Section 230 based on out-and-out lies. Apparently the League of California Cities has been going around getting various California cities to vote on a completely misleading and bogus motion pushing for Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It was apparently put up first by the city of Cerritos, which is part of Los Angeles County (almost surprised it wasn't started in Hollywood, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the impetus behind it was Hollywood people...). Basically, cities are voting on whether or not the League of California Cities should officially call on Congress to amend Section 230 in drastic ways... all because of some violence at recent protests about police brutality. The process, apparently, is that one city (in this case Cerritos) makes the proposal, and gets a bunch of other cities to first sign on, and then various other cities take a vote as to whether it becomes official League policy (after which they'd send a letter to Congress, which Congress would probably ignore).

And, if you just read the nonsense that the originating proposal put out there, and had no idea how Section 230, the internet, the 1st Amendment or the 4th Amendment works, it might sound like a good idea. Except that what the proposal says is utter nonsense, disconnected from reality.

This resolution states that the League of California Cities should urge Congress to amend Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) to limit the immunity provided to online platforms where their forums enable criminal activity to be promoted.

Ultimately, the policy objectives proposed under this resolution, if enacted, would incentivize social media companies to establish and implement a reasonable program to identify and remove content that solicits criminal activity.

Except that Section 230 already says there's no immunity for platforms if they enable federal criminal activity. So this is a made up concern. Second, if you changed 230 in the manner they want, they're simply wrong that it "would incentivize social media companies to establish and implement a reasonable program to identify and remove content that solicits criminal activity." Because every major social media platform already has such a program. The problem is not that they don't have incentives. The problem is that not everyone will ever agree on what the "right" moderation is.

Incredibly, the proposal handwaves away the idea that putting more liability on internet websites might lead to more censorship:

While there is certainly an argument to substantiate concerns around censorship, the use of social media as a tool for organizing violence is equally disturbing.

Tomato, tomahto.

Also, the proposal seems to blame violence that broke out at various protests this summer... on social media, claiming that's why 230 must change.

Although the majority of protests were peaceful, some demonstrations in cities escalated into riots, looting, and street skirmishes with police. While much of the nation’s focus has been on addressing police misconduct, police brutality, and systemic racism, some have used demonstrators’ peaceful protests on these topics as opportunities to loot and/or vandalize businesses, almost exclusively under the guise of the “Black Lives Matter” movement. It has been uncovered that these “flash robs” were coordinated through the use of social media. The spontaneity and speed of the attacks enabled by social media make it challenging for the police to stop these criminal events as they are occurring, let alone prevent them from commencing altogether.

As these events started occurring across the country, investigators quickly began combing through Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram seeking to identify potentially violent extremists, looters, and vandals and finding ways to charge them after — and in some cases before — they sow chaos. While this technique has alarmed civil liberties advocates, who argue the strategy could negatively impact online speech, law enforcement officials claim it aligns with investigation strategies employed in the past.

So, let me get this straight. First, we should blame social media -- and not police brutality and militarization -- for the cases where violence has broken out at a few protests. And the way to deal with violence organized on social media is to... hold the social media platforms liable rather than those that engaged in or encouraged the violence? Are these people for real?

Also, the full proposal goes way beyond what is described regarding violence at protests. This is what it says:

1. Online platforms must establish and implement a reasonable program to identify and take down content which solicits criminal activity; and
2. Online platforms must provide to law enforcement information which will assist in the identification and apprehension of persons who use the services of the platform to solicit and to engage in criminal activity; and
3. An online platform that willfully or negligently fails in either of these duties is not immune from enforcement of state and local laws which impose criminal or civil liability for such failure.

That would be a massive and problematic change to Section 230. First, as it stands, websites already have tremendous incentive to identify and take down content which solicits criminal activity -- and many of them try to do exactly that. Changing 230 will not change that -- but will lead to fewer places for people to communicate and put tremendous limits on the ability to speak freely online.

The second prong has nothing to do with Section 230 and raises significant 4th Amendment concerns about when a website should have to hand over private information on someone without any warrant or judicial review. That should be frightening to everyone.

This entire proposal is horrifically authoritarian, and is questionable on both 1st and 4th Amendment grounds, but a bunch of cities are signing onto it because the proposal is extremely misleading about how the internet works, how Section 230 works, and what this all means. While I'm not sure that Congress really gives a shit what the League of California Cities has to say about Section 230, it's yet another way in which people from all over the place are attacking the law that made the internet, because they're mad that people they don't like are doing stuff they don't like.

Thankfully, at least one California city has rejected the proposal. Last night the city of Hayward rejected the proposal, despite it getting support from the local police chief and the city attorney who, I'm told, used the totally bogus "fire in a crowded theater" line, suggesting that was the law of the land (it's not) and other wrong and misleading cliches, including "freedom of speech isn't free." Thankfully, some on the city council (and the mayor) seemed to recognize that this was a dangerous, half-baked proposal and voted it down. I hope other cities do the same.

Filed Under: california, cerritos, hayward, protests, section 230, violence
Companies: league of california cities

ACLU, Lawyers Group Sue Cali Police Department Over $3,000 Fee Demand For Body Cam Footage

from the fingers-crossed-for-a-fee-shift dept

Once again, a government agency is attempting to price itself out of the public records market. The Hayward (CA) police department told the National Lawyers Guild that it needed to come up with $3,000 before it would turn over requested body camera footage.

In response to this gouging, the ACLU, in conjunction with the NLG, has opened up its wallet legal fund.

The suit alleges that, on Jan. 27, 2015, the NLG, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, submitted a PRA request to Hayward PD for body worn camera footage from Hayward police officers who participated in crowd control during demonstrations in December 2014 to protest the refusal of grand juries to indict police officers involved in the deaths of two African American men, Michael Brown and Eric Garner. A number of protestors were injured by the police during these demonstrations. On May 15, 2015, Hayward PD informed the NLG that they would have to pay the department $2,938.58 in order to receive the first round of body camera footage requested. The NLG paid this amount under protest, and faces similar cost bills for the additional video footage requested.

The ACLU points out that the PD's demand for nearly $3,000 in fees violates several parts of California's public records law.

Information that is in an electronic format must be made available in an electronic format when requested by any person and, when applicable, must comply with the following: (1) The agency shall make the information available in any electronic format in which it holds the information. (2) The agency shall provide a copy of the electronic record in the format requested if the requested format is one that has been used by the agency to create copies for its own use or for provision to other agencies.

The cost of duplication shall be limited to the direct cost of producing a copy of a record in an electronic format. Gov. Code § 6253.9(a).

An agency is only permitted to impose additional charges when the request would require data compilation, extraction, or programming to produce the record. Gov. Code § 6253.9(b).

The body camera video requested do not require compilation, extraction or programming.

Respondents have failed to make the records "promptly available" as required by Government Code § 6253(b).

Respondents require payment of unauthorized and excessive charges for the duplication and production of police body camera and hand held videos as a condition of producing such records to members of the public.

Furthermore, the ACLU notes that a failure to rein in the PD's demands for excessive fees will not only dissuade others from exercising their right to examine public records, but encourage the department to continue levying unlawful fees.

I do think the PD can legitimately argue some form of compilation and extraction has been performed to isolate the video footage requested, but it offered no explanation for the amount it charged for processing, much less what steps it took that resulted in this unknown number of billable hours.

Using fees to stymie requesters is one of the easiest ways for government agencies to maintain the opacity they're used to operating under. Even when the demand for excessive fees is accompanied by an explanation of the "costs" the agency is looking to recoup, the breakdowns seem to raise just as many questions as they answer. Whether it's the insistence on charging page duplication fees for responses served electronically, or somehow claiming a record system is impervious to existing search methods, the government still holds most of the cards when it comes to keeping the public separated from public records.

Filed Under: body cams, fees, foia, hayward, hayward pd, police
Companies: aclu, national lawyers guild