DOJ Seizes Iranian News Org Websites; Raising Many Questions

from the seems-like-a-problem dept

Over the years, we've had many, many concerns about the US government seizing websites as it generally raises 1st Amendment issues (it's not unlike seizing a printing press). Of course, non-US citizens outside the US are not protected by the 1st Amendment, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned when the US government seizes news websites tied to foreign governments, even those with hostile interests to the US, like Iran. But that's exactly what happened.

When people first started tweeting about this, and showing the graphic that had replaced the websites, many people insisted that it was actually a hack rather than a US government takedown, but the DOJ has now confirmed that they did, in fact, seize these sites.

The DOJ claims they actually grabbed 33 such websites:

Today, pursuant to court orders, the United States seized 33 websites used by the Iranian Islamic Radio and Television Union (IRTVU) and three websites operated by Kata’ib Hizballah (KH), in violation of U.S. sanctions.

On Oct. 22, 2020, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated IRTVU as a Specially Designated National (SDN) for being owned or controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force (IRGC). SDNs are prohibited from obtaining services, including website and domain services, in the United States without an OFAC license. According to OFAC, the designation of IRTVU as an SDN was in response to the Iranian regime targeting the United States’ electoral process with brazen attempts to sow discord among the voting populace by spreading disinformation online and executing malign influence operations aimed at misleading U.S. voters. OFAC’s announcement explained that components of the government of Iran, to include IRTVU and others like it, disguised as news organizations or media outlets, targeted the United States to with disinformation campaigns and malign influence operations. 33 of the websites seized today were operated by IRTVU. The 33 domains are owned by a United States company. IRTVU did not obtain a license from OFAC prior to utilizing the domain names.

Three additional websites seized today were operated by KH. On July 2, 2009, OFAC designated KH an SDN, and the Department of State designated KH a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The announcements described KH as an Iraqi terrorist organization that committed, directed, supported or posed a significant risk of committing acts of violence against Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces. OFAC further explained that the IRGC provides lethal support to KH and other Iraqi Shia militia groups who target and kill Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces. The three domains operated by KH were owned by a United States company. KH did not obtain a license from OFAC prior to utilizing the domain names.

Of course, just last fall we had a similar story of the US government seizing domains that it said were spreading Iranian disinformation. We were concerned then and we remain concerned now.

First off, as Jameel Jaffer notes, while foreign governments have no right to spread disinformation, the 1st Amendment also does cover a right to receive information from abroad, and it seems like this could violate that.

But, even more to the point, this seems unlikely to end well. Governments seizing websites seems like the kind of thing that could escalate in ways that will backfire. Perhaps US companies will be protected, with most of their sites registered and hosted in the US, but especially with regards to some more exotic top level domains, that are technically country codes of foreign countries, you could certainly see efforts to similarly seize the domains of US companies in retaliation.

Filed Under: asset seizures, doj, domain seizure, fbi, iran, news websites, propaganda, website seizures, website takedowns

Fuck This Cheer In Particular Says The Supreme Court In Decision Upholding Students' Free Speech Rights

from the blowing-tax-dollars-on-juvenile-f-bombs-like-a-boss dept

A high school student's quest to say "fuck cheer" in a semi-crowded convenience store has reached its end. The origin of this journey -- which began all the way back in 2017 -- was nothing more than a high school student doing high school stuff.

Posing in street clothes with a friend, middle fingers raised, B.L. took a “selfie” at the Cocoa Hut, a local store and student stomping ground. On top of the photo, B.L. added the following text: “fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.” B.L. then posted the captioned photo—the “Snap”—on her private Snapchat account, where it could have been viewed briefly by about two-hundred and fifty (250) of her friends.

For that, B.L. was booted off the cheerleading team she had very briefly disparaged and suspended from cheer activities for a year. She sued. And she won. A Pennsylvania federal court said the student's off-campus speech was protected, seeing as it was not provably disruptive and -- the court reminded the school -- it had occurred off-campus. The school's limitations of student's rights didn't reach that far. And even if the student had agreed to a code of conduct for extracurricular activities, the court said the agreement -- one that couldn't be altered and forced students to give up rights if they wanted to participate in extracurricular activities -- was coercive, rather than equitable.

The school appealed. And lost again. The Third Circuit Appeals Court upheld the lower court's ruling, pointing out that accepting the school's arguments would encourage administrators to become censors of students' speech, no matter where that speech occurred.

The heart of the School District’s arguments is that it has a duty to “inculcate the habits and manners of civility” in its students. To be sure, B.L.’s snap was crude, rude, and juvenile, just as we might expect of an adolescent. But the primary responsibility for teaching civility rests with parents and other members of the community. As arms of the state, public schools have an interest in teaching civility by example, persuasion, and encouragement, but they may not leverage the coercive power with which they have been entrusted to do so. Otherwise, we give school administrators the power to quash student expression deemed crude or offensive—which far too easily metastasizes into the power to censor valuable speech and legitimate criticism.

The school appealed again. And it has lost. Again. This time the loss really counts because this time it happened in the highest court in the land.

The Supreme Court's decision [PDF] upholds students' free speech rights, but applies this ruling very narrowly to the facts at hand. But even though the finding is narrow, it encourages schools to err on the side of caution (and students' rights), rather than simply assume anything that doesn't fit the facts of this case is acceptable.

The Supreme Court doesn't go as far as the Third Circuit Appeals Court, which pretty much said all off-campus speech is protected. Instead, it sets out guidelines for when it may be permissible for schools to regulate off-campus speech, such as bullying, harassment, threats, and use of school websites.

The limits placed on schools when it comes to off-campus speech are the following:

First, a school, in relation to off-campus speech, will rarely stand in loco parentis. The doctrine of in loco parentis treats school administrators as standing in the place of students’ parents under circumstances where the children’s actual parents cannot protect, guide, and discipline them. Geographically speaking, off-campus speech will normally fall within the zone of parental, rather than school-related, responsibility.

Second, from the student speaker’s perspective, regulations of off-campus speech, when coupled with regulations of on-campus speech, include all the speech a student utters during the full 24-hour day. That means courts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to regulate off-campus speech, for doing so may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all. When it comes to political or religious speech that occurs outside school or a school program or activity, the school will have a heavy burden to justify intervention.

Third, the school itself has an interest in protecting a student’s unpopular expression, especially when the expression takes place off campus. America’s public schools are the nurseries of democracy. Our representative democracy only works if we protect the “marketplace of ideas.” This free exchange facilitates an informed public opinion, which, when transmitted to lawmakers, helps produce laws that reflect the People’s will. That protection must include the protection of unpopular ideas, for popular ideas have less need for protection. Thus, schools have a strong interest in ensuring that future generations understand the workings in practice of the well-known aphorism, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Schools still have an obligation to respect students' rights. And only rarely should they expect to usurp a parent when dealing with off-campus speech. Most importantly, schools should teach students to respect free speech rights by… respecting students' free speech rights. Seems simple enough.

These guidelines are directed at both schools and the nation's courts. Schools need to ensure they minimize their policing of off-campus speech. Courts need to consider these guidelines when handling cases involving punishment of off-campus speech. There's no bright line created here. There's simply a lot more clarification of the issue at hand.

The decision makes short work of the excuses the school offered for its punishment of B.L.'s off-campus speech. Although the school is allowed to punish students for "vulgar speech," its jurisdiction is very limited.

The strength of this anti-vulgarity interest is weakened considerably by the fact that B. L. spoke outside the school on her own time.

The court says the school also stepped on the student's parent's toes by punishing B.L.

B. L. spoke under circumstances where the school did not stand in loco parentis. And there is no reason to believe B. L.’s parents had delegated to school officials their own control of B. L.’s behavior at the Cocoa Hut. Moreover, the vulgarity in B. L.’s posts encompassed a message, an expression of B. L.’s irritation with, and criticism of, the school and cheerleading communities. Further, the school has presented no evidence of any general effort to prevent students from using vulgarity outside the classroom.

The court also says the "disrupted school" excuse is no better. There was no evidence presented by the school of any disruption other than "5-10 minutes of an algebra class" for a couple of days after the Snapchat was posted.

That's it. B.L. -- more than four years after the fact -- wins. So do students all over the United States who now have the benefit of these speech regulation guidelines from the nation's top court. And it's all due to the tireless efforts of the little school that couldn't, Mahanoy Area High School.

(Oh, and if you're interested, there's a dissent by Clarence Thomas that should be read in a Principal Skinner "No, it's the children who are wrong" voice and which basically says that in an era of social media platforms that can be accessed anywhere, students' speech should have fewer protections, rather than more.)

Filed Under: 1st amendment, cheerleader, free speech, fuck this, off-campus speech, schools, supreme court