American WeChat Users Getting Banned For Celebrating Hong Kong Election Results

from the reach-out-and-boot-someone dept

The recent election in Hong Kong may have scored some wins for pro-democracy candidates, but supporters of protesters and newly-elected candidates still aren't able to do much celebrating on social media. WeChat, the massively popular messaging app owned by China's Tencent, is apparently censoring posts and shutting down pro-democracy accounts.

That a Chinese company would censor pro-democracy messages is unsurprising. What's a bit more unexpected is Tencent's apparent willingness to shut down accounts owned by users in other countries, as Zoe Schiffer reports for The Verge.

Bin Xie, an information security analyst at Texas Children’s Hospital, wrote “The pro-China candidates totally lost” in a WeChat group before having his account shut down.

Xie is now part of a WhatsApp group for Chinese Americans who’ve recently been censored on WeChat. He joined the group to talk about what is happening and discuss what can be done to make it stop. “If you have censorship in China — fine,” he told The Verge. “But in this country? I’m a Republican but on WeChat I suffer the same as Democrats [using WeChat]— we are all censored.”

It's unclear how far this has spread. Tencent claims it does not censor users from other countries on WeChat. The home version -- Weixin -- is more heavily-monitored as it is mainly used by Chinese citizens. WeChat, on the other hand, has servers located outside of China that aren't subject to Chinese law, at least theoretically.

But it's happening anyway. Maybe it's just a glitch. Or maybe Tencent would just like everyone to believe it's just a glitch. Tencent's statement points fingers at the rest of the world and the hundreds of laws governing content removal.

In a statement emailed to The Verge, a Tencent spokesperson said, “Tencent operates in a complex regulatory environment, both in China and elsewhere. Like any global company, a core tenant is that we comply with local laws and regulations in the markets where we operate.”

Considering the Chinese government's ability to pressure US corporations into apologies and scattershot proxy censorship, it's not that difficult to picture it leaning heavily on Tencent to ignore the "complex regulatory environments" erected by other countries and just do what makes the Chinese government happy -- even if that results in the censorship of citizens of other countries.

Filed Under: china, election results, free speech, hong kong
Companies: wechat

State's Rejection Of Driver's 'IMGOD' Vanity Plate Unconstitutional, Federal Court Rules

from the hurry-up-with-this-man's-croissants dept

I'm always happy to see someone add to the growing body of First Amendment/vanity license plate case law. Using a very limited amount of space, some applicants have managed to offend the delicate sensibilities of government agencies, even without using the number 5 twice to spell "A55."

A New Hampshire man applied for a license plate to make an uncontroversial statement about law enforcement (COPSLIE) only to have it rejected by the state, which claimed this fact was "offensive to good taste." He took his case to the state's Supreme Court and drove away with a free speech victory and a future full of hassling by law enforcement.

Completely conversely, the Indiana Supreme Court refused to give a cop his 01NK license plate, arguing rather absurdly that speech-via-vanity plate isn't protected because it's too… short. The court did not specify how many characters it takes for speech protections kick in, but presumably it's a larger number than the eight allotted for Indiana license plates.

Via Courthouse News comes another successful First Amendment challenge. A federal court in Kentucky has decided [PDF] that the state's refusal to give Bennie Hart his requested "IMGOD" license plate violates his First Amendment rights.

The state operates a specialty plate program that allows drivers to add logos to their license plates. That isn't the issue here, but since the state law governing vanity plates without vanity logos incorporates ("clunkily," the court notes) the logo statute, the same restrictions applied to logos control what words drivers can put on their plates.

Here are the guidelines:

(c) The group, or the group’s lettering logo, image or message to be placed on the license plate, if created, shall not discriminate against any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and shall not be construed, as determined by the cabinet, as an attempt to victimize or intimidate any person due to the person’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

(d) The group shall not be a political party and shall not have been created primarily to promote a specific political belief;

(e) The group shall not have as its primary purpose the promotion of any specific faith, religion, or anti-religion;

(f) The name of the group shall not be the name of a special product or brand name, and shall not be construed, as determined by the cabinet, as promoting a product or brand name; and

(g) The group’s lettering, logo, image, or message to be placed on the license plate, if created, shall not be obscene, as determined by the cabinet.

The last specification is key. The final call is made by the Transportation Cabinet. Cabinet staffers are given no specific guidance on how to accomplish this job, leaving it up to them to determine what is "religious or anti-religious." In the plaintiff's case, the Cabinet decided "IMGOD" was unusable because of its religious reference… despite the fact the Cabinet had already approved plates bearing these phrases: GODLVS, TRYGOD, 1GOD, and NOGOD.

The government tried to argue the restriction of license plates was a restriction on government speech, not a restriction on citizens' speech. Because of the Transportation Cabinet's participation in the approval process, the state claimed any plate cleared by this government entity was an implicit endorsement of the plate's message. The court finds this assertion ridiculous.

[I]f this is true, and the Commonwealth only approves vanity plates whose message it officially adopts and endorses, then the Commonwealth is “babbling prodigiously and incoherently;” and “saying many unseemly things.” Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744, 1758 (2017).

The same year Mr. Hart was denied a plate reading “IM GOD”, the Transportation Cabinet approved the contradictory plates “NOGAS”, “EATGAS”, “VEGAN”, and “BBQ4U” among many others. [R. 49-25.] Under the Transportation Cabinet’s logic, the Commonwealth is not only contradicting itself, but spewing nonsense. If the Court finds that vanity plates are government speech, then the Court would also be finding that Kentucky has officially endorsed the words “UDDER”, “BOOGR”, “JUICY”, “W8LOSS” and “FATA55”.

The government's incoherent argument is rejected. The court says restrictions on vanity plates is a government restriction on citizens' free speech. It's not impossible for the government to restrict speech without violating the First Amendment. But it's almost impossible. To retain crucial viewpoint neutrality, restrictions must be consistently applied. The Transportation Cabinet has been anything but consistent.

The Transportation Cabinet argues that a statute banning religious reference is reasonable because it is necessary to support its legitimate government interest in “promot[ing] highway safety” because “potentially controversial messages . . . could lead to confrontation or distraction on its highways.”

[...]

If the Transportation Cabinet genuinely wants to avoid controversy on Kentucky’s highways by preventing “promotion of any specific faith, religion, or anti-religion” from appearing on vanity plates, then it should have denied “IM4GOD”, “ASKGOD”, GR8GOD”, “LUVGOD”. But it did not. [R. 49-12.] Instead, the Transportation Cabinet has approved multiplate vanity plates featuring the word “god”. Id. This suggests that the law as applied to Mr. Hart is neither reasonable nor viewpoint neutral. To allow such plates as “IM4GOD” and “LUVGOD” but reject “IM GOD” belies viewpoint neutrality.

Bennie Hart will get his plate. The court, however, limits itself to finding this rejection of Hart's request violated his free speech rights. It does not find the restrictions in the state's vanity plate program unconstitutional as a whole, although the state should now know it needs to apply them far more consistently than it has been. The state takes a loss and Hart can now inform other drivers of his ascendance into godhood.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, bennie hart, free speech, imgod, license plate, new hampshire, vanity plate

Facebook Now Altering Users' Posts To Add Singapore Government's 'Fake News' Warnings

from the legislate-locally,-force-action-globally dept

Singapore's "fake news" law continues to pay off for the Singaporean government. It's already been used to target allegations made by political opposition leaders and now it's converted Facebook to an extension of the ruling government.

Alex Tan, the founder of "anti-establishment" news site State Times Review has been irritating the Singapore government for a few years now. Late last year, his site published an article claiming Singapore's prime minister was complicit in laundering Malaysian government funds through Singapore's banks.

This resulted in the Monetary Authority of Singapore filing a criminal complaint against Tan for "impugning its integrity." The Ministry of Law then demanded Facebook remove Tan's posts from its site. None of this worked. Tan, now a resident of Australia, was beyond the reach of the Singaporean government. Facebook refused to comply with the government's request because that was all it was: a request.

Tan's posts and Facebook's refusal to remove them were cited by the government as evidence a "fake news" law was needed.

The Ministry of Law said in a press statement: “Facebook has declined to take down a post that is clearly false, defamatory and attacks Singapore, using falsehoods.”

“This shows why we need legislation to protect us from deliberate online falsehoods.”

It's not often a government is so transparent about its self-interest. The Ministry of Law didn't seem to be suggesting the people needed to be protected from "online falsehoods." It's the government that needs to be "protected" from its mostly-powerless citizens -- or, in this case, a rabble rouser operating outside of its jurisdiction.

The new law gives the Singapore government what it wanted: protection. And Facebook's compliance. Roughly a year after the subject was first broached, Facebook is helping Singapore's government mute the effectiveness of its critics, including Alex Tan.

Facebook said on Saturday it had issued a correction notice on a user’s post at the request of the Singapore government, but called for a measured approach to the implementation of a new “fake news” law in the city-state.

“Facebook is legally required to tell you that the Singapore government says this post has false information,” said the notice, which is visible only to Singapore users.

The good news is the post stays live. The bad news is the government can force Facebook to alter users' posts by unilaterally declaring news it doesn't like "false." And if this doesn't seem to be working well enough, the government still has the option to jail people or hit them with fines of up to $1 million.

The thing is the government doesn't have to do this. Obviously, the legislation is bad and will result in censorship. But the government runs its own site for corrections, which should be all it needs to do when faced with reports and criticism it considers to be false. Instead of limiting itself to combating speech it doesn't like with its own speech, it's forcing American companies to act on its behalf and dangling the threat of prison time and fines over the heads of anyone whose criticism it feels is invalid.

Filed Under: alex tan, compelled speech, fake news, free speech, politics, singapore
Companies: facebook

Devin Nunes Follows Through And Sues CNN In Laughably Dumb SLAPP Suit

from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept

As he promised last week, Rep. Devin Nunes has now sued CNN for defamation for accurately reporting what the indicted Lev Parnas's lawyers had told them about Devin Nunes. Rather than state court in Virginia, this time, Nunes' lawyer, Steven Biss filed the case in the big boy federal court in Virginia. This complaint may be the most laughable one yet of Nunes' various SLAPP suits, and I should remind you that one of them involves him suing a cow.

The timing of this suit was a bit inauspicious, given that it was filed at around the same time as the House Intelligence Committee released its Impeachment Inquiry Report, which shows multiple phone records showing that Devin Nunes and Lev Parnas were in phone contact with each other -- which is the very heart of the CNN story. From the report:

That appears to show Parnas and Nunes playing a bit of phone tag before finally talking for nearly 10 minutes.

After the report came out, Nunes went on Fox News to says he didn't recall ever talking to Parnas and that he hadn't checked his records.

“Did you ever talk to this guy Les Parnas or whatever his name is?” Hannity asked, mispronouncing the Giuliani henchman’s name while acting like he barely knows who Parnas is.

“You know, it’s possible,” Nunes replied. “I haven’t gone through my phone records. I don’t really recall that name.”

“I remember the name now because he has been indicted,” the conservative congressman added. “Why would CNN rely on somebody like this? I will go back and check my records, but it seems very unlikely I will be taking calls from random people.”

And yet, in the complaint, Nunes makes explicit claims about when he was not in contact with Parnas, suggesting that he has checked his records. The complaint is oddly specific in the timing:

I'm sorry, but if CNN just got the date wrong for when Nunes and Parnas spoke, that's not even anywhere in the vicinity of defamation. The lawsuit says that they weren't in contact in December, but the phone records show (at the very least) that they were in contact in April. While Biss's various SLAPP filings have all been fairly performative, this one takes the performance to new and ridiculous levels. It seems likely that the entire point of this lawsuit is to whip up something of a frenzy among people who insist that CNN is "fake news." No serious lawsuit would start this way:

CNN is the mother of fake news. It is the least trusted name. CNN is eroding the fabric of America, proselytizing, sowing distrust and disharmony. It must be held accountable.

But, this one does. Much of the complaint focuses on the argument that Parnas is not a trustworthy source. That may be true, but then it would seem if Nunes had a claim against anyone, it would be Parnas, not CNN. The complaint is 47 pages, but a significant percentage of it is taken up by giant screenshot of tweets, rather than actual legal arguments. And, beyond the defamation ("per se" because people like to say "defamation per se" in the belief that it means "obvious defamation" even though it does not), it also includes a "common law conspiracy" claim based on more nonsense.

With this lawsuit, in which he demands $435 million, Nunes' total claims in his various SLAPP suits is rapidly approaching a billion dollars.

Meanwhile, recall that last week, Nunes promised Hannity that CNN would "run" from this lawsuit and he would chase them down. I'm guessing that the opposite is going to happen, as CNN will likely "run" towards the courthouse to try to get to discovery as fast as possible:

Meanwhile, with all of these lawsuits, more and more people are starting to ask just who is paying for all of these lawsuits. Nunes has definitely decided that going on the offensive in filing multiple SLAPP suits against journalists and critics (even satirical cows) is a worthwhile strategy, but it's difficult to see an end game here that makes any sense at all.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, conspiracy, defamation, devin nunes, lev parnas, slapp, steven biss, virginia
Companies: cnn

Tony Robbins Crosses The Atlantic For Some Libel Tourism In Ireland; Files SLAPP Suit Against Buzzfeed

from the slappity-slapp-slapp dept

Tony Robbins is American. Buzzfeed is an American news organization. Last week, Buzzfeed published its sixth story in an investigative series about Robbins, that included a story of Robbins allegedly sexually assaulting a high schooler at a summer camp in California. Which, last I checked [looks around quickly], is also in America. So, you might wonder why it is that Robbins has sued Buzzfeed in Ireland. Robbin's lawyer, Paul Tweed has tried to defend the decision to sue in Ireland, but I'm having trouble seeing how any of this is convincing:

"My client is entitled to have his name cleared. In my opinion the Irish courts are just as capable of making that determination as the English courts or the American courts," said Mr Tweed.

He said Ireland would be the appropriate forum for both sets of proceedings as Twitter’s European headquarters is in Dublin.

"It is totally appropriate that we try to keep everything under one roof," he said.

Wait, what? He's suing Buzzfeed, not Twitter, though apparently he's threatening to sue Twitter too. For what?

Mr Robbins is not only aggrieved with Buzzfeed’s coverage, but the manner in which it has spread on social media platforms.

Mr Tweed said his firm had put Twitter "on notice" of a potential lawsuit.

That's not how any of this works.

Of course, the real reason to sue in Ireland is because either lawsuit would be laughed out of court in the US. The bar to prove defamation against a public figure like Robbins would make it nearly impossible for Robbins to win a defamation lawsuit here, unless he could somehow prove that Buzzfeed made up the reporting, which seems highly unlikely. And, of course, Section 230 of the CDA would protect Twitter. Even in Europe, it seems unlikely that Twitter could be held liable for how other people tweeted, just because Mr. Robbins is "aggrieved" about how this story spread.

Robbins himself put up a laughably bad defense of this legal strategy in a Medium post that actually starts with exactly why his lawsuit should be thrown out with Robbins being told to pay the defendants' legal fees:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter said, “Without a free press, there can be no free society.”

Freedom of the press is central to the democratic experiment and our last, best line of defense against those in power who threaten the rule of law.

Yeah, that's why we don't let rich assholes sue the media every time they publish an unflattering story. But, I guess, with Ireland not having a 1st Amendment and all, you figure why not jump on a bit of libel tourism to show them who's boss?

Robbins' Medium post does highlight some of those quoted in earlier stories who later repudiated their quotes or said they felt pressured by Buzzfeed's reporters. But that, alone, does not make the original reporting defamatory. And, the fact that Robbins is suing in Ireland, rather than the US certainly suggests that his lawyers here know that he'd lose big time if he tried it here (which also means that any attempt to try to collect money in the US should he somehow win these lawsuits under Irish law, would be easily blocked by the SPEECH Act, which bars attempts by libel tourists to go oversees to get a judgment and then enforce it against US parties).

Buzzfeed, for its part, stands by its reporting.

We learned today that Tony Robbins has started legal proceedings against BuzzFeed in Ireland following a series of reports on allegations of inappropriate sexual advances, verbal abuse and, most recently, an alleged sexual assault of a teen. This reporting is based on hundreds of interviews, audio recordings, and documentary evidence, and we stand by it unequivocally.

Mr Robbin has chosen to sue us abroad rather than address the detailed account of the woman who said he attacked her; the two women who say they saw it happen; and the accounts of dozens of others. The fact that he doesn't even seek to address these claims, choosing instead to abuse the Irish court system and attack BuzzFeed, speaks for itself.

To be fair, Robbins does pretend to try to address the latest claims of assault in his Medium post... but his "response" is basically "that was a long time ago" and nothing else:

Today, BuzzFeed published another article riddled with falsehoods, concerning an alleged incident from 1985, 34 years ago when I was 25 years old. (I turn 60 in just a few months).

He does not note a single "falsehood" in the story. Instead, the rest of his post is basically a smear campaign against Buzzfeed, filled with out of context statements and innuendo (exactly the kind of thing he claims Buzzfeed is doing to him). He complains about their journalistic technique of asking a source to confirm a story, saying that the source called Robbins instead because he "felt [the reporter] had an agenda." That may be interesting, but is not defamatory. It also goes on a weird tangent about "current research on the topic of memories" to suggest that "memories can be influenced and distorted." Look: when you don't actually respond to accusations of sexually assaulting a teen, other than to say it was a long time ago, and then start babbling on about how memories can be distorted, that doesn't make it sound like you're denying anything. It makes it sound like you're scrambling for excuses.

It seems that Tony Robbins is the latest in a long line of very wealthy men who get so upset about journalists reporting stories they'd prefer not to see who tries to SLAPP them in response. Robbins is adding the overseas element here, perhaps recognizing how badly such a lawsuit would fare in the US. But, as Buzzfeed itself notes, this kind of cowardly attack speaks for itself.

Filed Under: defamation, free speech, ireland, libel tourism, paul tweed, reporting, tony robbins
Companies: buzzfeed

Australian Attorney General Wants To Make The Country's Defamation Law Even Worse

from the if-it's-already-broke-just-keep-breaking-it dept

Australia's government is planning to revamp its defamation law. Good. Because it's all kinds of fucked up. The law that's in place has encouraged all sorts of litigation from people who would prefer to sue service providers and social media platforms, rather than the people who actually said defamatory things.

But it's unclear what sort of reform the government actually has in mind. Australia's Attorney General Christian Porter says the country's defamation law is "unfair." It's certainly not a good law, but Porter thinks it doesn't strike a "perfect balance" between protecting journalists from being hit with bogus lawsuits and protecting individuals from being defamed.

He's right. The law doesn't strike the right balance. But he's wrong about how to fix it. Very wrong.

Attorney-General Christian Porter says social media platforms should be treated the same as traditional publishers under defamation law, a change that would present a fundamental new challenge for global companies such as Facebook and Twitter.

It appears Porter believes the playing field can only be leveled by dragging social media platforms down to the level of local journalists the law fails to protect. This is Porter's idea of "fairness," apparently. If the law is going to continue to suck, it should suck for more people.

Despite the fact that social media platforms don't actually "publish" anything, Porter wants to treat Facebook, et al like newspapers. In Porter's mind, anything posted by users apparently should be vetted and fact-checked and edited by social media platforms before it goes live. You know, like a newspaper.

Of course, this is impossible and Porter knows it. So, "reforming" the law just means making it easier for bad faith litigation to proceed, allowing actual defamers to escape punishment while judgments and fees are extracted from American social media companies. Porter is pretty sure this is the right thing to do, even as he admits he has no idea if it even can be done.

"My own view ... is that online platforms, so far as reasonably possible, should be held to essentially the same standards as other publishers," Mr Porter told an audience at the National Press Club.

"But you have to, of course, take into account, reasonable, sensible measures for how you do that ... because of the volume of what goes on in Twitter and Facebook is much larger than the volume from a standard newspaper."

Saying that "the volume of what goes on in Twitter and Facebook is much larger than that the volume from a standard newspaper" is such an understatement as to suggest that Porter has absolutely no familiarity with the issue at hand. Comparing the two is like saying the volume of Niagra Falls is larger than a leaky sink. Yes, they both involve water moving downward, but that's about the extent of the comparison. Saying that the volume from one is "much larger" than the other leaves out just how much larger. Indeed, it's so much larger that there literally is no reasonable comparison. Yet, he chose to make it anyway.

The AG's defamation law "fix" appears to be a response to a NSW Supreme Court decision handed down earlier this year -- one that held Australian press outlets legally responsible for defamatory comments made by readers on the outlets' Facebook pages. But rather than improve the law to protect press outlets, AG Porter just wants to make it worse for social media companies.

How this is supposed to fix anything is anyone's guess. Maybe the Attorney General feels the country's court system just isn't seeing enough bogus litigation. Whatever the case, this reform effort by the Australian government appears poised to make things worse for Australians and everyone who provides a platform for them.

Filed Under: australia, christian porter, defamation, free speech, intermediary liability, liability, platform, publisher
Companies: facebook, twitter

Huawei Files SLAPP Suits In France Against Critics Who Highlighted The Company's Ties To The Chinese Government

from the oh-come-on dept

We've spent many years pointing out that the freak out over Huawei equipment possibly being compromised by the Chinese government still remains without evidence to back it up. This does not mean that it's not there. But we've just noted that many (especially in the US) keep stating it as if it's factual, despite a Congressional investigation that turned up nothing (not to mention competitor Cisco fanning the flames of the attacks on Huawei, and the fact that the NSA is already known to compromise telco equipment for the US government). The usual response to pointing this out is to highlight that most large and successful Chinese companies have close relationships with the Chinese government (because they need to) and that Huawei's founder, Ren Zhengfei, was an engineer in the Chinese military. This is enough for many people to assume that the company would actively sabotage its own equipment to help the Chinese government.

As we've noted, there still is no actual evidence to prove this, though it's understandable why some might be cautious or concerned about it. Huawei insists that it has not backdoored its own equipment. No matter what you think about trusting Huawei equipment, hopefully everyone can agree that the company's decision to sue critics in France for pointing out the company's close relationship with the Chinese government, is an obnoxious SLAPP effort that should never have happened.

In an unprecedented move, the technology giant filed three defamation claims in Paris over comments made during television programs by a French researcher, a broadcast journalist and a telecommunications sector expert.

The company’s legal actions in France were published on Tuesday in a report by La Lettre A, an online investigative newsletter. Huawei confirmed the claims, which it said were filed with French law enforcement authorities in March.

The company is trying to defend these intimidation tactics by claiming that it only sued those critics who went too far and alleged that the company is actually controlled by the Chinese government:

Huawei said in a statement its claims “concern only statements that Huawei is a company controlled by the Chinese State and the Chinese Communist Party, led by a former member of the ‘counter-intelligence’ and using its technological expertise in telecom networks to commit acts of espionage against the Western world.” The company added that “these statements are false.”

If anything, this move seems likely to backfire, as it only calls much more attention to the accusations in the first place. It's fine for the company to rebut the claims, and to make efforts to demonstrate the security of its equipment. But filing defamation lawsuits against individuals over statements they made seems like an obvious intimidation tactic, rather than a legitimate way to engage on the controversial issues around how close the company is to the Chinese government and what that means for its equipment.

So far, it's not entirely clear exactly what statements Huawei is suing over, but the Bloomberg article quotes one example, which should not, in any way, rise to the level of defamation:

Valerie Niquet, a researcher at the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research that specializes in China and Japan, is a regular guest on French radio and television. Huawei filed the lawsuit after her comments in two television programs in February in which she said the company had ties to the state.

Niquet was informed of the claims in September and then in November when the police reached out to her to confirm her comments, according to copies of the authorities’ emails seen by Bloomberg.

Niquet said she confirmed her comments on TF1 television on Feb. 3, and similar remarks on France 5 television on Feb. 7. In those she alluded to the alleged control the Chinese state has over Huawei, also saying that “no one would have given a Soviet company the means to monitor all the communication in the Western world, and this is what we’re doing with Huawei.”

Even if you disagree with Niquet, it seems beyond ridiculous to then sue over such statements. Of course, now we'll have to wait and see how much France believes in sticking up for free speech on statements of opinion like those made by Niquet about Huawei.

Filed Under: china, chinese government, criticism, critics, defamation, france, free speech, slapp, slapp suit
Companies: huawei

This Week In Free Speech Hypocrites: 'Free Speech' Supporter Sheila Gunn Reid Gleefully Sues Someone For Calling Her A Neo-Nazi

from the well,-now-that-you-mention-it... dept

What is it with people who pretend to be free speech "warriors" only to rush to sue someone for stating an opinion about them? And why are so many of them Canadian?!? We've already covered folks like Jordan Peterson suing a university because some professors said mean things about him in a private meeting, and Gavin McInnes suing SPLC for calling the group he founded a "hate group." And now we have Sheila Gunn Reid, who works for The Rebel Media, which is sort of the Canadian equivalent of Breitbart. Sheila pretends to be a free speech supporter in dozens upon dozens of tweets. Here are just a few:

Given all of the above, it seems pretty clear that Sheila Gunn Reid would be one heck of a hypocrite to then sue someone for stating an opinion, such as calling her a "neo-Nazi." Hell, she even stated publicly in the past (see the last tweet above) that she believes it's free speech for someone to call her a Nazi. She's right. Or, well, she was back then.

A scientist named Dave Barrett referred to Sheila as a "neo-Nazi" and rather than "believing in free speech" even for people who call her a Nazi or who disagree with her, she apparently sued him, and he settled by agreeing to pay $1,200, along with his own legal fees, and posted an apology to her, which he's pinned to the top of his feed for 30 days, which was part of the settlement agreement. And she's now gloating about it in a pinned tweet of her own:

Now, yes, it's true that this happened in Canada, and that Canada's constitutional free speech protection is not nearly as strong as the First Amendment. And, as we all know, defamation lawsuits can be quite expensive, leading to astounding pressure to settle such a case. That said, it does seem quite fair to point out that Sheila Gunn Reid is not a free speech supporter but a huge free speech hypocrite. As some of her earlier tweets suggested, you don't get to call yourself a free speech supporter and then use the power of the courts to attack someone over their speech, silence them, and force them to make compelled speech about you. That's not how it works. And, it certainly seems like "situational ethics" for Sheila to do so while still pretending to care one iota about free speech.

And, I'm sure that some folks will come along and make an argument that "defamation is not free speech" or (worse) that suing over defamation has nothing to do with free speech (or, even worse, saying that a civil lawsuit isn't about an attack on free speech because it's not the government). All of those statements would be wrong. First off, giving your opinion of someone, even if it's critical, like saying you believe them to be a neo-Nazi is not defamation. It's an opinion. Opinions are not defamatory. Suing over someone's speech always has to do with free speech. And even though it's a civil suit between two parties, it's using the power of the state in the form of the courts and the judicial system, to punish someone for their speech, which makes it inherently using government power to attack them on the basis of their speech.

In a video, Rebel Media founder Ezra Levant flat out admits that this is part of his and Sheila's plan to silence critics:

"It's about the specific deterrent. I don't think Dave Barrett is going to take a run at Sheila any time soon. And it's about the general deterrent. And what I mean by that is I hope other people see that and say "oh, okay, um, maybe I won't call Sheila a Nazi, maybe I won't call anyone at Rebel a Nazi.... Maybe I won't call any conservative a Nazi."

Okay. We won't call you a Nazi, Ezra. We'll call you a censorial bully who admits to abusing the law to stifle criticism, despite pretending to support free speech. Saying you hope others won't state their opinion because you abused the court system over someone else's speech shows that. Hilariously, just a few days before this video, Ezra was on a podcast where he said the following:

“I’m unaware of conservatives suing liberals in nuisance suits to shut them them up for political purposes... it’s only the other way.”

He said this at the very moment that he (a self-proclaimed conservative) was suing a liberal in a nuisance suit to shut them up, as he directly admits in that video.

Incredibly, Ezra goes on and on in the video about how this is about "fighting back" and "standing up for principles" and then promises to sue anyone who ever calls anyone at the Rebel a "Nazi." Hilariously, Ezra goes on to say that you're still allowed to criticize him, but only if he thinks it's "legitimate criticism." That's not how free speech works. He goes on to also say that The Rebel is suing a bunch of protestors who convinced theaters not to host Rebel Media events -- which is again an attack on free speech.

You might not be Nazis, Ezra and Sheila, but you're huge, censorial hypocrites and now everyone knows that.

Filed Under: canada, dave barrett, defamation, ezra levant, free speech, hypocrites, sheila gunn reid
Companies: the rebel media

Evangelical 'Financial Whiz' Who Apparently Hates Gossip, Sues YouTuber For Criticism

from the gossip-away dept

Dave Ramsey is a radio host/"personal finance guru" whose religious beliefs appear to be a key part of his public persona. A long and detailed story in the Daily Beast a few years back showcased another apparent part of his persona: what appears to be significant anger towards those who criticize him or his company, including former employees:

The public criticism enraged Ramsey, who, according to one current employee, went on a “warpath” to expose the Twitter critics. During an all-staff meeting on May 7 that was described by several current employees, Ramsey offered thousands of dollars in bounties in exchange for the identities of the tweeters. (Employees’ accounts differed on the dollar figure, but ranged from $5,000 to $20,000). Ramsey was especially intent on identifying the tweeter behind @LampoLeadership (suspended), a parody account that had begun tweeting about the inner workings of Lampo, suggesting it was run by someone inside the company.

There's a lot more in that story, including this tidbit:

The seeming paranoia of Ramsey’s outburst in the May 12 staff meeting startled some Lampo employees, but many said they had come to expect explosive behavior from the boss. “This is the guy who once pulled a loaded pistol out of a gift bag to teach us a lesson about gossip,” said one former employee. “It was bizarre, even for Ramsey.” (Ramsey has tweeted photos of his gun collection, which includes semi-automatic rifles.)

That event, which allegedly occurred in 2011, is one of Lampo’s worst-kept secrets, a moment that was a turning point for many. “That was the day I began planning my exit,” one said. For another, Ramsey’s gun illustration served as a reminder that the man she worked for “instills fear and dominance and control over every aspect of life.”

That's all prelude. Last year, Ramsey's company, Lampo Group, which also does business as Ramsey Solutions, sued a real estate YouTuber named Kevin Paffrath, who made a series of unflattering videos about Ramsey. Part of the background here is that Lampo/Ramsey Solutions has some sort of deal where it will sign up real estate agents (along with insurance and tax service professionals) to its "Endorsed Local Providers" (ELP) program. Fans of Ramsey can then "find" a local professional who is endorsed by Ramsey, and if they end up doing business with that professional, Ramsey takes a bit of a cut. ELPs also pay to be a part of this program, in exchange for getting leads from Ramsey's site.

Paffrath was apparently in the ELP program for some time, but was kicked out. Ramsey/Lampo claim he was kicked out for not meeting with a "coach" often enough, though there's some dispute over that. Either way, Lampo sued Paffrath in what has all the trappings of a traditional SLAPP suit. Lampo/Ramsey and its lawyers are trying to get around this really being about the negative videos made by Paffrath by throwing all sorts of other stuff at the courtroom wall. Despite multiple times that the lawsuit alleges Paffrath made false statements, there's no defamation claim in the complaint. Instead, it claims breach of contract, fraud, promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, business disparagement, trade secrets violation, unfair competition, and false and misleading advertising. However, as you dig into the details, it sure looks like they're just mad that he criticized and mocked Ramsey.

Paffrath, who lives in California, sought to use California's anti-SLAPP law in this case, which is in federal court in Tennessee (it was originally filed in state court, but quickly removed to federal court, given that Paffrath is out of state). Unfortunately, the court decided that state anti-SLAPP laws don't apply in federal court (there's currently a very split set of rulings on that particular question, with some regions allowing the use of anti-SLAPP laws in federal courts, and others not).

The latest motion to dismiss from Paffrath is quite a read. It makes the clear case that this is nothing more than a SLAPP suit:

This is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (a “SLAPP-suit”) filed by the Plaintiff, a celebrity and public figure, against the Defendants that centers upon satirical YouTube videos entitled: “Dave Ramsey: Exposed,” “dave Ramsey is suing me,” and “A Message for Dave Ramsey.” .... The Plaintiff is upset, among other things, because Mr. Paffrath’s satirical YouTube videos mocked Dave Ramsey and were well-received by the public.... In retaliation, the Plaintiff has filed suit against the Defendants over several extravagant claims including: (1) a breach of contract claim; (2) fraud and misrepresentation claims; (3) speech-based “business disparagement” and “unfair competition” claims; (4) a misappropriation of trade secrets claim; and (5) a “false and misleading advertising claim” under the Lanham Act.

As the motion makes clear, none of the claims in the amended complaint are backed up with anything. Indeed, the motion to dismiss includes as an exhibit the transcript of a truly breathtaking deposition given by a senior Lampo exec, Jack Galloway. Paffrath's lawyer, Daniel Horwitz puts on an absolute clinic in how to do a deposition. It's long, but worth reading. Of course, much of the length is taken up by the lawyer for Lampo, Brandon Bundren objecting to nearly every single question that Horwitz asks, followed by letting Galloway answer anyway. Step by step throughout the deposition, Horwitz gets Galloway to admit that basically nothing in Lampo's complaint caused any harm or is the real reason it sued.

He gets Galloway to admit that Lampo more or less admitted in an earlier discovery that it can't come up with any evidence of any losses due to Paffrath's videos. The only "losses" they describe are Paffrath no longer paying them the ELP fees. But they can't exactly sue over that, since they were the ones who kicked Paffrath out of the program in the first place:

BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Would you agree that this contract could have been terminated at any moment including the first day that it was executed?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to the form, speculation, calls for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS: Yes
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Would you agree that Lampo does not have any right to $4200 under this agreement?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to the form, calls for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS: Please re-ask the question.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Sure. This contract provides for Mr. Paffrath to pay Lampo $350 a month, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it provides that either party can terminate this agreement at any moment; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So there's no right to have 12 months of payments made under this agreement; is that right?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to the form, calls for a legal conclusion. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. If Mr. Paffrath had terminated this agreement the day that it was signed, how much would he owe Lampo?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to the form, calls for a legal conclusion, speculation.
THE WITNESS: No further payments.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. None at all?
A. Huh-uh.
Q. If Lampo terminated this agreement within a month of it being signed, how much would Mr. Paffrath owe Lampo?
MR. BUNDREN: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Nothing other than referrals that were sent in the future -- that were sent that closed in the future.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. And if no referrals were sent, then how much would Mr. Paffrath owe Lampo?
MR. BUNDREN: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Zero.

Later in the deposition, Galloway admits that the "harm" was really about Paffrath "tarnishing" Lampo's brand -- which is classic 1st Amendment protected speech, thus (again) putting this into SLAPP territory. Part of the "fraud" claims is that Paffrath apparently included zip codes in his ELP application that were regions he didn't actually serve as a real estate agent. But as Horwitz gets Galloway to admit, there was no actual harm from that -- just from him mocking them.

BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Was Lampo injured based on the ZIP codes that Kevin Paffrath submitted to it?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to the form,calls for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS: I do not have personal knowledge that Lampo was injured.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Was Lampo injured by what you have referred to as -- I'm characterizing here, so please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing you -- false statements about his intentions?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to the form, calls for a legal conclusion, also asks a question on a -- that's more appropriate for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and not of this witness.
You can answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe so.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. And what were those injuries?
MR. BUNDREN: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Our brand is a brand of integrity and trust and we're in the business of helping people. And --
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Sir -- (indicating.)
A. -- when Mr. Paffrath went online to say that we're liars and cheaters, it damages that brand, it keeps people who we wanted to help from having full trust in us, and it tarnishes a brand that we've worked hard to build.
Q. Sir, will you please go back to your answers to Interrogatory 1? Can you tell me if there's any provision in there that references damage to Lampo's brand?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection, calls for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS: No, there is not.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Sir, in your answer to Interrogatory 2, is there any indication that Lampo lost business because of damage to its brand?
MR. BUNDREN: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: (Reviews document.) No.

And, perhaps my favorite exchange -- considering how much of this case depends on the claims that Paffrath "lied" about Ramsey's service, and things like the claim that Ramsey was just a "hand-off" service (passing through unqualified leads), Horwitz gets Galloway to admit that one could think that was the case:

BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Would it be fair to characterize Lampo as a hand-off service between prospective leads and ELP agents?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to form, lack of foundation, argumentative.
THE WITNESS: Do you mind to define hand-off service?
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Whatever it means to you.
A. No.
MR. BUNDREN: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would not characterize it.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Why not?
A. To me, hand-off implies that there is not a lot of effort made to send quality referrals to quality agents and we put a great deal of effort into both of those.
Q. Would other people be entitled to have a different opinion of the meaning of hand-off service?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection, vague, and ambiguous, speculation, and argumentative.
THE WITNESS: They would be entitled.

Oh, just one more tidbit from the transcript. Remember that claim in the Daily Beast article about Ramsey pulling out a gun? About that:

BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Has Dave Ramsey ever pulled a gun out of a bag to try to teach a lesson about gossip?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection, harassing, and relevance. We're getting pretty far afield from the claims made in this case. If we need to call the Judge, we will so I wouldn't spend much time on this.
You can answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes.

The motion to dismiss highlights how all of the claims in the complaint are just smokescreens for the actual SLAPP nature of this lawsuit. Hell, one of the claims -- business disparagement -- is not even a recognized tort in Tennessee where the case was filed.

The whole case just seems to be an exercise in trying to avoid being called out for a clear SLAPP by simply avoiding defamation claims. But all of the claims in the lawsuit seem completely bogus, and the real issue leading up to the complaint seems focused almost exclusively on the mocking videos. Hopefully the court recognizes this and tosses the case quickly.

For what it's worth, there are a couple other oddities associated with this case that should be mentioned as well. Ramsey appears to really want to avoid having to be deposed himself, and got a "protective order" blocking a subpoena for him to be deposed. The reasoning is somewhat odd:

I have no personal knowledge of any facts involved in this litigation. I have never had any personal dealings with the defendants, nor have I ever corresponded with defendants by email or otherwise. The only information I possess about the background and allegations of this litigation is summary information provided to me either by RS’s legal counsel or at RS’s legal counsel’s direction.

Basically, Ramsey is insisting he's got nothing to do with this case at all. Yet, again in the deposition mentioned above, Galloway makes it clear that Ramsey was deeply engaged in internal discussions about this lawsuit -- and even that the decision to sue was made by the executive leadership team, of which Ramsey is obviously the boss:

Q. Was this litigation filed at Dave Ramsey's direction?
MR. BUNDREN: Objection to the form, speculation, foundation.
THE WITNESS: It was a group decision by our executive leadership of which Dave is the CEO.
BY MR. HORWITZ:
Q. Was that decision made in a meeting?
A. My recollection of it is poor. My best recollection would be that Dave, our general counsel -- not the entire group in a board meeting but that they would have been made aware of. But the decision would have been between Dave, myself, our general counsel. It's possible there were other people in that conversation but I don't have memory of who they would be.

That certainly sounds like Ramsey was well aware of the decision to sue this guy, which raises some questions about that claim to the court that he's not involved in the case at all. Again, given that there is a lot of evidence suggesting the entire point of this lawsuit is to go after someone for making videos that make fun of Ramsey, it looks pretty silly for him to suggest he's unaware of the details of the case beyond being briefed on it by lawyers.

Finally, speaking of stifling speech and protective orders, this case carries a very odd "Temporary Restraining Order" that not only has Paffrath agreeing to remove all the videos in question (so we can't even see them), but also that no one associated with Paffrath, including his lawyers, are allowed to discuss the case publicly. Both of these are blatant restrictions on free speech, and it seems odd to me that the defendant appeared to agree to this without question.

The Defendants, their officers, agents, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, agree not to post any content on any Defendants' Accounts or elsewhere related to Ramsey, its employees, officers, principals, and/or this litigation.

That's... pretty crazy. In what world is it okay for a situation in which there's an obvious SLAPP suit, for the defendant to be gagged from even talking about the litigation or about the plaintiff in the case? If anything, this just gives more credence to the claim that this is a SLAPP suit and the goal is to silence Paffrath from criticizing Ramsey.

Oh, and because it needs to be said again: this is why we need a federal anti-SLAPP law, and we needed it years ago.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, criticism, david ramsey, free speech, kevin paffrath, slapp
Companies: lampo group, ramsey solutions

Hong Kong Court Hands Down Protest-Targeting Order Banning Online Content That 'Incites Violence'

from the less-speech,-more-silence dept

The ongoing Hong Kong protests aren't going to end anytime soon, but the government keeps throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks. While US corporate entities are busy exchanging their spines for Chinese market share, those actually on the front lines are standing up for Hong Kong protesters.

Hong Kong retains some autonomy from the Chinese government, which has allowed it to somewhat elude being cut off from the world by the Great Firewall of China. Local ISPs aren't willing to play the government's game, pushing back against demands they engage in censorship of Hong Kong residents on behalf of China. Pointing to the existence of VPNs and encrypted traffic, ISPs said any efforts it made would be mostly useless, if they were interested in making this effort. Which they weren't.

Other providers, like Telegram, have refused government demands to censor content and have faced repeated DDoS attacks from state-sponsored hackers in retaliation. What's already being attempted will likely accelerate, thanks to an order handed down by the Hong Kong high court.

A court on Thursday granted Hong Kong’s embattled government an interim injunction banning anyone from posting or spreading messages online that could incite violence as authorities struggle to get a grip on nearly five months of protest chaos and social unrest.

Mr Justice Russell Coleman of the High Court issued the order to restrain members of the public from “wilfully disseminating, circulating, publishing or republishing” any material on platforms online such as popular Reddit-like forum LIHKG and messaging app Telegram that “promotes, encourages or incites the use or threat of violence”.

This temporary injunction that allows the government to target protesters will likely be formalized later this month, obligating service providers to find content and block it, even if it's not entirely clear what content is considered a violation of this order.

The judge himself suggested the injunction might make it easier for the government to find protesters it wants to punish.

“One purpose of application for this order is to identify to people who may not know that expressions online are subject to scrutiny by the law,” he continued. “It may be a misconception to think that expressions online are not subject to scrutiny.”

But the order itself contains no requirements that social media platforms or other service providers hand over users' details. It only requires them to find content and remove it. This would make platforms responsible for content created by users, which may be all the government wants, since it's so much easier to track down platforms than users.

But will it work? That depends on what the government really wants. If it wants service providers to make it more difficult for protesters to organize, then it will probably be a success. If the government wants to prosecute individuals for their posts, this injunction isn't going to help it much.

The government bears the burden of proof, which means it must be able to show the person violating the injunction knew of the injunction's existence and violated it knowingly. Since this isn't a law created by the legislature but rather a quasi-law created by a court order, ignorance of its existence is probably a legitimate excuse. And since there's no obligation to hand over user details, the government may not have much luck finding people to prosecute. Given these limitations, it seems clear the government is more interested in forcing service providers to censor on its behalf.

Filed Under: censorship, china, free speech, hong kong, incitement, protests, violence