Thin-Skinned Chinese Government Busy Making American Sports Orgs Look Silly On Free Speech Issues

from the villains-of-the-storm dept

It's no secret that the Chinese government is no friend to free speech. While that statement must seem painfully obvious, the entire world is getting an education into just how thin-skinned Beijing is with the ongoing protests in Hong Kong. While those protesters are chiefly demonstrating for their own civil rights, the Chinese government has apparently made it its business to police the rest of the world's speech while holding the second largest economy on the planet as a hostage to its own hurt feelings.

And American sporting companies are failing this values test. And failing it badly. We'll start with the NBA. Days ago, Daryl Morey, the GM for the Houston Rockets, tweeted out an image that included the text, "Fight for freedom, Stand with Hong Kong." It's the kind of thing literally anyone could have sent, except that the NBA, and the Rockets in particular, are insanely popular in China. Much of that has to do with Yao Ming having played for the Rockets years ago. Ming now runs the Chinese Basketball Association.

The reaction to all of this was swift. The CBA cut ties with the Rockets. Chinese broadcasters announced they would no longer broadcast NBA pre-season games. A pre-season game that is supposed to be played in China in mere days is up in the air as to whether the game will even be played. And Chinese run media ran with it all, with one article stating:

Daryl Morey, general manager of the NBA team the Houston Rockets, has obviously gotten himself into trouble. He tweeted a photo saying “fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong” on Saturday while accompanying his team in Tokyo. The tweet soon set the team’s Chinese fans ablaze. It can be imagined how Morey’s tweet made them disappointed and furious. Shortly afterward, CCTV sports channel and Tencent sports channel both announced they would suspend broadcasting Rockets’ games. Some of the team’s Chinese sponsors and business partners also started to suspend cooperation with the Rockets.

Here's the thing: Twitter isn't officially available in China. It's therefore tough to understand just how these Chinese fans became "ablaze" and "furious" without ever being able to see the tweet, had the Chinese government not decided to feed this whole thing through its well-developed outrage machine. Between that and the simple fact that Morey's tweet was about as anodyne as one could be on the topic of Hong Kong, you would have thought the NBA would be willing to show at least a little spine. Instead, it issued an apology for offending its Chinese fans, while Morey deleted the tweet entirely.

The NBA issued a statement in English on Sunday, saying it was “regrettable” that Morey’s tweet “deeply offended” legions of Chinese fans.

There are reports that the Chinese version of the apology went much, much further in its groveling. This set off a public firestorm in America and elsewhere, with the NBA appearing to bow at the altar of Beijing's manufactured hurt feelings. It got bad enough that Commissioner Adam Silver finally came out and issued the statement he should have issued to begin with.

Values of equality, respect and freedom of expression have long defined the NBA — and will continue to do so. As an American-based basketball league operating globally, among our greatest contributions are these values of the game¬

It is inevitable that people around the world — including from America and China — will have different viewpoints over different issues. It is not the role of the NBA to adjudicate those differences. However, the NBA will not put itself in a position of regulating what players, employees and team owners say or will not say on these issues. We simply could not operate that way.

The statement led to even more backlash from China, with sponsorships being pulled, and the broadcast and hosting of NBA games now in serious perpetual doubt. Still, it's worth noting that it took a severe public backlash to get the NBA to the proper stance, in which it protects and backs the speech rights of its employees.

Whereas Blizzard fully rolled over for Beijing when it yanked the prize money and banned a professional Hearthstone player for making statements similar to Morey's.

Chung “Blitzchung” Ng Wai, a pro Hearthstone player from Hong Kong, ended a stream earlier this week with a statement of support for those engaged in months-long protests against local police and government. As a result of this, Blizzard has ruled that he violated competition rules, and have handed out a heavy punishment.

In the stream, part of the broadcast of the Asia-Pacific Grandmasters, Blitzchung wore a mask (similar to those worn by protesters) and said “Liberate Hong Kong. Revolution of our age!”

As with the NBA, the Chinese government complained. Unlike the NBA, however, Blizzard seems to have permanently misplaced its spine. The company claimed that the official competition rules were violated, specifically:

Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image will result in removal from Grandmasters and reduction of the player’s prize total to $0 USD, in addition to other remedies which may be provided for under the Handbook and Blizzard’s Website Terms.

It feels easy to argue that Blizzard's "sole discretion" has been severely miscalculated. The rather tame voice of support by Blitzchung for Hong Kong protests are absolutely the sort of thing the thin-skinned Chinese government deems a problem, but that same analysis should not be reached by an American company. Banning and taking prize money from the competitor in this way is about as stupid as it gets. For one, the American market is important to Blizzard as well, and this sure as hell is not going to play well here. For another, the precedent has now been etched into stone and you can bank that the Chinese government, and others, will see just how far they can slam open this door that Blizzard decided to crack.

It would be better if Blizzard, now as much an eSports company as anything else, along with the NBA, could simply stand up for some basic civil rights and values. Money is good, sure. But selling your soul to an authoritarian government doesn't seem like a good long term strategy.

Filed Under: basketball, blitzchung, china, daryl morey, free speech, hearthstone, hong kong, sports
Companies: blizzard, houston rockets, nba

Turkish Gov't Demands US Embassy Apologize For 'Liking' A Tweet The Turkish Gov't Didn't Like

from the adults-in-room-capitulate-to-child.-details-at-11. dept

The government with the thinnest skin is at it again. Turkey can't handle being criticized in even the slightest way -- not after installing Recep "Gollum" Erdogan as president. A very, very long list of well-earned criticisms has led to an equally long list of retaliatory actions against the president's critics, which has included the misuse of other countries' laws to secure punishment of non-citizens and the jailing of of journalists declared to be terrorists by President Erdogan's government.

The government that can't visit other nations without beating up the locals recently decided it needed to have a little one-on-one time with a US diplomat who interacted with a tweet the Turkish government didn't like.

Turkey summoned a top American diplomat Sunday after the U.S. Embassy's official Twitter account "liked" a tweet that said the people of Turkey should prepare for a political era without the leader of Turkey's national party, who is reportedly ill.

The Foreign Ministry said the U.S. charge d'affaires Jeffrey Hovenier was summoned despite an embassy statement that said its Twitter account had liked "an unrelated post in error," and apologized.

The tweet, written by a Turkish journalist Erdogan wants to throw in jail, suggested nationalist leader Devlet Bahceli might die soon. Apparently the Turkish government decided it wasn't enough to hate on the tweet and its tweeter. So, it decided to scroll down the list of people who had interacted with the tweet and see if it couldn't find some way to express its displeasure.

This in itself is ridiculous. Apparently unaware of the fact that retweets and likes aren't always endorsements, the Turkish government decided to make itself look like even more of an easily-bruised dictatorship by demanding a US diplomat apologize for pressing a button on social media. Unfortunately, the ridiculousness doesn't end there. The US embassy decided to encourage this clownish thuggery by apologizing a second time for liking a tweet.

"We do not associate ourselves with Ergun Babahan nor do we endorse or agree with the content of his tweet," the embassy's second apology read. "We reiterate our regret for this error."

Thanks. That ought to keep Erdogan in line. I realize we're somewhat reliant on Turkey thanks to our decision to back combatants in a war being fought in Syria, but pacifying an impetuous child dressed in a president's suit is something we shouldn't even be doing domestically, much less halfway around the world. We're the country of free speech. Let's try to use it now and then when idiots start demanding apologies for things they have no right to be demanding apologies for.

Filed Under: diplomacy, diplomat, free speech, jeffrey hovenier, likes, recep tayyip erdogan, thin skin, us embassy

CBP Official Refuses To Give Journalist His Passport Until He 'Admits' He Writes 'Propaganda'

from the more-hell-for-the-dystopian-hellscape dept

The situation at our borders is getting worse for some American citizens. I mean, all American citizens are likely dealing with more questions, more screening, and more general hassle now that the President has declared immigrants and asylum seekers to be a "national emergency."

The Presidential narrative that people at border crossings are inherently dangerous has undoubtedly had an effect on the mindset of border agency personnel. But there's an added wrinkle, thanks to President Trump's rhetoric portraying journalists as liars and -- in multiple instances -- "enemies of the people." This, too, is having an effect on border personnel attitudes.

Defense One News Editor Ben Watson ran into this when he was returning from an assignment in Denmark:

CBP officer, holding Watson’s passport: “What do you do?”

Watson: “Journalism.”

CBP officer: “So you write propaganda, right?”

Watson: “No.”

CBP officer: “You’re a journalist?”

Watson: “Yes.”

CBP officer: “You write propaganda, right?”

Watson: “No. I am in journalism. Covering national security. And homeland security. And with many of the same skills I used in the U.S. Army as a public affairs officer. Some would argue that’s propaganda.”

CBP officer: “You’re a journalist?”

Watson: “Yes.”

CBP officer: “You write propaganda, right?”

Watson waited five seconds. Then: “For the purposes of expediting this conversation, yes.”

CBP officer, a fourth time: “You write propaganda, right?”

Watson, again: “For the purposes of expediting this conversation, yes.”

CBP officer: “Here you go.”

This isn't the sort of thing all journalists see when returning from a foreign country, but it's been seen by enough journalists that it can't be ignored as an anomaly. The Defense One article lists a handful of other instances where journalists have been accosted and harangued by customs agents. In these cases, journalists were accused of "spreading lies" and creating "fake news."

Of course, these interactions aren't documented by customs agents, but at least one incident resulted in an apology from CBP officials, so they're not fabrications or misunderstandings either. The more Trump repeats his attacks on journalists, the more commonplace these occurrences will be. Fortunately, there have only been a few reported incidents, which indicates customs officers are being more professional than the president when dealing with journalists. Then again, the DHS, ICE, and CBP have actually placed journalists under surveillance and subjected a great many of them to enhanced screenings and lengthy detentions.

There will always be those who will argue this isn't the result of anything Trump has said, but is just the work of a few rogue agents. They're right on the second part. Any agent who feels the need to attack journalists by accusing them of lying or spreading fake news has gone rogue. That's not part of the job. Personal biases need to be set aside and there will always be a certain percentage of the workforce that just cannot seem to do that. If it seems more prevalent in government agencies -- especially those whose employees wield a great deal of power -- it's because those are newsworthy incidents. An asshole at work is just an asshole. Someone being an asshole while deciding whether or not to let a US citizen back into the country is way more problematic.

But these incidents cannot be separated from Trump's words and deeds. He has repeatedly claimed "fake news" journalists are an "enemy of the people," and that's being expressed by agencies that have been given the full backing of the administration. While previous presidential administrations have always had complaints about journalists, they were generally the kind of complaints most politicians have in the face of negative press. President Trump's "enemy of the people" declarations are unprecedented. Government employees who back Trump are apparently taking him at his word.

This is making matters worse in areas of the country where our supposedly guaranteed rights and protections are almost nonexistent. And, since Trump hasn't shown any signs of lowering the heat under his anti-press rhetoric, things will continue to get worse.

Filed Under: ben watson, border crossing, cbp, dhs, free speech, journalism, papers please
Companies: defense one

Australian State's Proposed Ag-Gag Law Threatens General Right To Protest, Critics Warn

from the watch-out-mushy-headed-vegans dept

Ag-gag laws usually claim to be about protecting farmers from animal activists. But trespass laws already do that quite effectively. In reality, ag-gag laws are mostly about preventing activists from gathering photographic evidence of the poor conditions in which animals are kept on some farms. Techdirt has written a number of stories about ag-gag laws in the US, and how they are being ruled unconstitutional. Now it seems that Australia is intent on bringing in ag-gag laws in response to an upsurge in animal rights activism in the country. Australian politicians have been getting vocal on the topic for a while. Back in April, Australia's Prime Minister called the activists "green collared criminals". In May, Western Australia's attorney general told journalists:

"I don’t know what the mushy-headed vegans think, or why they think, but they better get this through their mushy heads: that we're changing the law in a substantial way that spells trouble, big trouble, for anyone who goes trespassing on agricultural land with the intention of disrupting agricultural production"

In New South Wales (NSW), ag-gag legislation called the "Right to Farm Bill" (pdf) has already been published. According to the Guardian:

The Right to Farm Bill 2019, currently before the NSW parliament, can punish unlawful entry and disruption on "inclosed lands" with up to three years in jail, and increases the fine from $5,500 to $22,000.

The bill is aimed at stopping animal rights protests on farms, but a range of groups and MPs say the wording would outlaw civil protest on any enclosed space, including schools, hospitals, mine sites or banks.

The problem is that the definition of "inclosed lands" is far wider than just farms. It means:

any land, either public or private, inclosed or surrounded by any fence, wall or other erection, or partly by a fence, wall or other erection and partly by a canal or by some natural feature such as a river or cliff by which its boundaries may be known or recognised, including the whole or part of any building or structure and any land occupied or used in connection with the whole or part of any building or structure.

In addition, the new law would create an "aggravated" offense, which applies to "circumstances in which the person hinders, or attempts or intends to hinder, the conduct of the business or undertaking". "Hinder" is incredibly vague, and would catch all kinds of peaceful protests against any business, although this is denied by the NSW agriculture minister, who said the bill had been "mischaracterised by minority groups". However, given Australia's awful track record on protecting freedom of speech, people there are certainly right to be worried by the proposed law.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: activism, ag gag, australia, free speech, protests, reporting

Federal Court Blocks South Dakota's Pro-Pipeline, Anti-First Amendment 'Riot Boosting' Law

from the SD-legislature-says-'no-life-changing-protests-on-our-watch,-thanks!' dept

When the protests of the Keystone XL pipeline project took off, state legislators (and prosecutors) tried to find some way to curb protected First Amendment activity. These efforts started with federal agencies like the CBP and FBI, which did what they could to make life difficult for protesters and journalists covering the protests.

Efforts were made to turn protesting into an illegal act, or hand protesters a bill for services rendered by police officers already being paid to do the sort of thing they were doing -- keeping an eye on protests.

In South Dakota, legislators pushed through a law targeting "riot-boosting." It defined this as the encouragement of violence during protests. It was passed in a hurry during the last week of the 2019 legislative session with an emergency clause that put it into effect immediately. The ACLU immediately sued, claiming the law was unconstitutional. As Courthouse News reports, a federal judge has arrived at the same conclusion.

A federal judge in South Dakota Wednesday blocked provisions of a new anti-rioting law signed by Gov. Kristi Noem earlier this year that aims to quash protests against the Keystone XL pipeline.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol granted American Civil Liberties Union’s request for the injunction for multiple riot laws and statutes, including Senate Bill 189, known as the “riot-boosting law.”

The ACLU, representing four environmental groups and two individuals, claims SB 189 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because the law fails to define what actions are deemed a violation that would constitute civil or criminal penalties.

The decision [PDF] notes that all four of South Dakota's anti-rioting laws are impermissibly vague when it comes to regulating speech. The court points out some of these laws might be salvaged with some tighter editing, but the most recent one -- put into place specifically to target pipeline protests with the intent of targeting "out-of-state money funding riots" -- is the most problematic.

If all it takes is some forceful language using violent imagery to break the law, many of those leading demonstrations key to establishing and protecting civil rights would have been treated as criminals.

Even if the encouragement to protesters is in forceful language as was demonstrated by Charles Evers' speech summarized in part in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware C0., 458 U.S. 886, 900 n.28 (1982) (Evers told the assembled black people that any "uncle toms" who broke the boycott would "have their necks broken" by their own people. This was directed at all 8,000 black residents of Claiborne County), that is protected speech. None of these three terms encompass fighting words or true threats words that provoke immediate violence and are net protected by the First Amendment. So, "mere advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the First Amendment." Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 927; Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 108-09 (1973). The many words or expressive activities that arise within these three terms, to advise, encourage or solicit, might in some instances be offensive to some or to many people, but they are protected by the First Amendment and cannot be the subject of felony prosecution or of tort liability and damages.

Beyond that, the law's targeting of people doing nothing more than "advising, encouraging, or soliciting" has the potential to ensnare people who aren't directly participating in protests (or riots).

By comparison to direction, the court finds the separate admonitions, whether criminal or civil, against advising, encouraging or soliciting to be vague in part because of their very breadth.

Sending a supporting email or a letter to the editor in support of a protest is encouraging. Giving a cup of coffee or thumbs up or $10 to protestors is encouraging the protesters. Holding up a sign in protest on a street corner is encouraging. Asking someone to protest is soliciting. Asking someone for $10 to support protesting is soliciting. Suggesting that the protest sign be bigger is advising. The possible violations of those felony or damage creating statutes against advising, encouraging or soliciting goes on and on. Encouragement, advice or solicitation for the protest on social media would be a fertile ground for damages or charges or both. And each of the examples involve protected speech or expressive activity.

The sometimes-unpleasant outcomes -- the protests that turn to riots -- cannot be targeted by laws that endanger the key free speech protections that allow protests to exist in the first place. If laws like these had been on the books several decades ago, America would be a very different -- and much worse -- country.

Imagine that if these riot-boosting statutes were applied to the protests that took place in Birmingham, Alabama, what might be the result? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. King personally took part in peaceful demonstrations in Birmingham, Alabama, against segregation. While jailed, Dr. King wrote his public "Letter from Birmingham Jail." Dr. King wrote regarding the Birmingham demonstrations, "You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws."

And Dr. King goes on to explain in agreeing with Aristotle that "an unjust law is no law at all," and then on to say "to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, then it [permitting] becomes unjust." Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference could have been liable under an identical riot boosting law for the many types of damages which could be claimed under SDCL 20-9-54 and 20-9-56 for soliciting, advising or encouraging another person to break the law. SDCL 20-9-56 also creates a separate civil cause of action for soliciting or compensating any other person to commit an unlawful act or to be arrested. Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference could be liable for treble damages under that separate cause of action. The separate cause of action in SDCL 20-9-56 is not vague but it is unconstitutional in that it does not meet the Brandenburg requirements and infringes on protected speech and association.

And with that, the affected laws are blocked. Some will need to be rewritten. Some will have to have certain clauses removed. And the new "riot-boosting" law is blocked… at least until legislators find some way to achieve their goals without deciding the first thing against the wall should be protected Constitutional rights.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, free speec, keystone pipeline, protests, south dakota

What's Australian For Streisand Effect? Perhaps It's Fatty McFuckhead

from the dude,-that's-not-defamation dept

We've covered a few times just how strange Australian defamation law can be, so I wouldn't even take a guess at how the courts might come down on the question of whether or not calling billionaire Clive Palmer "Fatty McFuckhead" is defamatory. However, I will note that if Palmer didn't want people to start associating himself with the name Fatty McFuckhead, he might have thought twice about threatening to sue someone over that moniker.

As detailed in this fairly amusing video, a popular YouTuber named Jordan Shanks, but better known as Friendly Jordies, has been making a bit of fun of the billionaire, and that apparently is something that Palmer just won't stand for. Shanks goes through the legal threat letter in detail in the 26 minute video:

The video is... pretty incredible. Shanks goes through in quite a lot of detail responding to the threat letter, and laying out why he thinks Palmer deserves basically everything that Shanks said about him, and also "corrects the record" on one point, where he argues the letter alerted him that his original statements about Palmer might not have gone far enough.

We've seen this story play out so many times now. Someone super wealthy sends off a defamation threat letter to someone they know doesn't have much money, likely hoping to intimidate them into stopping being so mean to them. And, perhaps that works in some cases. But in so many cases it just leaves lots and lots of people curious as to why Clive Palmer doesn't want to be called Fatty McFuckhead.

Filed Under: australia, clive palmer, defamation, fatty mcfuckhead, free speech, friendly jordies, jordan shanks, streisand effect

Being Designated A 'Hate Group' By The SPLC Isn't Defamation, Says Federal Court

from the careful-with-that-anti-free-speech-litigation,-plaintiffs dept

The Southern Poverty Law Center has just escaped from a bogus defamation lawsuit brought against it by yet another displeased recipient of the SPLC's "hate group" designation. (h/t Adam Steinbaugh)

Back in February, Gavin McInnes -- the founder of "western chauvinist" group Proud Boys -- sued the SPLC for calling the Proud Boys a hate group. SPLC defended itself by pointing out all the hateful things the Proud Boys have said/done, as well as all the hateful things Gavin McInnes has said/done.

It seems highly unlikely McInnes will prevail in this lawsuit. Unfortunately, the SPLC will still have to defend itself against these bogus claims, and others filed by similar groups that have decided to litigiously object to the SPLC's assessment of their hate levels.

Coral Ridge Ministries (now Truth In Action Ministries) sued the SPLC in 2017 over its hate group designation, which resulted in Amazon blocking Coral Ridge from receiving charitable donations from its AmazonSmile program. The single claim against Amazon is supposedly related to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Coral Ridge feels Amazon is discriminating against it for its religious beliefs -- beliefs that include claiming homosexuality is a lawless abomination. The court points out, towards the tail end of its 141-page decision [PDF], that this claim is implausible, even if one is inclined to read the Act as covering online-only charitable donation platforms.

While Title II “is to be liberally construed and broadly read,” Miller, 394 F.2d at 349, Coral Ridge wants to stretch the statute beyond its breaking point. Perhaps Title II extends beyond physical “place[s],” § 2000a(b), to the internet. Perhaps it protects more than just potential customers seeking goods, services, etc. Perhaps it even recognizes disparate-impact claims. But it does not protect the ability to receive money donations, where such an ability is limited exclusively to § 501(c)(3) organizations and thus not open to the public. And Title II certainly does not entitle to relief a plaintiff who does not plausibly alleged any discrimination whatsoever, whether intentional or by disparate impact.

Coral Ridge cannot force the Amazon defendants to donate money to it. Its Title II claim is due to be dismissed with prejudice.

The defamation claim against SPLC isn't much more coherent. Coral Ridge decides only one definition of the word "hate group" will do -- one that includes membership that advocates for or participates in acts of violence. The court says there are multiple definitions of "hate group" used by entities all over the world and very few of them contain this requirement. More to the point, SPLC's definition of "hate group" does not contain this stipulation. Asserting facts not in evidence is no way to win a court case.

The court need not accept Coral Ridge’s alleged definition of “hate group” because it is a conclusory allegation. Critically, Coral Ridge fails to plead any facts to support its “generaliz[ed],” “blanket statement[]” about the commonly understood meaning of “hate group.” Roberts, 2013 WL 4046383, at *2. It does not, for example, plead that “hate group” is anywhere defined--whether in a dictionary, or by any other source or entity--to require engaging in or advocating violence or crime. Coral Ridge thus asserts “a factual inference”--the commonly understood meaning of “hate group”--"without stating the underlying facts on which the inference is based.”

The First Amendment is at stake here. And the court isn't willing to let Coral Ridge leverage the only definition of hate group it finds acceptable into a rights-altering lawsuit win.

If courts considering motions to dismiss were obligated to accept as true plaintiffs’ factually unsupported definitions of words, concepts, and terms, it would make a mockery of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)’s pleading standard.⁷ Requiring courts to accept as true plaintiffs’ pleaded definitions of words would be particularly inappropriate in public-figure defamation suits such as this one, where “there is a powerful interest in ensuring that free speech is not unduly burdened by the necessity of defending against expensive yet groundless litigation.”

The footnote attached to this paragraph spells it out clearly for Coral Ridge: words have meaning… not just your meaning.

For example, if a plaintiff buyer alleging that a defendant seller fraudulently misrepresented the number of apples in a delivery could successfully plead any definition he wanted of “apples”--such as requiring that they have seeds made of 24-karat gold--then even the most frivolous claim could survive a motion to dismiss.

Coral Ridge doesn't survive this motion to dismiss. As the court points out, if you're going to provide citations in support of your single, ultra-thin argument, at least try to include some citations that actually back your claim.

In its amended complaint and briefing, Coral Ridge cites three sources--other than itself and SPLC--of definitions of a “hate group”: (1) judicial opinions, (2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and (3) the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The definitions--or, in the case of the judicial opinions, lack of a definition--of the term “hate group” provided by all of these sources directly contradict Coral Ridge’s allegation that a “hate group is legally and commonly understood as one that engages [in] or advocates crime or violence against others.”

The term Coral Ridge wants to argue about isn't easily or narrowly defined. The court says there is "no single, commonly understood meaning of the term 'hate group.'" Since there's no precise definition, Coral Ridge cannot hope to prove the SPLC's designation is false, and certainly not that the SPLC knew it was false when it declared Coral Ridge an "anti-LGBTQ hate group."

Coral Ridge cannot prove the falsity of the “hate group” designation, given that, as the court has found, the designation is not provable as false. Logically speaking, a plaintiff cannot prove what is not provable.

[...]

To find actual malice just because SPLC publicized a meaning of “hate group” that conflicted with the common understanding of the term would severely undermine debate and free speech about a matter of public concern. This is because, even if the term had achieved a commonly understood meaning, that meaning would not be fixed forever, but rather could evolve through public debate. To sanction a speaker for promoting a genuinely held dissenting view of the meaning of “hate group” would be akin to punishing a speaker for advocating new conceptions of terms like “terrorist,” “extremist,” “sexist,” “racist,” “radical left wing,” “radical right wing,” “liberal,” or “conservative.” Punishing speakers to preserve status quo ideas would be anathema to the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects a lot of speech people wish it wouldn't. It protects Coral Ridge's anti-LGBTQ statements -- ones that include calling homosexuality "vile," "lawless," and "an abomination." Many people would probably like to see speech like this suppressed with "hate speech" laws. It shouldn't be. But, hypocritically, Coral Ridge wants to call SPLC's "hate group" designation defamation, removing it from the shelter of First Amendment protections. But it does this while presenting itself as a fierce free speech advocate being unfairly targeted by hate speech law proposals.

The SPLC's "hate group" work is, at best, questionable. But it's still protected speech, even if it results in adverse outcomes for those it designates as hateful. The best response is more speech, not lawsuits that threaten the protections the plaintiffs benefit from each and every day.

Filed Under: defamation, free speech, hate group, opinion
Companies: coral ridge ministries, splc, truth in action ministries

Louisiana's Terrible Criminal Defamation Law Again Being Used To Unconstitutionally Target A Critic Of Law Enforcement

from the they-never-learn dept

Louisiana's stupid, unconstitutional criminal defamation law remains on the books despite the state's highest court reaching this conclusion nearly forty years ago:

We hold R.S. 14:47, 48, and 49 to be unconstitutional insofar as they attempt to punish public expression and publication concerning public officials, public figures, and private individuals who are engaged in public affairs.

Despite that, law enforcement officers and agencies continue to use the state's criminal defamation law to punish people for saying bad things about public officials. In every case we've seen, the law is deployed unconstitutionally to protect law enforcement officers/officials and their friends -- a direct contradiction of the state supreme court's holding.

Sheriff Jerry Larpenter of Terre Bonne Parish used the law to subject some bloggers critical of him and his business partnerships to searches of their residences and seizures of their electronic devices. Over in Livingston Parish, parish council members filed criminal defamation complaints against commenters on Facebook who criticized the council's misuse of public funds.

If you're sensing a pattern here, it's because there is one. The law seems to be exclusively used in the way the state's supreme court has said it can't be used. And, thanks to the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office, we have yet another data point to add to this shitty law's saga.

The St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office arrested a federal law enforcement agent and former STPSO employee Monday (Sept. 16) for defamation.

Jerry Rogers Jr. (DOB 11/3/1972) was arrested after it was discovered he sent numerous emails which included false information in relation to an open investigation.

Rogers used a fake name to create an email account and then sent messages to the family members of a victim.

The emails contained false information regarding the ongoing investigation as well as derogatory statements regarding the lead investigator and others closely involved in the investigation. The false information deprived the lead investigator of the family’s trust and confidence.

Here it is again: law enforcement making with the criminal defamation charges when, at best, it should be considered a civil case. There are more details in this in-depth report by Nola.com, which suggests the statements -- and the resulting criminal defamation charges -- stem from the Sheriff's Office's investigation of a homicide the Sheriff was initially unwilling to investigate as a homicide, despite the victim being found with a bullet through her head inside of her burned home.

The sheriff claims the former employee/current federal agent used a fake name to create accounts to send emails to the victim's family in order to undermine their confidence in the Sheriff's investigation. Yet again, the use of a pseudonym isn't a factor that should turn this from a civil case to a criminal case.

No, the problem here was someone was badmouthing the sheriff and his investigators. It may be some of what was said was substantially true. The sheriff's reluctance to investigate this death as a homicide -- at least not until he decided to run for re-election -- may have resulted in this case being back-burnered… and ultimately to the emails at the center of this attempted prosecution.

This internal investigation that has now manifested itself as an unconstitutional enforcement of a horrible law has also resulted in the firing of one of the office's investigators.

The arrest comes on the heels of the firing of Sgt. Stefan Montgomery, one of a team of Sheriff's Office investigators assigned to the Krentel case.

Documents from the Sheriff's Office said that Montgomery shared privileged information with someone outside the agency on multiple occasions. "This person then in turn used that information to defame the investigation, (Sheriff's Office) personnel and the ... agency," according to a document concerning Montgomery's termination.

This only makes this prosecution more disingenuous. If the emails the Sheriff is basing his criminal defamation case are based on credible information leaked to the suspect by another law enforcement officer, chances are there's a lot of truth in this so-called "defamation."

Even if everything the Sheriff is angry about is pure bullshit, the law cannot be used to prosecute someone who criticized public officials, even if the accused is a public official himself. Hopefully, the prosecutor will recognize this for what is -- a violation of the Constitution -- and refuse to move forward with charges. But this is Louisiana, and the state's prosecutors have shown repeatedly they're willing to compound unforced errors by local law enforcement.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, criminal defamation, critics, defamation, free speech, jerry larpenter, jerry rogers, law enforcement, livingston parish, louisiana, st. tammany parish, terre bonne parish

Phew: EU Court Of Justice Says Right To Be Forgotten Is Not A Global Censorship Tool (Just An EU One)

from the dodged-a-bullet dept

Over the past few years, an important legal battle has been playing out concerning the jurisdictional reach of the EU's terrible "right to be forgotten" laws. France decided that Google needed to not just block such content within the EU, but globally. In response, Google pointed out that French regulators shouldn't be able to censor the global internet. The question made it to the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) last year, and the ruling has finally come down saying that Google was right after all. The right to be forgotten may exist in the EU, but that does not mean it can be applied globally.

For once, the CJEU actually seemed to recognize that the RTBF and freedom of expression are often in conflict -- and that different countries may want to set the "balance" (if you can call it that) between the two in different places:

... the balance between the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, on the one hand, and the freedom of information of internet users, on the other, is likely to vary significantly around the world.

Indeed, the ruling notes that data protection is not an "absolute right."

The processing of personal data should be designed to serve mankind. The right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right; it must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

Of course, I have a bit of trouble with the idea of things that are considered fundamental rights -- such as freedom of expression -- being "balanced" against things that are not fundamental rights, like "protection of personal data." It seems like the fundamental right should always win out in such circumstances. In the US, for the most part, we've decided that the 1st Amendment doesn't have a "balancing" test.

Still, it's good to see the CJEU at least put some limits on the right to be forgotten and the ability of it to be used elsewhere against perfectly legal, truthful speech. It still sucks for people in the EU, but at least they can't fully export their censorship.

Filed Under: censorship, cjeu, cnil, eu, france, free speech, global censorship, jurisdiction, right to be forgotten, rtbf
Companies: cnil, google