Court Tosses $11-Million Libel Lawsuit Brought By The 'King Of Bullshit News'

from the viral-crap-farm-wastes-everyone's-time dept

An $11-million defamation lawsuit brought against Buzzfeed by the head of a "news" agency has been dismissed by a New York federal court judge. Michael Leidig, who runs CEN (Central European News), didn't like being hailed as the "King of Bullshit News" by Buzzfeed in 2015. He sued Buzzfeed nine months after the article was published. Leidig, a UK citizen, may have hoped for a more British take on defamation law, but libel law works differently here in the United States.

Judge Victor Marrero said that under New York law Leidig had to prove “fault” on behalf of Buzzfeed and “either negligence or actual malice depending on the status of the libelled party”.

And unlike UK law, the onus in the US was on Leidig to prove the statements were false (rather than on Buzzfeed to prove they were right).

While the judge held that Buzzfeed’s reporting was backed up by evidence he said Leidig and CEN could offer no evidence to support the stories it reported which Buzzfeed said were fake.

At the center of the case were a handful of "news" articles created by CEN. Many of these made their way into a number of tabloids across the world, going viral in the way that fact-checked stories rarely do. The stories included a Chinese man becoming riddled with tapeworms after eating sashimi, a Russian man surviving a bear attack when his Justin Bieber ringtone scared the bear away, and Chinese citizens treating cabbages like pets.

Buzzfeed's long expose of Leidig's handcrafted crap could find nothing to back up the claims made in a number of CEN's biggest internet hits. As the court points out in its decision [PDF], CEN/Leidig claimed Buzzfeed made false statements in its article, but could not provide any evidence that actually countered Buzzfeed's reporting.

BuzzFeed argues that Plaintiffs cannot show the falsity of the allegedly defamatory statements, and thus Plaintiffs' claims must fail. The Court agrees. In the face of repeated instances where BuzzFeed points to specific evidence supporting the truth of the Article, Plaintiffs' sole rejoinder is that neither Leidig nor any CEN employee admitted to knowingly publishing "a fake news story" or to "add[ing] phony quotations to a story."

[...]

Apart from these statements, Plaintiffs provide no evidence that BuzzFeed's eight statements about the CEN stories are false. As such, no jury could find BuzzFeed's statements to be false.

Leidig and his lawyers piled vagueness on top of vagueness after Buzzfeed filed its response to Leidig's complaint, refusing to engage with Buzzfeed's counterarguments.

Plaintiffs' inability to identify a genuine dispute of material fact is best exemplified by their decision to contest only one of the over two hundred numbered paragraphs in Buzz Feed' s Rule 56. 1 Statement. For the remainder of the statements, Plaintiffs rely the blanket denial that "[i]n not challenging [BuzzFeed's] other 215 assertions of fact, [P]laintiffs do not mean to concede that any particular ones are relevant and material to the issues raised on this motion [.]"

At the top of this pile of vagueness is Leidig's cherry: an attempt to expand the claims of his lawsuit while failing to answer Buzzfeed's response. The court says this combination "dooms" the lawsuit and it won't help force Buzzfeed to "defend a moving target."

[W]ith discovery concluded, it is clear that Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden. Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the falsity element for any of the eight statements, the Court does not address BuzzFeed's alternative argument that Plaintiffs are public figures and would need to show that BuzzFeed made the statements with actual malice as to their falsity.

From there, the court addresses each of the eight viral CEN stories Buzzfeed claimed were false. In each case, Leidig was unable to refute Buzzfeed's reporting. The court's rejection of Leidig's bullshit defenses makes for a pretty entertaining read, thanks to a rarely-seen combination of legal terminology and tabloid subject matter.

Other than Leidig' s self-serving and discredited testimony, which is plainly insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment, see Celle, 209 F.3d at 188, Plaintiffs offer no evidence regarding the Cabbage Story's veracity.

[...]

Plaintiffs cannot even demonstrate that they investigated the kitten's status before writing the Pink Kitten Story. That is, Plaintiffs (once again) could not depend on their own reporting database to determine who wrote the story and who could verify its contents.

[...]

During his deposition, Leidig could not provide any details regarding the Nude Women Story, including the source of the quotes that were used in CEN' s reporting of the story.

[...]

Unsurprisingly, Leidig stated in his depositions that he does not know where the quotes in the Two-Headed Goat Story came from.

Fun stuff. I mean, not so much for Leidig, but for those of us following along. He can appeal this decision but it's not going to result in a win. However, it will result in more financial pain for Buzzfeed since it will be forced to defend itself against Leidig's baseless claims one more time. New York's weak anti-SLAPP law is no help here, so Leidig isn't going to be paying Buzzfeed's legal fees. Maybe this is all Leidig wants from the lawsuit: to annoy the entity that called him the King of Bullshit. It's definitely a bullshit lawsuit and it has hung around the court system for three years longer than it should have.

Filed Under: defamation, free speech, libel, michael leidig
Companies: buzzfeed

Journalist Maria Ressa Arrested Yet Again As Philippines Keeps Finding Bogus Reasons To Arrest Vocal Critic

from the hold-the-line dept

As we've discussed before, reporter Maria Ressa is a powerhouse journalist, who started an important Filipino news site, Rappler.com. Rappler has been (quite reasonably) highly critical of the Filipino government under President Duterte, and over the past few years, the Duterte government has responded with a bunch of highly questionable criminal complaints against Ressa, which all appear to be in direct violation of the country's 4th Amendment, which is a near carbon copy of the American 1st Amendment. It forbids any law that abridges the freedom of the press (among other things).

And yet... for over a year now, the government has been trying to claim that Rappler violated the so-called anti-Dummy law in the Philippines. Apparently, the Philippines has a law that says, in certain types of industries, Filipino companies cannot have foreign ownership (this, by itself, already seems silly, but leaving that aside...). Rappler does not have any foreign owners. However, it did receive a grant from the well known Omidyar Network, and in order to receive the grant, Rappler used a semi-complicated system called a Philippine Depository Receipt (PDR), in which the company sells these assets to Omidyar, and the assets are pegged to the value of shares in the company, but they grant no ownership benefits or rights. The Filipino government has said for a while that these create a "dummy status" in pretending Omidyar isn't really taking an ownership stake when it is.

All of that is nonsense, though. This is entirely about intimidating Ressa and Rappler. Last month she was arrested on bogus "cyber libel" charges (over violating a law that wasn't even a law when the supposed "libel" happened). And now, on arriving back in the country from a journalism conference abroad, Ressa was immediately arrested yet again. As Rappler notes, this is actually the 11th case filed against Rappler, its directors and its staff since the government first claimed that the Omidyar grant violated the law.

This is shameful, if not surprising, by the Duterte government. Of course, it also demonstrates just how scared they are of a tiny independent news organization. If that's the case, it makes you wonder just what it is they're afraid Rappler will be reporting going forward...

Filed Under: dummy law, intimidation, journalism, maria ressa, ownership, philippines, rodrigo duterte
Companies: rappler

Alabama Court Decides Publicity Rights Trump First Amendment In S-Town Lawsuit

from the not-how-it-works dept

We've written for some time about the scourge that is publicity rights laws and the fairly blatant way in which they tend to butt up against the First Amendment. While famous folk certainly do have the right to reserve the use of their likeness and names from those that would use either for commercial purposes, too often these laws are instead used to silence non-commercial speech, or speech that revolves instead around journalistic efforts. A famous person, for instance, cannot use publicity rights laws to keep a newspaper from printing factual information about them, or a movie maker from producing a documentary about them. This is First Amendment 101.

But it seems some in the legal field skipped that class. One judge in Alabama has decided to shoulder the First Amendment to one side and favor instead the state's publicity rights laws to allow a lawsuit against the producers of famed podcast S-Town to move forward.

Serial Productions, This American Life Public Benefit Corporation and journalist Brian Reed must face a lawsuit for allegedly violating a dead man's likeness in S-Town, the controversial but acclaimed podcast that has been downloaded more than 80 million times. An Alabama judge's rejection of a dismissal motion on Friday is almost certain to prompt concern among media lawyers.

At issue is John McLemore, the man who had originally emailed This American Life about a supposed murder in his hometown. While nothing came of that claim itself, McLemore eventually committed suicide. That suicide was the impetus for S-Town, with the podcast diving deep into McLemore's life and death.

In other words, S-Town became a docuseries of sorts about McLemore. Now the estate is suing under Alabama's onerous publicity rights laws. Serial Productions, producers of S-Town, sought a dismissal on First Amendment grounds, because of course it did.

"Because S-Town is both a public interest and an artistic work, the Estate’s claims must fail," stated Serial Productions and other defendants in a motion to dismiss. "First and foremost, the imposition of liability under the Act in connection with S-Town would violate the First Amendment free speech rights of the Defendants. Imposition of liability also would violate the Act itself. ... S-Town, a 2017 Peabody award winning podcast, is specifically exempted under the Act as a public interest documentary work. It is also specifically exempted as an expressive and artistic work. The creation and distribution of S-Town is exactly the type of constitutionally-protected speech the Alabama legislature took great pains to exclude from liability under the Act."

The judge, however, has allowed the case to move forward. Without spending any real time taking on the First Amendment claims generally, the judge instead points back to the publicity rights law in Alabama and suggests that because S-Town has advertisements within it, it therefore qualifies as a commercial use of McLemore's identity. This defies all kinds of previous caselaw indicating that advertisements don't suddenly make expressive speech commercial speech. And, frankly, such a view would seem to undermine all kinds of media enterprises that advertise as part of their business model, from newspapers to news on television.

"Taking these allegations as true, the Court cannot conclusively determine that Defendants' use of McLemore's indicia of identity is non-actionable as the contents of any and all the alleged advertisements or promotions allegedly using McLemore’s indicia of identity are not before this Court. Although Cargile refers to the S-Town podcast generally in his counts, the Court assumes that Plaintiff’s general reference to the podcast includes both S-Town’s expressive contents and the advertisements that interject at regular intervals throughout each episode as well as any other advertisements or promotion materials related to S- Town. Therefore, Cargile has stated a plausible claim for relief under the Act, and Defendants’ motion to dismiss is due to be denied."

Now, this is just a ruling on a motion to dismiss, but it's bad nonetheless. Imagine a world where the famous could bar journalistic outlets from reporting or doing documentaries on them if those same outlets sell advertising? Is that a better or worse place than a world properly governed by the First Amendment and protected speech?

One hopes the legal team for Serial Productions can educate the court through the trial phase as to why it's speech is protected. Otherwise, the journalism and documentary industries are in for a world of trouble.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, alabama, brian reed, free speech, john mclemore, journalism, publicity rights, s-town, this american life
Companies: serial productions, this american life

Australian Prosecutors Trying To Throw Reporters In Jail For Accurately Reporting On Cardinal George Pell's Conviction

from the oh-come-on dept

As we've covered over the past few months, Australian courts put an absolutely ridiculous gag order on anyone trying to report about the conviction of Cardinal George Pell, the former CFO of the Vatican (often described as the 3rd most powerful person in the Vatican). Pell was convicted of sexually molesting choir boys in Australia in the 1990s. This is obviously quite newsworthy, but the courts used what's known as a "suppression order" in Australia to bar anyone from revealing the information. The reasoning was that there was still another trial for Pell over different accusations, and knowing he was convicted for one might somehow unfairly influence a jury. Of course, in the US we've long dealt with this through a process of vetting potential jurors on their familiarity, and then simply barring just that juror pool from doing any further research on the issue -- and that system works mostly fine, without keeping the public in the dark about important news, and without stifling a free press.

Eventually the suppression order was lifted, after prosecutors decided to drop the second trial (which, at the very least, suggests that all this fuss to protect the sanctity of said second trial was silly all along). And, yet, prosecutors then sent out a bunch of threatening letters to journalists -- most of whom did not report publicly on the case, but who did complain about the suppression order.

And now, to show just how far Australian prosecutors will go to spit on free speech and a free press, they are now seeking jail time for members of the media over this whole mess:

Australian prosecutors are seeking jail and fines for dozens of journalists and media outlets for alleged contempt of court over their coverage of Cardinal George Pell’s child sex abuse trial last year, a court summons showed on Tuesday.

The Director of Public Prosecutions in Victoria has asked the state’s Supreme Court to send journalists to jail or impose fines for breaching a suppression order on coverage of the trial, aiding and abetting overseas media’s contempt of court, and “scandalizing the court”.

The only things "scandalizing" here are (1) George Pell's actions for which he was convicted, and (2) the prosecutors now going after journalists for their free speech.

Apparently there will be a hearing on April 15th for 23 journalists and 13 media organizations. It appears that it includes some of the top media organizations in Australia (The Age, Australian Financial Review, News Corp, etc.) and some fairly prominent journalists, including Michael Stutchbury, the editor-in-chief of the Australian Financial Review.

One hopes that prosecutors would come to their senses earlier, but now we have to hope a judge has more sense about this. Unfortunately, given other free speech cases in Australia over the years, I have little faith that this will end up well. Australia is making quite a name for itself as a country that believes in heavy handed censorship, and is against free speech.

Filed Under: australia, free press, free speech, gag order, george pell, injunction, jailtime, journalism, suppression order

Thomas Goolnik Again Convinces Google To Forget Our Story About Thomas Goolnik Getting Google To Forget Our Story About Thomas Goolnik

from the i-sense-a-pattern dept

Remember Thomas Goolnik? Apparently, he doesn't think you should. But let's start this post off with some special notes for two specific parties, and then we'll get into some more details:

1. Dear Thomas Goolnik: I'm assuming you're reading this because you seem to come across every post we write about you and then file bullshit complaints in the EU about how they need to be forgotten. And, every time that happens, we write another post. Perhaps you should think about not trying to abuse the GDPR and the Right to be Forgotten, and recognize that it's perfectly legal to mention your name. We won't even mention the original original story you so badly want censored, even though I imagine lots of people will now go hunt that down.
2. Dear Google RTBF reviewers: this is not an article about some long ago no-longer-relevant event in Mr. Goolnik's past. Even if we disagree about whether historical convictions should be disappeared down the memory hole, the right to be forgotten is supposed to apply only to past events that are no longer occurring. This article is not about Mr. Goolnik's past. It is about his present: the fact that he repeatedly is abusing the Right to be Forgotten rules to try to delete our articles about him. This article is about this most recent attempt, and not his past, whatever that might include.

With that out of the way, if you haven't guessed, Thomas Goolnik has once again sent a Right to be Forgotten request to Google over our earlier articles about Thomas Goolnik and his use of the Right to be Forgotten system to try to delete previous articles about Thomas Goolnik abusing the Right to be Forgotten system to... you get the picture.

Tragically, Google has complied with this latest request, meaning that if you were searching for Thomas Goolnik within the EU, some of those historical articles may not be easily findable. Some of us find this to be an affront to free speech and an abuse of legal process to suppress information that, potentially, may be embarrassing to someone like Thomas Goolnik. But others -- such as Thomas Goolnik -- appear to have a different opinion. Thomas Goolnik is, of course, free to express his own opinion on his own site, but apparently feels the need to make sure that others who express their opinions should be silenced. We disagree.

Filed Under: gdpr, right to be forgotten, thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik, thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas goolnik thomas gool
Companies: google

Sixth Circuit Affirms First Amendment Protections For Flipping Off Cops

from the they'll-only-get-one-finger-while-I'm-shifting-gears dept

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Debra Cruise-Gulyas received an "impeding traffic" ticket from Officer Matthew Minard. To show her appreciation for his fine policework, Cruise-Gulyas shot him the bird as she rolled away. Not the best idea but, as the district court declared, a perfectly legal hand gesture.

The adage opening this post also goes for cops. Officer Matthew Minard decided the hand gesture warranted another traffic stop. Sure, he had the power to initiate a traffic stop. The problem was he didn't have any legal reason to do so. As the court noted, the infraction (speeding) Minard had only issued a warning for nevertheless completed the traffic stop. Pulling Cruise-Gulyas over again for the infraction he had chosen not to enforce to its fullest extent could not be used a probable cause for a second stop when Cruise-Gulyas was flipping the bird at a legal rate of speed.

Minard appealed. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals [PDF] says the lower court had it right the first time. Officer Minard had no legal reason to effect a second stop.

That leaves Cruise-Gulyas’s gesture as a potential ground for the second stop. But the gesture did not violate any identified law. The officer indeed has not argued to the contrary. Nor does her gesture on its own create probable cause or reasonable suspicion that she violated any law. Wilson v. Martin explained that, where a girl extended her middle fingers at officers and walked away, her “gesture was crude, not criminal,” and gave the officers “no legal basis to order [her] to stop.” 549 F. App’x 309, 311 (6th Cir. 2013); see Swartz v. Insogna, 704 F.3d 105, 110 (2d Cir. 2013) (“This ancient gesture of insult is not the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or impending criminal activity.”). All in all, Officer Minard clearly lacked authority to stop Cruise-Gulyas a second time.

That's as nice as it gets for Minard. The next paragraph rejects the argument Minard tried to build on the Wilson v. Martin framework. There's more than a hint of condescension in the court's statement.

Minard counters that Wilson concerns whether officers had probable cause to arrest a girl who extended her middle fingers at them, not about whether they could stop her. But Wilson says that the girl’s salute provided the officers “no legal basis to order [her] to stop.” 549 F. App’x at 311. Minard should have known better here.

The officer claimed no case on point could have possibly made it clear to him that receiving an impolite hand gesture did not justify a second traffic stop. The court sighs with slight exasperation.

Minard adds that no case put him on notice about this fact pattern—that a second stop after a first stop supported by probable cause violated Cruise-Gulyas’s Fourth Amendment rights. Defined at that specific level of generality, he says, the case law did not clearly prohibit the stop. But Minard misses a point. In making his argument, he fails to acknowledge that the second stop was distinct from the first stop, not a continuation of it.

[...]

No matter how he slices it, Cruise-Gulyas’s crude gesture could not provide that new justification.

There's your Fourth Amendment violation. Minard's decision to hassle a person for disrespecting him also establishes a First Amendment cause of action.

Any reasonable officer would know that a citizen who raises her middle finger engages in speech protected by the First Amendment. Sandul v. Larion, 119 F.3d 1250, 1255 (6th Cir. 1997) (gesturing with the middle finger is protected speech); see Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 19, 26 (1971).

An officer who seizes a person for Fourth Amendment purposes without proper justification and issues her a more severe ticket clearly commits an adverse action that would deter her from repeating that conduct in the future. The Constitution suggests as much by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. [...] In view of the reality that something “as trivial as failing to hold a birthday party for a public employee” amounts to retaliation if done because the employee exercised his speech rights, Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62, 76 n.8 (1990) (quotation omitted), an unwarranted police stop, a far greater intrusion on liberty, must satisfy the test too.

Back the case goes to the district court where Minard is all out of options. He must face the lawsuit Cruise-Gulyas has brought against him without the shield of qualified immunity. This is a lot of trouble to be in for being unable to absorb a rude hand gesture from a displeased motorist.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 6th circuit, free speech, middle finger, police, probable cause

@DevinCow Now Has More Twitter Followers Than Devin Nunes

from the good-job-everyone dept

Yesterday we wrote about the completely ridiculous lawsuit that Rep. Devin Nunes -- a real live Congressional Representative -- filed against Twitter, a political communications expert, and two satirical fake Twitter accounts: one pretending to be his cow, and one pretending to be his mom. As we noted, in the lawsuit itself, Nunes' lawyer points out that the satirical cow had a grand total of 1,204 followers when the lawsuit was initiated. For reference, Devin Nunes' own Twitter account has ~394,000 followers. When we did our post yesterday, @DevinCow was up to 106,000. And now?

Yup, 399k. Actually, as I've been typing this, it's kept going up, but I'm not going to keep taking screenshots. And, yes, the Cow now has more followers than Rep. Nunes himself:

Great job, Devin. You really shut up that satirical cow.

Now, Twitter, how do we go about getting the satirical fake cow a blue checkmark?

Filed Under: censorship, defamation, devin cow, devin nunes, devincow, free speech, nunes effect, satire, streisand effect
Companies: twitter

Federal Judge Tosses Cops' Lawsuit Against A Councilmember Who Said The Police Dept. Had Committed Murder

from the being-offended-isn't-the-same-as-being-harmed dept

A federal judge in Washington just reminded two Seattle police officers that a politician saying unkind things about law enforcement is not defamation. (h/t Peter Bonilla)

Following the killing of Che Taylor by Seattle police officers, councilwoman Kshama Sawant issued statements criticizing the Seattle Police Department for the shooting. From the decision [PDF]:

Approximately five days after the shooting, Sawant appeared before a crowd and media in front of the police department. This was not official city council business, and certainly not a “legislative function.” Sawant, however, implied awareness of inside factual information, and appeared to be making a statement against interest. With gravitas established, she went on to pronounce Che Taylor’s death a “brutal murder” and product of “racial profiling.”

Sawant reiterated these comments throughout the year, according to the lawsuit. However, she never directly accused the two suing officers -- Scott Miller and Michael Spaulding -- of being murderers. Her comments called the shooting a "brutal murder" and implied the PD engaged in biased policing, but at no time did she mention these two officers by name.

The officers argued Sawant's statements impugned them individually even though she only spoke about the police department as a whole. The court says suing as individuals and advancing a group theory of defamation takes far more than the officers showed in their complaint.

[W]whether proceeding under an individual or group theory, Plaintiffs must plead that the statements “specifically” identified or singled them out, or was understood as “referring to [them] in particular.” Sims, 20 Wn. App. at 236.

Here, Plaintiffs have not done so, and the Court finds that Councilmember Sawant’s statements do not satisfy the “of and concerning” requirement. According to the SAC, Councilmember Sawant, while standing in front of the Seattle Police Department, stated that “the police” committed a “brutal murder” which was “racially motivated.” (Dkt. No. 23 at ¶¶ 46, 54.) Councilmember Sawant did not identify Officers Miller and Spaulding by name, nor did she provide any information that would even remotely allow listeners to ascertain their identities, such as their rank or position, division or unit, precinct, or length of time on the force. Finally, Councilmember Sawant’s statements referred broadly to “the police,” the “Seattle Police Department,” and “systematic police brutality and racial profiling.”

Feeling insulted by blanket statements isn't a solid basis for a defamation lawsuit. The officers' attempt to tie reporting from local papers to the councilmember's statements fares even worse.

While Plaintiffs contend that Councilmember Sawant “continually brings it back to these specific officers and this specific incident” her references to “holding the Seattle Police Department accountable for their reprehensible actions, individual actions” and seeking “justice on the individual actions” do not clearly establish Officers Miller and Spaulding as their target. See Sims, 20 Wn. App. at 237 (“[T]he plaintiff must show with convincing clarity that he was the target of the statement.”) (emphasis added).

That the Seattle Times contemporaneously published an article identifying Officers Miller and Spaulding by name does not change this outcome. The “identification of the plaintiff[s] as the person[s] defamed” must be “certain and apparent from the words themselves,” without reference to extrinsic sources. Id. at 234 (emphasis added) [...] Finally, even if Plaintiffs were correct that the references to “individual actions,” coupled with their identification in the Seattle Times, could somehow transform what are otherwise vague and oblique statements into actionable defamation, the SAC does not plead any of these facts.

The officers have already been given one chance to turn their complaint into something actionable. The court isn't willing to give them a third try -- not when it's apparent this defamation lawsuit can't be fixed.

[E]ven if the Court were to grant Plaintiffs leave to amend to include these statements, they cannot satisfy the “of and concerning” requirement, and Plaintiffs make no effort to explain how they could resolve this deficiency, or how additional discovery could possibly uncover additional actionable statements.

The lawsuit is done. Dismissed with prejudice. These cops paid for the chance to learn that people saying unkind things is not actually defamation, especially when the person saying these things never names names. Thanks to this stupid lawsuit, Seattle taxpayers will be doubling up paying for these officers' actions. First, they paid for the city's defense of Councilmember Sawant's non-defamatory statements. They'll be asked to foot the bill again in the near future to defend these officers from a lawsuit brought by the family of the man they killed.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, che taylor, defamation, free speech, kshama sawant, michael spaulding, scott miller, seattle, washington

Terrified Of The Internet, Putin Signs Laws Making It Illegal To Criticize Government Leaders Online

from the freedom-is-slavery dept

Russia's efforts to clamp down on anything resembling free speech on the internet continues unabated. Putin's government has spent the last few years effectively making VPNs and private messenger apps illegal. While the government publicly insists the moves are necessary to protect national security, the actual motivators are the same old boring ones we've seen here in the States and elsewhere around the world for decades: fear and control. Russia doesn't want people privately organizing, discussing, or challenging the government's increasingly-authoritarian global impulses.

After taking aim at VPNs, Putin signed two new bills this week that dramatically hamper speech, especially online. One law specifically takes aim at the nebulous concept of "fake news," specifically punishing any online material that "exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of Russia." In other words, Russia wants to ban criticism of Putin and his corrupt government, with experts telling the Washington Post that the updated law effectively removes the pesky legal system from what was already a fairly draconian system:

"Prosecutors can direct their complaints about online media to the state, which can block access to websites if the offending material isn’t taken down.

This, experts say, is new. “The Prosecutor’s office may now block such fake news sources prior to the judicial decision. It gives the Prosecutor’s office an extremely high authority and almost completely eliminates the Russian (albeit completely non-free) courts from the game,” Maria Snegovaya, an adjunct fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, wrote in an email.

“In other words, it significantly expands the repressive power of Russia’s repressive apparatus. This may be compared to the Stalin’s Troika, a commission of three for express judgment in the Soviet Union during the time of Joseph Stalin who issued sentences to people after simplified, speedy investigations and without a public and fair trial,” she added.

Websites that now spread "fake news" in Russia (defined as anything that criticizes Putin and his coalition of mobster oligarchs) now suddenly face fines of up to 1.5 million rubles ($22,900) for repeat offenses. Another companion law signed by Putin this week is equally problematic; it would update existing laws to make it a federal offense to insult the Russian government or political leaders. Repeat violators of that law face fines up to 300,000 rubles ($4,700) — and 15 days in jail:

"The bills amending existing information laws overwhelmingly passed both chambers of Russian parliament in less than two months. Observers and some lawmakers have criticized the legislation for its vague language and potential to stifle free speech. The legislation will establish punishments for spreading information that “exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of Russia."

Both law updates quickly passed through the Russian Parliament in less than two months despite widespread condemnation and a petition of more than 100 journalists and academics lambasting the proposal as ham-fisted authoritarianism. It's an amusing and slightly terrifying escalation from a government busted for pushing buckets of hateful and idiotic disinformation online, yet simultaneously pretending to wage a war against inauthentic news coverage and critical thinking. It's clearly a model Putin hopes to export to numerous countries, not least of which being the already-factually-challenged United States.

Of course while Russia would frame this as a show of strength, it's really a show of fear. This, combined with Russia's efforts to disconnect itself from the internet makes it abundantly clear how afraid the government is of not only free speech, but its own people too. A Russian public that has not only been increasingly protesting these obnoxious internet restrictions, but also the underlying Russian economic problems Putin very clearly doesn't want highlighted online.

Filed Under: censorship, fake news, free speech, government criticism, internet, russia, vladimir putin

Florida College Asked Local Sheriff To Declare Faculty Member's Artwork Obscene

from the christ-what-a-bunch-of-officious-assholes dept

Cops may not know art, but they know what they don't like. Blowing past the First Amendment to give their official opinion on art critical of law enforcement is never an acceptable "solution," but it's one that happens nonetheless.

Last year, a high school decided it would rather demonstrate its subservience to local law enforcement than stand behind its students and their First Amendment rights. Photos of a painting of a cop in Ku Klux Klan hood pointing a gun at a black child appeared in the school newspaper. Instead of running the article, a teacher ran down to the cop shop to offer a profuse apology on behalf of "99.9% of the teachers at the school." Returning to school with the aftertaste of boot polish still lingering in his mouth, he engaged a full-on tongue kiss with the town's mayor, who offered his own profuse (and cowardly) apology to the offended police department.

Now, as Sarah McLaughlin of FIRE reports, another institute of learning has decided the best approach to controversial artwork is to display its soft underbelly to law enforcement as quickly as possible. A faculty member's artwork was deemed "controversial." This is an unsurprising development. Controversy and artwork have enjoyed a long and healthy relationship for many, many years.

What is surprising is the university's reaction to the controversial artwork. Faculty member Serhat Tanyolacar's submission was met with a whole lot of resistance from Polk State (Florida) itself due to its subject matter.

Tanyolacar’s piece, “Death of Innocence,” depicts several poets and writers juxtaposed with a number of altered images of President Donald Trump and other political figures engaging in sexual activity. According to Tanyolacar, the work is meant to highlight “moral corruption and moral dichotomy” and provoke debate.

Polk State Program Coordinator Nancy Lozell informed Tanyolacar on Feb. 6 that it would not be displayed at a then-upcoming faculty art exhibition because the college “offers classes and volunteer opportunities to our collegiate charter high schools and other high schools in Polk county and we feel that that particular piece would be too controversial to display at this time.”

The university refused to offer any justification for this move when asked to explain its ignorance of the First Amendment by FIRE. It also refused to provide an answer as to when the artwork would be exactly controversial enough to be put on display.

But it gets a whole lot weirder and scarier and stupider. Documents obtained via public records requests show school officials decided to get local law enforcement involved in its First Amendment altercation. For reasons only known to the school (but reasons that certainly appear to be vindictive), the school asked the Polk County Sheriff (rather infamous around these parts) and the county district attorney to hand down an ad hoc obscenity ruling. This is part of the letter sent to the school's president by the school's attorney, discussing the "solid ground" the university would be on if it chose to keep censoring Tanyolcar's art.

Earlier this week, we understand that you and several other College administrators met with the Polk County Sheriff and an Assistant State Attorney for the Tenth Judicial Circuit to discuss the Work. We understand that both the Sheriff and the Assistant State Attorney have stated that they view the Work to be obscene material and that they intend to enforce Florida’s obscenity statute in the event that the Work is displayed to the general public without restriction.

Without question, the Work is an overt depiction of sex acts being committed by national politicians, including the President of the United States. Art is often in the of the beholder, but, as Justice Potter is known for saying, “I know [obscene material] when I see it.” Jacobellis v. State of Ohio, 378 US. 184, 197 (1964)(Potter, J., concurring). You are certainly entitled to rely upon the wisdom and advice of the County Sheriff and the State Attorney’s Office in determining if the local Polk County community would view the Work as obscene material. Given that law enforcement has opined that the Work is obscene, we feel constrained to advise you of the same.

Not only did the school approach law enforcement to get clearance to bury this artwork, it also received assurances the Polk County Sheriff's Department would arrest someone (probably the artist) if the work was displayed publicly.

It's difficult to express just how fucked up this is. Rather than support a faculty member's protected expression, the university went out of its way to find some way to punish him for creating it. It wasn't enough for Polk State to simply reject his submission and deal with the inevitable -- and accurate -- accusations of censorship. No, it had to go to one of the lousiest sheriff's departments in the country and ask for assurances someone would be rung up on obscenity charges should the blow-back force release of Tanyolacar's creation.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, art, florida, grady judd, nancy lozell, obscenity, police, polk county, serhat tanyolacar
Companies: polk state