Germany's Speech Laws Continue To Be A Raging Dumpster Fire Of Censorial Stupidity

from the sandboxing-the-web,-one-country-at-a-time dept

Germany's new law, targeting hate speech and other unpleasantness online, is off to a roaring start. Instead of cleaning up the internet for German consumption, the law has been instrumental in targeting innocuous posts by politicians and taking down satirical content. The law is a bludgeon with hefty fines attached. This has forced American tech companies to be proactive, targeting innocuous content and satire before the German government comes around with its hand out.

It took only 72 hours for the new law (Netzwerkdurchsezungsgesetz, or NetzDG) to start censoring content that didn't violate the law. Some German officials have expressed concern, but the government as a whole seems content to let more censorship of lawful content occur before the law is given a second look. The things critics of the law said would happen have happened. And yet the law remains in full effect.

The spirit is willing but the body is weak, Sterling Jones says in the opening of his excellent post detailing more blundering attempts by the German government to enforce its terrible law.

While intended to stop the spread of disinformation and hateful rhetoric online, recently published “local law” complaints show that would-be censors are using NetzDG to target all variety of content, including mainstream news stories, sexual words and images, an anti-Nazi online forum, and criticism of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and of the NetzDG law itself.

So, that's how the law is working out. Sterling's post is filled with takedown notices forwarded to the Lumen Database -- all of them targeting speech that doesn't appear to be unlawful even under Germany's screwed up laws. It also appears there's a concerted effort being made to shut down criticism of Angela Merkel, targeting German author Martin Hilpert, who rarely has anything nice to say about the German Chancellor. The notices also target two German news publishers, with the attendant irony apparently lost on the censors issuing the notices.

The complaint against FAZ states that the newspaper engaged in “harmful or dangerous acts” for a story about NATO, while the complaint against Heise states that the tech website engaged in “hate speech or political extremism” for publishing concerns by the EU Commission that NetzDG could lead to “possible abuse by governments seeking to limit freedom of expression.”

Most ridiculously, an anti-Nazi group has been targeted by the government. Another takedown request declared the following picture to be "terrorist or unconstitutional content."

Last but not least, something the German government finds every bit as concerning as snowmen dressed like Hitler: SEX. Jones reports the government has asked for the removal of everything from semi-nude photos of a model to public invitations for sex. The takedown request for the last one appears to have been written by an offended elderly neighbor.

If you can't see/read the text, it says under "Explanation of Complaint"

Issue type: Sexual content
Google received a request to remove content from Google Plus based on the Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz.
It's indecent

And it is! But no so much you'd think a government entity would need to be involved!

The only surprising thing about the post is that it received positive answers, which seems contrary to how the internet usually works.There's no telling the level of sincerity in the offers, but I would imagine they're at least as sincere as the original post.

Germany's attempt to control the internet is going to cause immense amounts of collateral damage. It's unknown if any citizens have been charged for putting Nazi armbands on snowmen or shouting "I need sex" into the void, but service providers are taking few chances. Since they face fines equivalent to 40 million pounds per infraction, they're obviously erring on the side of caution when dealing with these takedown demands. That's not good for the internet as a whole and it's downright catastrophic for German citizens who are pretty much assured they'll be targeted by government takedowns for expressing their displeasure with these laws.

Filed Under: censorship, free speech, germany, hate speech

One Down: Instagram Caves To Russian Censorship As All Eyes Turn To YouTube

from the don't-be-evil dept

We had just been talking about Instagram and YouTube facing site blocks in Russia all because a billionaire didn't like his dirty laundry exposed online. For brief background, a noted Russian dissident, Alexy Navalny, had published photos of billionaire Oleg Deripaska and Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Prikhodko relaxing on a yacht with a young woman variously described as a model and escort fawning over them. Importantly, the salacious nature of the photos and videos is only half of the reason Navalny is drawing attention to them. The other reason is his accusations of corruption in government, as a massively wealthy oligarch consorts in this fashion with a high-ranking member of the federal government. Despite that, or perhaps because of it, Russian courts had handed Deripaska a legal victory and ordered sites hosting the images, including Instagram and YouTube, to take them down. Russia's notoriously corrupt site-blocking agency, Rozcomnadzor, issued an edict that the images be removed or the sites would face a potential full block in Russia.

In that post as well, we posited that American companies should not be assisting authoritarian regimes in political censorship of this sort. Well, it seems that Facebook's Instagram has decided to cave to the censors.

A spokeswoman for Facebook would not discuss the specifics of the case but confirmed that it had decided to comply with Roskomnadzor's demands.

"When governments believe that something on the internet violates their laws, they may contact companies and ask us to restrict access to that content," she said. "We review such requests carefully in light of local laws and where appropriate, we make it unavailable in the relevant country or territory. We are transparent about any content restrictions we make for government requests with local law in our Transparency Report."

Let's be clear about what happened here. A political opponent of the current Russian regime posted embarrassing photos showing both a potentially salacious act with a young woman and, more importantly, a potentially inappropriate relationship between government and a wealthy businessman. Whatever level of transparency Facebook desires to have on this matter, the simple fact is that an American company has chosen to bow to what certainly seems like pure political censorship. Whatever the privacy concerns Deripaska may have raised in court, it should be clear to anyone that similar pictures of some every-day person in Russia would not have been treated with so heavy a hand. This all looks to have been done to avoid political embarrassment above anything else.

And, so, now all eyes turn to Google.

Its response contrasts with that of Google's YouTube service. It had been ordered to block several clips before the end of Wednesday. But it has taken no such action.

Will Google cave as well? If I were to bet on the matter, that seems an outcome at least as likely as any other, but the company certainly shouldn't give into such demands. And, frankly, if any company has the power to get into a staring contest with the Russian government, it's Google. Whether it has the backbone for it remains to be seen, but I would guess there would be far too much backlash over a full block of YouTube in Russia to be worth the government blocking the site in full.

And, again, it's just not a good look to have an American company support this kind of corruption and censorship. It's a shame Facebook couldn't find its stance on the matter, but perhaps Google can do better.

Filed Under: alexy navalny, censorship, oleg deripaska, rozcomnadzor, russia, sergey prikhodko
Companies: facebook, instagram, youtube

Instagram, YouTube Face Full Block In Russia After Billionaire Wins A Privacy Lawsuit Over Pictures With An Alleged Escort

from the real-subtle-guys dept

We've had ongoing discussions on this site about the ham-fisted website censorship policy that Russia has undertaken over the past few years. While the country was never one to embrace free and open speech and communication to the same degree as Western nations, recent times have seen a severe uptick in outright censorship with a variety of excuses rolled out for public consumption: copyright laws, stifling political opposition, and the protection of the privacy of public figures. The funnel point for all of this censorship is Russian agency Rozcomnadzor, itself the subject of corruption allegations, with a track record for racking up collateral damage numbers that would make any nation's army blush.

Through it all, there have been suggestions that entire sites with massive global followings would be blocked. YouTube and Twitter were previously found to be in the crosshairs of the Russian government, but nothing immediately came of the threat. Now, however, both YouTube and Instagram may face a very real choice: bow to the censorship demands of Rozcomnadzor or face full site-blocks in Russia. And, perhaps most strangely, this has all come to a head over a Russian billionaire's win in court to block the publication of photos and videos showing him on a yacht with what is reportedly an escort.

Russia may block access to YouTube and Instagram after billionaire Oleg Deripaska won a court injunction against videos and photographs that showed him and Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Prikhodko relaxing on a yacht with a woman described as an escort.

Deripaska won an order from the Ust-Labinsk district court in his native Krasnodar region ordering the removal of 14 Instagram posts and seven YouTube videos that breached his right to privacy, according to a spokeswoman for his Basic Element company. Anti-Kremlin campaigner Alexey Navalny said the order also threatens to block his website after he published an online film alleging that the videos and photographs posted by Anastasiya Vashukevich, who goes by the name Nastya Rybka, showed evidence of a corrupt relationship between the aluminum tycoon and the senior minister.

Following the court order, Roskomnadzor dutifully added the photo and video material to its list of things that must be censored and contacted YouTube and Instagram to order it to take the material off of its site or face being blocked throughout the country. For his part, Deripaska insists he just wants the specific photos and videos removed, not access to these entire sites. But from the point of view of the Russian censors, they don't have the ability to block access to just that material, or to the accounts posting them. Instead, this will come down to YouTube and Instagram either participating in the censorship or being blocked outright.

“It’s impossible for internet providers to block certain pages on Instagram and YouTube,” and they’ll have to block the services unless the material singled out by the watchdog is deleted, said Karen Kazaryan, chief analyst at the Russian Association for Electronic Communications, an internet lobby group. There’s also a “high chance that Navalny may need to remove this information to avoid being blocked.”

According to Navalny, Google has already informed him that he needs to remove the material in question or his account will be banned. The video is still up as of the time of this writing, but if Google indeed tried to bow to the censors in Russia, that needs to be called out. The context here is that Navalny is a member of the political opposition to the Russian government and his posts on this topic have as much to do with accusations of an improper relationship between the billionaire and the Deputy Prime Minister as it does of sordid relationships with escorts. In fact, it's quite likely that the former accusations are the real target here, while the photographs are simply the lightning rod drawing attention to them. If Google is actively seeking to participate in the censorship of political speech in that manner, that's not a good look.

Navalny, for his part, is seeking to use this attempted censorship to his political advantage via the Streisand Effect.

The action against his investigation is “a brazen act of censorship,” Navalny wrote on his website, which also remained accessible on Tuesday. “I urge everyone to spread this video wherever you can.”

And that's already occurred, with millions of views of these videos and pictures already logged and the numbers continuing to climb. Whatever the outcome of the decision to censor YouTube and Instagram entirely or not, it should be clear that American companies ought not help corrupt foreign governments silence their political opponents.

Filed Under: alexey navalny, censorship, oleg deripaska, roskomnadzor, russia, sergey prikhodko
Companies: facebook, google, instagram, youtube

Activist Sues ICE For Its Unconstitutional Targeting Of Immigrants' First Amendment-Protected Activities

from the IF-YOU-DONT-LIKE-ICE-THAN-GO-BACK-TO-YR-COUNTRY-ETC dept

ICE has been instructed to make the nation safer by deporting the "worst of the worst." The nation will be made secure again, said the DHS, pointing to its report declaring three-quarters of those convicted for terrorism offenses were "foreign-born." Of course, to reach this ratio, the DHS had to count people the US government had extradited to the US to face trial for terrorism attacks committed in foreign countries, but whatever. The point is: foreigners are dangerous and ICE is going to remove them. An ongoing "challenge" for ICE has been finding enough dangerous immigrants to deport, so it's had to change its strategy a bit.

So, if we're trying to root out would-be terrorists and MS-13 gang members and undocumented immigrants with long domestic criminal rap sheets, why is ICE targeting people for their First Amendment activities? That's what one rights activist wants to know, and he's taking ICE to court to force it to explain itself. Kevin Gosztola of ShadowProof has more details.

Immigrant rights activist Ravi Ragbir, who recently had his deportation stayed by a federal court, the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City, Casa de Maryland, Detention Watch Network, the New York Immigration Coalition and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild are all plaintiffs pursuing the First Amendment lawsuit.

“Federal immigration authorities have specifically targeted prominent and outspoken immigrant rights activists across the country on the basis of their speech and political advocacy on behalf of immigrants’ rights and social justice,” the lawsuit declares [PDF]. “These activists have been surveilled, intimidated, harassed, and detained, their homes have been raided, many have been plucked off the street in broad daylight, and some have even been deported.”

“The ‘broad discretion exercised by immigration officials,’ has been abused in a cynical effort to punish those who disagree with [President Donald Trump’s] administration. To sweep away all opposition. The government’s targeting of activists on the basis of their core political speech is unfair, discriminatory, and un-American. And it violates the First Amendment.”

Ragbir isn't dangerous. Nor should he be anyone's idea of someone ICE should expend resources deporting. Ragbir has lived in the US for 25 years, has advocated for people like him, and has generally been all the things we want from US citizens. The only problem is that he isn't one. He's faced a "final order of removal" since 2007, but that has been extended time and time again because he's someone who's a credit to this country, even if he doesn't have the paperwork in to make it permanent.

Despite this, ICE arrested him and sent him from New York to a Miami detention facility. He was not given any of the courtesies one expects would be given to someone who's lived peacefully and productively in the United States for a quarter-century. Instead, he was treated like the "worst of the worst," and not even given a chance to get his personal affairs in order or say goodbye to the family he would be leaving behind.

This resulted in a scathing court order from a federal judge in New York. The full order [PDF] is worth reading but here are a few of the highlights. It opens with this devastating paragraph and the heat never lets up.

There is, and ought to be in this great country, the freedom to say goodbye. That is, the freedom to hug one's spouse and children, the freedom to organize the myriad of human affairs that collect over time. It ought not to be -- and it has never before been -- that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust, regimes where those who have long lived in a country may be taken without notice from streets, home, and work. And sent away. We are not that country; and woe be the day that we become that country under a fiction that laws allow it. We have a law higher than any that may be so interpreted -- and that is our Constitution. The wisdom of our Founders is evident in the document that demands and requires more; before the deprivation of liberty, there is due process; and an aversion to acts that are unnecessarily cruel.

[...]

In sum, the Court finds that when this country allowed petitioner to become part of our community fabric, allowed him to build a life with and among us and to enjoy the liberties and freedoms that come with that, it committed itself to allowance of an orderly departure when the time came, and it committed itself to avoidance of unnecessary cruelty when the time came. By denying petitioner these rights, the Government has acted wrongly.

While the court agrees ICE has the statutory authority to enforce deportation actions, it does not have the authority to pursue them in this manner. Its treatment of Ragbir was unconstitutional, given Ragbir's extended stay in the US without incident and frequent timely renewals of his work permit and permission to stay. The tactics used by ICE were cruel and capricious. And, as argued by Ragbir in his lawsuit, likely the result of ICE's disagreement with his First Amendment activities. All of this is unconstitutional, even if technically legal under ICE's statutory guidance.

Here, instead, the process we have employed has also been unnecessarily cruel. And those who are not subjected to such measures must be shocked by it, and find it unusual. That is, that a man we have allowed to live among us for years, to build a family and participate in the life of the community, was detained, handcuffed, forcibly placed on an airplane, and today finds himself in a prison cell. All of this without any showing, or belief by ICE that there is any need to show, that he would not have left on his own if simply told to do so; there has been no showing or even intimation that he would have fled or hidden to avoid leaving as directed. And certainly there has been no showing that he has not conducted himself lawfully for years. Taking such a man, and there are many such men and women like him, and subjecting him to what is rightfully understood as no different or better than penal detention, is certainly cruel. We as a country need and must not act so. The Constitution commands better.

Ragbir isn't suing ICE simply because of its targeting of him. His lawsuit points out he's not the only activist ICE has taken action against, using similar unconstitutional tactics.

ICE agents arrested Jean Montrevil, a Haitian national immigrant rights activist, co-founder of the New Sanctuary Coalition, and green card holder, on January 3. It was mere days before Ragbir’s check-in, which led to his detention. Montrevil was deported to Haiti on January 9. Authorities forced him to leave his four children—all U.S. citizens.

According to the lawsuit, Montrevil’s lawyer asked Scott Mechkowski, the ICE Deputy Field Office Director for New York, why ICE agents were deployed to “apprehend” Montrevil at his home “months before his scheduled check-in.”

“We [ICE] war-gamed this over and over,” Mechkowski apparently replied. “[T]his was the best time and place to take him.”

Several more are listed in the lawsuit (and covered by Shadowproof). In each case, immigrants appear to have been targeted for their activism or engagement with entities providing shelter and care for other immigrants. None of those listed faced deportation for illegal acts and many of those had lived in the States for years, raising families and becoming positive additions to their communities.

ICE has been given free rein by the current administration which never misses an opportunity to portray undocumented immigrants as inherently dangerous. If this lawsuit goes far enough, it should lay bare ICE's forays into unconstitutional behavior.

Filed Under: activists, dhs, first amendment, free speech, ice, immigration, ravi ragbir

Canadian Privacy Commissioner Report Says Existing Law Already Gives Canadians A Right To Be Forgotten

from the which-means-the-United-States-now-has-a-RTBF-apparently dept

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada is proposing something dangerous. Given the Canadian Supreme Court's ruling in the Equustek case -- which basically said Canada's laws are now everybody's laws -- a recent report issued by the Commissioner that reads something into existing Canadian law should be viewed with some concern. Michael Geist has more details.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada waded into the debate on Friday with a new draft report concluding that Canadian privacy law can be interpreted to include a right to de-index search results with respect to a person’s name that are inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated. The report, which arises from a 2016 consultation on online reputation, sets the stage for potential de-indexing requests in Canada and complaints to the Privacy Commissioner should search engines refuse to comply.

The Commissioner envisions a system that would allow Canadians to file de-indexing requests with leading search engines, who would be required to evaluate the merits of the claim and, where appropriate, remove the link from the search index or lower its rank to obscure the search result. Moreover, the commissioner would require search engines to actively block Canadians from accessing the offending links by using geo-identifying technologies to limit access in Canada to the results.

In other words, the Commissioner is looking to import Europe's right-to-be-forgotten law, but without having to amend or rewrite any Canadian laws. The report interprets existing Canadian privacy protections as offering RTBF to Canadian citizens. And if it offers it to Canadians, it can be enforced worldwide, despite their being no local statutory right to be forgotten.

Geist notes there are several problems with the troubling conclusion the Commissioner has drawn. First, the privacy protections included in PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act) cover commercial activity only, regulating use of users' personal data. When it comes to search results, no commercial transaction takes place. The search engine simply returns results the user asks for. Search engines display ads with the results, but there's no purchase involved, nor is there necessarily a relinquishment of user info.

Just as importantly, the Commissioner's conclusion -- even if statutorily sound (though it isn't) -- runs directly contrary to the comments received from numerous stakeholders, including privacy groups.

The feedback from leading Internet services, media companies, academics, and civil society groups cautioned against creating a right to be forgotten in Canada. Without a foundation for its approach arising from the consultation, participants can be forgiven for wondering whether the report’s recommendations were a foregone conclusion.

As Geist points out, a right-to-be-forgotten, raised unbidden from existing privacy laws, turns search engines into tools of government micromanagement. Despite its noble aim, it will be abused more often than it is legitimately used. Fortunately, Google and other search engines have been actively challenging dubious requests. And the rest of the private sector has pitched in, with journalistic entities informing readers when convicted criminals, political figures, and other abusers of the system attempt to eradicate factual recountings of their misdeeds.

Filed Under: canada, censorship, data protection, free speech, global censorship, jurisdiction, privacy, right to be forgotten

Public School Board Member Threatens Boss Of Woman Who Spoke Out Against School Book Banning

from the it's-free-speech-all-the-way-down dept

The VC Star has a slightly bizarre article about a school board trustee of the Conejo Valley Unified School District (in Southern California) named Mike Dunn, who apparently was upset about a speech given by a mother at a board meeting. That mother -- Jessica Weihe -- also blogs on the site AnonymousMommy.com (though as far as I can tell, she was not "anonymous" in that people in the community appeared to know who she was). Weihe gave a perhaps slightly rambling speech at a recent board meeting. The details appear to be somewhat specific to some district policies on handling "mature" books, but suffice it to say that it appears that Dunn was arguing against certain books being on the curriculum because he felt their content was inappropriate. Among the books that there was some controversy about was Sherman Alexie's quite well known book The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. Weihe's speech mocked Dunn for having tried to get it off the curriculum, and accuses him of not having read the book, and over-reacting to why it might be a problem. Here's a snippet from what she said:

Unlike Mr. Dunn, I actually read the book in its entirety. In fact, I led an online book reading of Part-Time Indian, in which 40 local parents participated in, so that we could be better informed as to the concern regarding this literature selection before its approval, concern which Mr. Dunn raised at a June board meeting over the phrase “kicked him in the balls.” I have to say, I was quite disappointed to find no salacious material! You all had me bracing to clutch my pearls! Mr. Dunn, who cannot and has not confirmed he actually read the book in entirety, (I mean, he couldn’t even find time to attend board governance training) falsely and inappropriately asserted in a public letter to the Acorn that approving this book was akin to “child abuse” and that it was “pornographic” in nature. Aside from noting how reprehensible it is to assert that our curriculum committee and teachers want to impose pornography on our students and take part in an act of child abuse, if this were to be true, I find it curious it’s not asterisked as such here. It’s because it’s not pornographic, nor, as Mr. Dunn would have our community believe, child abuse.

There's a lot more in the talk, but that gives you the basic idea. Dunn, not surprisingly, wasn't happy about this. So... rather than respond or give his position, he decided to call Weihe's boss and threaten to try to shame their company if she continued to say similar things about the school board or its members.

If you can't read that, it says:

Scott,
I am told that you approve of the political activities of Jessica Wiehl (anomymous mommie).

Every time she slanders or libels the school district or a school board member during public comments at a board meeting, I am going to respond that Jessica she works for Mustang Marketing and that you support her opinions.

Her boss -- Scott Harris -- responded pretty quickly, and did so pretty thoroughly:

If you can't read that, it says:

Mike,

Thank you for the courtesy of putting your threat in writing. However, before you go off half-cocked and wrong--again--and while you often have little apparent interest in the truth or facts, allow me to correct you in advance of you making good on your threats.

I support Jessica's right to her views and to her expressing them. Her views are her own, not mine or my companies. If you'd like to point out that I support community involvement, community activity and freedom of speech--please do. You can open and close each meeting with that and hang a poster over your head that states the same thing. Heck, I'll pay for the poster, if that helps.

If, as you have threatened, you choose to falsely point out that I support all her views, none of which she shares with me in advance of the meetings, I am putting you on notice that that is a false statement.

Again, so that I'm clear, supporting Jessica's right to her opinions and expressing them in a public forum (and I do!), is far different from me supporting her opinions, which I may or may not, depending on her actual positions. I hope I've made this clear enough for you to understand.

And since I'm not convinced that you understand the definition of slander, I have included it here. I think if you take the time to read this - and to follow through with your threat - you'll see you've exposed yourself - and the CVUSD - to a lawsuit.

n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more person an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit.

Mike, have a terrific Thursday and maybe you can limit your threatening emails to just me, at least for today=)

Scott Harris

A number of other emails have since been sent, with Dunn "suggesting" that he and Harris go to mediation (I'm not quite clear what they have to mediate, but...). Harris responds to the mediation request by pointing out that there's nothing to mediate, and he's happy to meet if Dunn wishes to apologize (and, reminding Dunn that he supports Wiehl's First Amendment rights and that doesn't mean he agrees with her opinions).

Either way: what a mess. Having a public official make threats like that certainly appear to be attempts to stifle speech, which would be a flat out First Amendment violation. Some people might respond that public shaming, or even agitating to get someone fired, is using "more speech" against speech someone doesn't like -- and in many cases, that's true. But when one is a public official, the calculus changes, because it becomes government attempting to suppress speech. From Okwedy v. Molinari:

A public-official defendant who threatens to employ coercive state power to stifle protected speech violates a plaintiff's First Amendment rights, regardless of whether the threatened punishment comes in the form of the use (or, misuse) of the defendant's direct regulatory or decisionmaking authority over the plaintiff, or in some less-direct form.

That seems fairly on point.

As for the cross claims of defamation... neither seem particularly strong, though Harris would probably have a slightly stronger argument. The only real statements of fact that I see in Wiehl's original speech was about whether or not Dunn had read the book, but she lays out her reasons for thinking so (asking him to quote the problematic parts and him refusing to, as well as his non-answer about having read the book). Besides, it's a tough lift to argue that saying someone hadn't read a book is defamatory. As for Harris's defamation threat in the other direction, obviously it would depend on what Dunn actually said, but it is at least true that he would have knowledge that his initial claim (of Harris supporting Wiehl's positions) is false, and that could make it a bit dicier for Dunn. The fact that Wiehl is also claiming that someone left a voicemail at her employer's office saying they would no longer do business with the company and would be telling all their friends not to do business with them (implying because of this) at least presents evidence of reputational harm done.

No matter what, though, this is a really bad look for Dunn. Not just in trying to stop high school kids from reading, but then trying to suppress the speech of someone who criticized him for blocking the book. Dunn, as a public official, has the right to speak his mind, but not to ban books or to suppress the speech of the public. Those are both pretty fundamental to the First Amendment.

Filed Under: book banning, conejo valley unified school district, defamation, first amendment, free speech, jessica weihle, mike dunn, school boards, scott harris, sherman alexie, threats

Hong Kong's Top Cop Wants To Make It Illegal To Insult Police Officers

from the watch-your-mouths,-plebes dept

The Blue Lives Matter movement has traveled overseas. Here in the US, we've seen various attempts to criminalize sassing cops, although none of those appear to be working quite as well as those already protected by a raft of extra rights would like. Meanwhile, we had Spain lining itself up for police statesmanship by making it a criminal offense to disrespect police officers.

Over in Hong Kong, the police chief -- while still debating whether or not he should offer an apology for his officers' beating of bystanders during a 2014 pro-democracy protest -- has thrown his weight behind criminalization of insults directed at officers.

Hong Kong’s police commissioner said he would support a law to make insulting officers on duty a crime on Tuesday, in what appeared to be a move to placate the city’s police union.

Stephen Lo Wai-chung said an increasing number of disputes in the city was a reason a law was needed – an apparent reversal from his stance a year ago.

“Over the past few years, our officers have been carrying out duties in a society that full of disputes. They caught in the middle in many circumstances. They were insulted in certain extents at work with their jobs sometimes disrupted,” Lo told reporters as he announced last year’s crime statistics, adding that the force had overcome “several big challenges” in recent years.

Disrupting officers is already a criminal offense. It's the sort of thing that's illegal everywhere. But disruption of official duties needs to be far more than derogatory remarks. If insults hurled at officers are preventing them from doing their jobs, the police chief doesn't need new legislation. He needs new officers.

This change in stance can be traced back to Hong Kong's largest police union. The Junior Police Officers Association, which represents two-thirds of Hong Kong's police force, thinks officers need to be better protected from certain arrangements of letters.

This legislative push also comes with plenty of hypocrisy. As South China Morning Post editor Luisa Tam points out, officers regularly use "insulting" language and profanity when dealing with citizens.

Police officers are notorious for swearing anyway, so it does look a bit out of character for the police chief to push for a ban and punish the public for swearing at them.

This aligns the Hong Kong police chief with many other law enforcement officials who believe respect is something that can be demanded rather than earned.

Filed Under: blue lives matter, free speech, hong kong, insults, police

Israeli Music Fans Sue Two New Zealanders For Convincing Lorde To Cancel Her Israeli Concert

from the taking-the-d-out-of-bds dept

Let's start this post off this way: the whole "BDS" movement and questions about Israel are controversial and people have very, very strong opinions. This post is not about that, and I have no interest in discussing anyone's views on Israel or the BDS movement. This post is about free speech, so if you want to whine or complain about Israel or the BDS movement, find somewhere else to do it. This is not the post for you. This post should be worth discussing on the points in the post itself, and not as part of the larger debate about Israel.

Back in December, the very popular New Zealand singer Lorde announced that she was cancelling a concert in Israel after receiving requests to do so from some of her fans who support boycotting Israel.

"I've received an overwhelming number of messages & letters and have had a lot of discussions with people holding many views, and I think the right decision at this time is to cancel the show," Lorde wrote of her decision.

"I pride myself on being an informed young citizen, and I had done a lot of reading and sought a lot of opinions before deciding to book a show in Tel Aviv, but I'm not too proud to admit I didn't make the right call on this one."

No matter what you think of BDS/Israel it does seem clear that Lorde should have the right to decide where her concerts will be -- and where they will not be. But in response to this, some of the people who had purchased tickets for the show, along with a "legal rights" group named Shurat HaDin have decided to sue. They're not suing Lorde. They're suing two New Zealanders who wrote an open letter to Lorde, pleading with her not to perform in Israel. And they're suing them in Jerusalem.

The Washington Post explains the ridiculous rationale for the lawsuit:

Shurat HaDin's lawsuit is based on a 2011 Israeli law allowing legal action to be taken against one “who knowingly publishes a public call for a boycott against the State of Israel.” Although the case will be heard in a Jerusalem court, the law applies to foreign citizens and the ruling is binding abroad, according to international legal treaties.

If successful, the two women in New Zealand, Justine Sachs and Nadia Abu-Shanab, will be forced to pay damages to the three Israeli teenagers of as much as $5,000 each.

This is, apparently, the first use of that law -- which has remained controversial in Israel for a damn good reason. Even if you are against the BDS movement, basic civil liberties concepts around free expression should find this whole thing dangerous and ridiculous. The idea that Lorde choosing not to perform in Israel would constitute "damage" on Israel seems ridiculous on its face. The fact that these ticket buyers think that the proper response to someone saying something they don't like and persuading a famous person to do something they don't like is to sue rather than to try to persuade people in the other direction seems like an indictment of their own ability to make their case.

And, of course, there's the whole issue of them living in countries halfway around the world from each other. While the Washington Post seems to think the law can be enforced outside of Israel's borders, the NY Times story quotes someone who's doubtful:

Adam Keller, a spokesman for Gush Shalom, a group that has unsuccessfully challenged the law, said he was not sure that an Israeli court would accept the idea that “being deprived of the pleasure of listening to your favorite singer would be considered damage.”

“There is also a serious question to whether Israeli law can even apply to people in another country,” he said. “Only on things that are considered universal laws, like genocide or piracy, is that normally accepted.”

Any attempt to enforce a judgment in such a case, he said, could quickly become a diplomatic problem for Israel.

A diplomatic incident because a musician decided not to perform. Time to get some perspective.

Filed Under: bds, censorship, debates, free speech, israel, lorde, new zealand

Virginia Politicians Looks To Tax Speech In The Form Of Porn In The Name Of Stemming Human Trafficking

from the rights-swap dept

Every once in a while, you'll come across stories about one government or another looking to censor or discourage pornography online, typically through outright censorship or some sort of taxation. While most of these stories come from countries that have religious reasoning behind censorship of speech, more secular countries in Europe have also entertained the idea of a tax or license for viewing naughty things online. Occasionally, a state or local government here in America will try something similar before those efforts run face first into the First Amendment. It should be noted, however, that any and all implementations of this type of censorship or taxation of speech have failed spectacularly with a truly obscene amount of collateral damage as a result. Not that any of that keeps some politicians from trying, it seems.

The latest evidence of that unfortunate persistence would be from the great state of Virginia, where the General Assembly will be entertaining legislation to make the state the toll booth operators of internet porn. The bill (which you can see here) was introduced by Viriginia House member David LaRock (and there's a Senate version introduced by State Senator Richard Black).

There is a new bill being proposed in the General Assembly that would lock all pornographic sites from your phones and computers, and the only way to unlock them is to pay the state $20. Virginia House Bill 1592 is also known as "The Human Trafficking Prevention Act." Lawmakers who proposed the bill said that by making pornography less accessible on the internet, it will reduce the amount of human trafficking.

It should go without saying at this point that attempts to tie human trafficking to the global pornography industry are specious claims at best. It also seems to have escaped those supporting this legislation that pornography, an entirely legal industry in America, is absolutely full of companies and providers that in no way are involved in human trafficking or any other illegal behavior, either. As you can imagine, the industry is actually heavily regulated and tightly controlled for the obvious reasons. This tax would impact their legitimate business as much or more than any nefarious party that might be impacted. Nothing screams great legislation like a bill that would punish the innocent and guilty alike.

Of course, there's also the fact that pornography, whatever you personally think of it, is certainly protected speech as well. And taxing protected speech is sort of a thing we don't do 'round these parts because, again, the First Amendment. And the people of Virginia aren't going to take kindly to having their rights infringed over specious claims.

“I think that’s a freedom we all have as Americans,” said Grace Owens. “I just don’t see the relevance at all.”

Others say it's not farfetched to link human trafficking to porn, but restricting all adult sites might be going too far.

“I feel there are a lot of side alleys you could go down, maybe only types of porn verses other types,” said a woman named Carrie.

Some people say it’s like the state is punishing you for looking at something perfectly legal that some find offensive.

“It’s like a sin tax, getting cigarettes or alcohol or anything else,” said Charles Plant.

And there's another side to this still. What this tax will essentially do is put the state of Virginia in the pornography business. After all, if it is collecting taxes and tolls for the service of porn, in some way it is itself monetizing that porn. It does this to some extent with alcohol and cigarettes, of course, except that those are physical products already subject to some form of sales taxation. A sin tax on those items, while still itch-inducing to those of us with a libertarian bent, makes more logical sense than a sin tax on internet streamed speech.

So, does Virginia really want to dive into the porn business while infringing on speech and the rights of consumers in the state, all in the specious name of preventing human trafficking?

Filed Under: bad ideas, filters, first amendment, human trafficking, porn, porn tax, virginia