Mediaboss Marketing

One of the first things we do when we sign up for a new website or platform online is to pick a name a username, screen name or handle sometimes unrelated to the name on our government ID. Part of the fun of creating an online persona can be picking a creative or funny pseudonym. Its not all puns and games though. Anonymity can protect privacy and keep people like whistleblowers and activists safe; it can also shield bad behavior.

How can we balance the right to hide our identity with the potential harms of anonymity?

According to Jeff Kosseff, associate professor in the United States Naval Academy Cyber Science Department and author of The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Protects Online Speech, this question is not new. Anonymous speech really is fundamental to the history of the United States.

In fact, many arguments for independence during the colonial era were made anonymously or pseudonymously with a pen name. So were arguments in support of the Constitution while it was being drafted.

In 1958, the Supreme Court protected the right to associate anonymously, saying the NAACP in Alabama could not be forced to reveal its membership lists. NAACP leaders at the time were regularly targeted with violence. Florida organizer Harry T. Moore and his wife Harriette were murdered in a bombing of their home on Christmas 1951 thought to be motivated by their anti-racist activism. Revealing the names of NAACP members would likely have endangered those members too.

Why do we need anonymity?

According to Kosseff, there are good reasons to protect anonymity. The ability to speak freely can help separate the content of the speech from the identity of the speaker. Sometimes, if people know who the speaker is, they might think differently about the message. Anonymity can lessen this bias.

More importantly, being anonymous can protect vulnerable people. People who need to have a voice but dont have the ability to associate their real name with that speech have a very good reason to want to speak anonymously, says Kosseff.

The civil rights movement provides several examples of how anonymity can help keep people safe, like the NAACP v. Alabama case. In a 1960 case, the Supreme Court protected the right of civil rights activists to call out via an anonymous pamphlet a supermarket that was discriminating against Black customers. Because of resistance to new civil rights laws, activists could have been in danger if they had been forced to reveal their identities.

This right, says Kosseff, has been reaffirmed by liberal and conservative justices. One example is a 1995 case overturning an Ohio law that required election publications to include authors names.

What about anonymity protecting bad actors?

The First Amendment protects anonymity (in most cases). It also protects the right to say unpopular or even abhorrent things (with some exceptions), anonymously or otherwise. You cant just use a subpoena to unmask someone whos been mean to you, says Kosseff. The courts have set a fairly high First Amendment standard for being able to subpoena identifying information of online posters.

Getting rid of anonymous speech online wouldnt prevent disagreeable speech, says Kosseff, because people say bad things using their real names, too. Some research shows that being able to use pseudonyms could have mixed or even positive impacts on online civility.

That said, different platforms have different policies. Some, like Facebook, technically require user profiles to use real names.

Online pseudonyms arent absolute or perfect, either. Criminals can and do get unmasked for speech that is truly beyond the protections of the First Amendment. In criminal cases or instances of speech that isnt protected, like true threats, it can be possible to pursue whos behind the screenname.

What does online anonymity look like around the world?

Kosseff says anonymity online is a spectrum. People can control what level of identifying information that they post online. So, to some extent, its up to everyone to decide if theyll provide no clues as to their identity at all or be fully transparent about who they are. Kosseff notes that its often possible for other users online to compile various facts youve shared about yourself to learn a lot about you even potentially your identity.

Theres also spectrum to how anonymity online is treated legally around the world. In Europe, privacy is a fundamental human right. Legal protections for anonymity there are more grounded in privacy than in free expression arguments. In authoritarian places, anonymity is difficult or prohibited.

Get Unlimited Access

$3 for 3 Months

Subscribe Now

After the initial selected subscription period your subscription rate will auto renew at $12.00 per month.

More:
FIRST FIVE: How the First Amendment protects anonymous speech online - The Decatur Daily

Diversity trainings have become commonplace across all sectors. While many of these trainings are well-intentioned and justified by the commendable goal of workplace harmony, some may run afoul of the constitutional guarantees of speech and equality, or legal protections found in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In particular, the legal pitfalls of recent diversity trainings at public schools contain lessons for nonprofits and philanthropists seeking to implement diversity programming at organizations.

Many diversity trainings sort participants into oppressed and oppressor classes based largely on what amounts to crude racial stereotypes, with practical exercises reinforcing this message. The exercises are designed to highlight the privileges the oppressor class supposedly enjoys based on historical injustices that, as individuals, none of us was alive to witness.

While similar instruction exists across industries, school districts frequently require educators to attend trainings that impose these types of controversial views on staff members, forcing them to disclose personal details they may wish to keep private and to self-censor their views on hotly debated public topics. They are then expected to teach these contentious lessons to students.

Take, for example, a recent case in Springfield, Missouri. In August 2021, the Southeastern Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit on behalf of two educators against Springfield Public Schools, challenging the districts discriminatory programming that required participants to rank themselves as oppressors based on their race, religion and sex. The educators asserted these trainings violated their First Amendment rights.

To be clear, the stated purpose of this mandatory training on racial equity was to force everyone involved from the bus driver to the cafeteria worker to subscribe to the ideology of anti-racism, or the notion white people are born privileged while all people of color are born oppressed. Participants were taught that the concept of a colorblind society is a myth told to uphold white supremacy. Staff also were forced to assess their own vulnerabilities and strengths as anti-racist educators and assigned to write about being anti-racist, thereby committing themselves to this divisive ideology.

The government cannot force anyone, not even federal employees, to affirm allegiance to a political ideology without violating the First Amendment. Weve long known that schools cant require children to pledge allegiance to the American flag. Those same schools certainly cant require teachers to subscribe to an anti-racist agenda.

Another example from a school district in Evanston, Illinois, illustrates how diversity training collides with federal civil rights law. This Chicago-area suburb went far beyond merely directing their teachers to affirm a destructive message. The district actively discriminated against teachers and students by separating them into different groups based on their skin color. In another age, this would have been called segregation. Now it is called an affinity group. In training sessions, white people were depicted as inherently racial oppressors. Children as young as 5 years old received lessons with depictions of a white devil offering up money in exchange for the souls of people of color.

The Office of Civil Rights Enforcement for the U.S. Department of Education actually found these practices violated federal law. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin. Any training that calls out participants based on any of these characteristics is prone to the highest forms of legal scrutiny. When the Biden administration declined to litigate despite these confirmed violations of civil rights, the Southeastern Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit on behalf of a teacher. The suit asserted that civil rights law cannot be ignored, even by the federal department charged with enforcing it.

Trainings like those in Springfield and Evanston risk legal liability and fail to achieve their asserted goal of workplace harmony. As grantmakers and nonprofits seek to educate foundation staff about diversity, they ought to prioritize programming that focuses on equality and embraces Americas founding ideals. The self-evident truth that all of us are created equal was a resounding rejection of the notion of an aristocratic class born with exclusive privileges. This ideal is unifying and inclusive because it offers the possibility for all people to fulfill their true potential. It is an ideal codified in our founding documents that makes America unique among the nations and truly unites rather than divides us.

Braden Boucek is the director of litigation for the Southeastern Legal Foundation. Kimberly Hermann is the general counsel.

See original here:
Legal Pitfalls of Diversity Training at Schools Serve as Warning to Nonprofits - Philanthropy Roundtable

Lawyers for Gov. Ron DeSantis and Attorney General Ashley Moody are fighting an attempt to block a state law and regulations that limit the way race-related issues can be taught in public schools and in workplace training.

In a court document filed last week, the lawyers argued Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker should reject a request for a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed in April after DeSantis signed the controversial law (HB 7). Walker is scheduled to hold a hearing June 21 on the preliminary-injunction issue, according to a court docket.

Plaintiffs in the case allege that the law and regulations violate First Amendment rights and are unconstitutionally vague. But in the 60-page document filed last week, lawyers for DeSantis and Moody disputed that the restrictions violate speech rights in schools and workplaces.

Here, the act does not prevent the states educators from espousing whatever views they may hold, on race or anything else, on their own time, and it does not prevent students from seeking them out and listening to them, the document said. All it says is that state-employed teachers may not espouse or advocate in the classroom views contrary to the principles enshrined in the act, while they are on the state clock, in exchange for a state paycheck. The First Amendment does not compel Florida to pay educators to advocate ideas, in its name, that it finds repugnant.

But in an April motion for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that DeSantis and other Republican leaders banned teachers and employers from endorsing a litany of opinions about race that had been stuck in their craw, such as institutional racism, white privilege and critical race theory.

This constitutional challenge is not about whether these ideas are right or whether they should be taught throughout Floridas schools and workplaces, the 53-page motion said. Rather, it is about an attempt by Floridas conservative politicians to silence exchange of these ideas and win a so-called culture war through legislative and executive fiat.

DeSantis this year made a priority of passing the law which he dubbed the Stop Wrongs Against our Kids and Employees Act, or Stop WOKE Act. It came after the State Board of Education last year passed regulations that included banning the use of critical race theory, which is based on the premise that racism is embedded in American society and institutions.

The law, which is scheduled to take effect July 1, lists a series of race-related concepts that would constitute discrimination if taught in classrooms or in required workplace-training programs.

As an example, part of the law labels instruction discriminatory if it leads people to believe that they bear responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin or sex.

As another example, the law seeks to prohibit instruction that would cause students to feel guilt, anguish or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin or sex.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are two public-school teachers, a University of Central Florida associate professor, a child who will be a public-school student in the coming year and the president of a firm that provides workplace training.

In the motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs attorneys from the Jacksonville firm of Sheppard, White, Kachergus, DeMaggio & Wilkison, P.A. wrote that the law and regulations intrude on the free expression and academic freedom of Floridas teachers by imposing a pall of orthodoxy over the classrooms.

These provisions suppress a wide range of viewpoints accepted by academics for the sole reason that Floridas conservative lawmakers disagree with them, the motion said. Even if such disagreement could form a legitimate government interest, Governor DeSantis failed to identify any actual examples of what he calls critical race theory being taught in Florida public school classrooms.

The plaintiffs attorneys also alleged that the restrictions ensure students learn only a white-washed version of history and sociological theories that ignore systemic problems in our society that create racial injustices.

But in the document filed last week, the lawyers for DeSantis and Moody wrote that the plaintiffs who are educators have no constitutional right of academic freedom to override curriculum policies adopted by democratically elected lawmakers.

Plaintiffs First Amendment challenge to the educational provisions fails because the act regulates pure government speech the curriculum used in state schools and the in-class instruction offered by state employees and the First Amendment simply has no application in this context, the document said.

The states lawyers, who also separately filed a motion last week seeking to dismiss the case, argued in the preliminary-injunction document that the state restrictions are intended at stamping out discrimination.

The balance of the equities and the public interest weigh decisively against enjoining the act. (The) state has a compelling constitutionally imperative interest in ending discrimination based on race and other immutable characteristics, and enjoining the act will sanction conduct and curricular speech that Florida has determined, in the exercise of its sovereign judgment, is pernicious and contrary to the states most cherished ideals, wrote the states lawyers, including attorneys from the Washington. D.C. firm of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC.

Read more:
Florida is firing back in a fight over how race can be taught in public schools and in the workplace - WFSU

I watched this entire Harvard webinar today: Dismantling disinformation. It is described below:

Weve all seen the perils of disinformation. But how do we combat it? This panel will explore concrete proposals for dismantling disinformation in communities, on social media, and through public policy and regulation. Well bring together experts from multiple fields including communication, education, behavioral psychology, and First Amendment law to tackle an issue that could well shape the future of public health. This is a conversation about solutions, and the role each of us can play in limiting the impact of false content.

Here are a few items of information that I picked up:

MODERATORBrandy ZadroznySenior Reporter, NBC News

Vineet AroraDean for Medical EducationThe University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine

Raven BaxterDirector of Diversity InitiativesUniversity of California, Irvine, School of Biological Sciences

Rene DiRestaResearch ManagerStanford Internet Observatory

Nabiha SyedCEO of The Markup and Fellow at Yale Law School

Eric Holdeman is a contributing writer for Emergency Management magazine and is the former director of the King County, Wash., Office of Emergency Management.

Read the rest here:
The Perils of Misinformation and Disinformation - Government Technology

Last week, readers heard from the Democratic candidates for the Third Congressional District (CD3) race. Now, its time to hear from the Republican incumbent, Representative Lauren Boebert, and GOP challenger, Don Coram. The Sopris Sun got the chance to ask a few questions of these Republican candidates.

Representative Boebert is nearing the end of her first term in office her first bout in politics and is determined for a second.

Q: What do you consider were your greatest accomplishments during your first term?

I kept my promise and fought the good fight, Rep. Boebert began. In Congress, Ive done exactly what I said I was going to do in my Contract with Colorado that I introduced when I first ran for office. Ive put America first.

She continued, Ive provided better care for veterans, fought federal land grabs and kept my oath to defend the Constitution including the Second Amendment. Ive fought the deep state. Ive worked to bring free market reforms to reduce health care prices in rural Colorado. Ive stood for life. Ive fought globalists. Ive introduced real solutions to the Biden border crisis. Ive supported American energy. Ive voted against tax increases. Ive voted against raising the national debt. Ive supported school choice and Ive held myself accountable to the people of Colorado. Ive never wavered in my beliefs once, and Ive always voted with my conscience. What you see is what you get and Ive stayed true to my rural Colorado roots.

Q: Are there aspects to serving in congress you can improve upon?

My only regret in Congress is that there are only 24 hours in a day. I wish I could spend all day, every day meeting people across CD3 to take all of your stories to Congress. I have spent countless days traveling across CD3 and I have met some of the most amazing people in the world from veterans who have incredible stories about sacrificing for our country to law enforcement officers courageously protecting our communities; from teachers working to train up the next generation to a single mom working two jobs to support her kids. I truly believe that I represent the best group of people in the entire country and I only hope that I am worthy of the trust they have placed in me. Not a day goes by that I am not humbled by the responsibility they have given me and I hope to do well by them.

Q: Congress is divided and gets little accomplished. What have you done to fix this? And, what would you continue to do?

As a member of the minority, I speak up as loudly as I can to make sure bad bills and bad policies are exposed and opposed.

For example, said Rep. Boebert, [President] Joe Biden was fully prepared to hand out $450,000 to illegal immigrants until I spoke up about it and introduced a bill. Because of my public pressure campaign, they dropped this proposal.

She continued, Ive been laying the groundwork for a Republican majority, introducing bills that will help get the country back on track, put a stop to the woke madness that is infiltrating everything from our military to womens sports, get our fiscal house in order, deliver solutions for CD3 and get the government off the backs of our citizens so they can live free and prosper.

Q: What are your top three goals, should you be elected to another term?

No. 1, Fulfill my oath to protect the Constitution from any and all threats posed to it by the Biden administration. I successfully led the charge to stop the Disinformation Governance Board from infringing on our First Amendment rights and I am ready to fight future unconstitutional power grabs.

Second, Advocate for policies that matter most to rural Colorado, like passing my Active Forest Management, Wildfire Prevention, and Community Protection Act [introduced July 1, 2021] to mitigate the risk of wildfires to our communities, increase resources for rural communities by reinvesting forestry revenue into local priorities and improve the ecological health of our forests. Additionally, Id like to pass my I-70 Detour Act [introduced April 14] to study alternatives to I-70 through the Glenwood Canyon and prevent closures, reduce traffic for local communities and increase Colorados emergency preparedness.

Lastly, Be a leading voice for conservative policies. When Republicans take back the House in November, many RINOs [Republicans in name only] will backtrack on their promises to voters and start legislating like [Senator] Mitch McConnell. I was appointed to the Future of American Freedoms Task Force to make sure that Republicans have our plans in order for when we take back the House. I will work as hard as I can to hold others accountable and make sure that we keep our promise to legislate like conservatives.

Don Coram announced his candidacy for CD3 in January 2022. He brings with him over a decade of experience legislating from Colorados General Assembly.

Q: What led you to become a candidate for CD3?

Well Ive lived a long time, thats the first thing; and you get a lot of experience if you live long enough. Coram grew up on a farm and ranch operation in Montrose County and later built upon his fathers livestock business.

I got involved in politics several years ago, he told The Sopris Sun. Frustrated with the direction the Republican Party was taking, he decided to participate and was appointed as second vice-chair of the Montrose County Republican Central Committee. In that role, he helped Scott Tipton run successfully for the Colorado State House of Representatives and later assumed that seat himself when Tipton was elected to represent CD3 in 2010.

Coram went on to the state senate in 2017, representing District 6. The recent redistricting left Coram without a seat and he was encouraged to pursue the congressional position.

Q: Congress is divided and gets little accomplished. What could you do about this?

You need to change the culture. I remember the days lets go back to Ronald Reagan and Tip ONeill, two opposite members but they knew how to work together. You need to work for solutions and not call on Republican or Democrat issues its American solutions that we need to solve. Im a centrist, theres no doubt about it, but center-left and center-right are not too far off.

He continued, Im going to go back to the founding of our nation. In his farewell address, President Washington said, The biggest threat to our young republic [is] excessive partisanship and putting their self interests before the needs of the nation and were right there, right now.

Q: What are your top three goals, should you be elected?

First, To create a coalition of people where we can actually accomplish passing legislation. When its all one party for and one party against, that doesnt work. You need someone that is a negotiator In a good piece of legislation, probably neither party gets everything they want.

Coram said that hes been criticized for negotiating, to which he replies, the signers of the Declaration of Independence took 56 days to get to that resolution; and putting time, effort and work into coming up with resolutions is what I intend to do.

Next, and again pointing out his background in agriculture and natural resources, Coram stated, Im very concerned that if were not careful were looking at a food shortage. He mentioned that his friends in agriculture were paying $2 a gallon for diesel last year compared to $5 a gallon as of late.

Im concerned that a lot of our agricultural producers may not be profitable Im concerned that were going to end up with a lot of farm sales. Weve already got 40% of our produce coming from outside the U.S. borders. Im concerned that well be more reliant on foreign countries for our food and a nation that cannot feed itself cannot survive.

Lastly, I spent 12 years in the General Assembly on ag and natural resources, and water is a big deal. Were looking at the 100-year anniversary of the [Colorado River] Compact and theres going to be some conversations about that. Coram noted that the compact was made during wetter times compared to the current drought. I think its vital that we have someone with some knowledge and background in water to be the voice of Colorado when were talking about that issue.

Boebert and Coram faced off in their first debate in Ignacio outside of Durango on May 26. A subsequent debate has not yet been scheduled. The primary occurs June 28.

See the original post here:
Meet the Republican candidates vying for CD3 nomination - Aspen Daily News