Mediaboss Marketing

In January, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issuedcivil investigative demands(CIDs) to Twitter and other internet platforms requesting information about their content moderation practices pursuant to the offices authority under the state Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. Twitter has since sued the attorney general to block enforcement of the CID issued to it. The Reporters Committee authored afriend-of-the-court briefin support of Twitter last week, joined by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Media Law Resource Center, and PEN America.

Paxton has been vocal about Twitters suspension of former President Trumps account. A day after Twitter did so, Paxtontweetedhe would fight the company with all Ive got. In apress releaseabout the CIDs, Paxton explicitly linked the demands to the discriminatory and unprecedented step of removing and blocking President Donald Trump from online media platforms.

The CID issued to Twitter requests copies of terms of service, content moderation policies, all public statements made about content moderation and internal communications with or about the site Parler.

Twitter argues that the attorney generals actions are retaliatory and chill its content moderation practices, which are First Amendment-protected speech. The friend-of-the-court brief submitted by the Reporters Committee notes that government efforts to use regulatory schemes to investigate perceived bias in moderation practices would contravene the U.S. Supreme Courts rule inMiami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo that governmental regulation of editorial control and judgment cannot be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press[.]

Tornillodealt with print media, but the Supreme Court has extended such protections to the internet as a communications medium. Much of public discourse today happens online, and public discourse needs breathing space for free debate to survive. Government interventions even in the name of viewpoint neutrality threaten to shape this debate in ways that suppress disfavored speech, the brief argues. Consequently, investigations like the attorney generals may undermine the protections established by the Supreme Court inTornillo.

The brief notes that even non-retaliatory regulatory actions can burden the free flow of information to the public, such as taxes on paper and ink used to produce newspapers. When such regulatory schemes are used to make government actors arbiters of bias, that risk becomes even more pronounced. Paraphrasing the Supreme Courts words inTornillo, responsible moderation may be a desirable goal, but it cannot be achieved through government mandate.

Like what youve read?Sign up to get the full This Week in Technology + Press Freedom newsletter delivered straight to your inbox!

The Technology and Press Freedom Project at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press uses integrated advocacy combining the law, policy analysis, and public education to defend and promote press rights on issues at the intersection of technology and press freedom, such as reporter-source confidentiality protections, electronic surveillance law and policy, and content regulation online and in other media. TPFP is directed by Reporters Committee attorney Gabe Rottman. He works with Stanton Foundation National Security/Free Press Legal Fellow Grayson Clary and Technology and Press Freedom Project Legal Fellow Mailyn Fidler.

Read the original:
RCFP urges court to order Texas AG to stop investigating Twitter - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Timothy Wu wonders if the First Amendment is 'obsolete,' and believes in 'returning the country to the kind of media environment that prevailed in the 1950s'

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

When Columbia law professor Timothy Wu was appointed by Joe Biden to the National Economic Council a few weeks back, the press hailed it as great news for progressives. The author ofThe Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Ageis known as a staunch advocate of antitrust enforcement, and Bidens choice of him, along with the appointment of Lina Khan to the Federal Trade Commission, was widely seen as a signal that the new administration was assembling whatWiredcalled an antitrust all-star team.

Big Tech critic Tim Wu joins Biden administration to work on competition policy, boomed CNBC, whileMarketwatchadded, Anti-Big Tech crusader reportedly poised to join Biden White House. Chicago law professor Eric Posners piece forProject Syndicatewas titled Antitrust is Back in America.Posner noted Wus appointment comes as Senator Amy Klobuchar has introduced regulatorylegislationthat ostensibly targets companies like Facebook and Google, which a House committee last year concluded haveaccrued monopoly power.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Wus appointment may presage tougher enforcement of tech firms. However, he has other passions that got less ink. Specifically, Wu who introduced the concept of net neutrality and onceexplained it to Stephen Colbert on a roller coaster is among the intellectual leaders of a growing movement in Democratic circles to scale back the First Amendment. He wrote an influential September, 2017 article called Is the First Amendment Obsolete? that argues traditional speech freedoms need to be rethought in the Internet/Trump era. He outlined the same ideas in a 2018 Aspen Ideas Festival speech:

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Listening to Wu, who has not responded to requests for an interview, is confusing. He calls himself a devotee of the great Louis Brandeis, speaking with reverence about his ideas and those of other famed judicial speech champions like Learned Hand and Oliver Wendell Holmes. In the Aspen speech above, he went so far as to say about First Amendment protections that these old opinions are so great, its like watchingThe Godfather,you cant imagine anything could be better.

If you hear a but coming in his rhetoric, you guessed right. He does imagine something better. The Cliffs Notes version of Wus thesis:

The framers wrote the Bill of Rights in an atmosphere where speech was expensive and rare. The Internet made speech cheap, and human attentionrare. Speech-hostile societies like Russia and China have already shown how to capitalize on this cheap speech era, eschewing censorship and bans in favor of flooding the Internet with pro-government propaganda.

As a result, those who place faith in the First Amendment to solve speech dilemmas should admit defeat and imagine new solutions for repelling foreign propaganda, fake news, and other problems. In some cases, Wu writes, this could mean that the First Amendment must broaden its own reach to encompass new techniques of speech control. What might that look like? He writes, without irony: I think the elected branches should be allowed, within reasonable limits, to try returning the country to the kind of media environment that prevailed in the 1950s.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

More ominously, Wu suggests that in modern times, the government may be more of a bystander to a problem in which private platforms play the largest roles. Therefore, a potential solution (emphasis mine) boils down to asking whether these platforms should adopt (orbe forced to adopt) norms and policies traditionally associated with twentieth-century journalism.

That last line is what should make speech advocates worry.

Wus appointment may not matter a lot to those concerned about constitutional freedoms because, as Stanford professor Nate Persily puts it, the current Supreme Court would be very hostile to any attempt to water down the First Amendment. If theres one thing thats consistent about the Roberts court, says Persily, its very strong speech protections.

However, theres a paradox embedded in this new Democratic mainstream thinking about speech in the Internet era. As one activist put it to me last week, the new breed of Democratic-leaning thinkers like Wu wants to be anti-corporate and authoritarian at the same time. Their problem, however, is that in order to effect change through authoritative action, they need to enlist the aid and cooperation of corporate power.

This paradox casts even the antitrust all-star team narrative about people like Wu and Khan in a different light. What may begin as a sincere desire by the Biden administration (or, at least, by figures like Wu, who by all accounts is a real antitrust advocate) to break up tech monopolies, may end in negotiation and partnership.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

While the liberal tradition of the party tilts toward antitrust action, the new, more authoritarian form of progressivism currently gaining traction is tempted by the power these companies wield, and instead of breaking these firms up, may be more likely to seek to appropriate their influence.

You can see this mentality in the repeated exchanges between Congress and Silicon Valley executives. An example is the celebrated October 23, 2019 questioning of Mark Zuckerberg by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in aHouse Financial Services Committee hearing. The congresswoman, as staunch a believer in the new approach to speech as there is in modern Democratic Party politics, repeatedly asks Zuckerberg questions like, So, you wont take down lies or you will take down lies? and Why you label theDaily Caller, a publication well-documented with ties to white supremacists, as an official fact-checker for Facebook?

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Grasping that everyone whos ever thought about speech issues throughout our history has been concerned with the publication of falsehoods, incitement to violence, libel, hate speech, and other problems, the issue here isnt thewhat, but thewho.The question isnt whether or not you think theDaily Callershould be fact-checking, but whether you think its appropriate to leave Mark Zuckerberg in charge of naming anyone at all a fact-checker. AOC doesnt seem to be upset that Zuckerberg has so much authority, but rather that hes not using it to her liking.

A minority of activists within Democratic Party circles believes that the fundamental reason platforms like Facebook end up being what journalist Matt Stoller describes as speech dumpster fires has to do with the financial model of these companies.

These are advertising monopolies who have centralized control over the discourse, is how Stoller puts it. Hepublished a piecefor the American Economic Liberties Project recently that suggests, A possible reform path would be to remove protections for firmsthatuse algorithms to monetize data. His point is that firms like Facebook are incentivized to push users of all political persuasions toward the most angering, conspiratorial, sensational content, while also discouraging exposure to alternative or debunking points of view a primary driver of our fact-starved political dilemma.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

In another piece the AELP published after January 6th, How To Prevent the Next Social Media-Driven Attack On Democracyand Avoid a Big Tech Censorship Regime,the Project noted that banning Donald Trump from Twitter is ineffective even as a draconian solution, because it doesnt alter the platforms basic incentive structure. Targeting the clickbait ad sales model for regulatory reform isnt a panacea, either, but from the standpoint of traditional liberalism, breaking up surveillance advertising monopolies has to be better than partnering with said monopolies to switch out one elitist concept of speech control for another.

This is where the paradox comes in. Every time a Democratic Party-aligned politician or activist says he or she wants the tech companies to take action to prevent, say, the dissemination of fake news, one has to realize that it makes little sense for those same actors to then turn around and advocate for breakups of those same firms. Anyone genuinely interested in clamping down on harmful speech would consciously or unconsciously want the landscape as concentrated as possible, because an information bottleneck makes controlling unwanted speech easier.

This idea of needing a more activist conception of speech control is clear in Wus writing. He speaks about the First Amendment operating as a negative right against coercive government action, while in the modern environment, the government not only needs to secure the freedomtospeak, but freedomfromabuses. He posits a First Amendment that acts as a right that obliges the government to ensure a pristine speech environment. Because that would be difficult to accomplish in the First Amendments current form, he suggests expanding the category of state action itself to encompass the conduct of major speech platforms like Facebook or Twitter.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This is the subtext of those constant congressional demands that tech platforms fix the problems of unfettered speech. We have another round of such hearings coming this week. The House Energy and Commerce Committee will be having Zuckerberg, Googles Sundar Pichai, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey in to discuss, Disinformation Nation: Social Medias Role in Promoting Extremism and Misinformation.

The Committees ranking members and subcommittee chairs, Frank Pallone, Jr. of New Jersey, Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, are adopting the now-familiar line of pushing to hold the tech firms accountable for their speech environments,sayingcongress must begin the work of changing incentives driving social media companies to allow and even promote misinformation and disinformation.

Do these members of congress, or thinkers like Wu, want to break up these monopolies, or harness them? To date, the answer has run decidedly in one direction. Previous congressional hearings involving tech CEOs Im thinking particularly of anOctober, 2017 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committeein which Hawaiis Mazie Hirono demanded that the platforms come up with plans to keep bad actors who sow discord from manipulating social media already resulted in an overt partnership between Washington and Silicon Valley over content moderation decisions. The only question is, will that partnership become more expansive, as politicians become increasingly tempted by the power of these companies?

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

As Stoller puts it, the Democrats have turned the tech battle into something like aLord of the Ringscontest, where the fight ends up being over the one ring of speech control. Others point out that the situation for new government appointees in the Biden administraiton will be complicated by the input of the intelligence services, whose point of view on this issue is clear and absolute: they love the bottleneck power of the tech monopolies and would oppose any effort to dilute it.

Still others wonder about the wisdom of creating powerful new partnerships with Silicon Valley, given that political realities may change and another set of actors may soon be driving the content moderation machine. Its not like all this ends with the Biden White House, is how Persily puts it.

Wus comment about returning to the kind of media environment that prevailed in the 1950s is telling. This was a disastrous period in American media that not only resulted in a historically repressive atmosphere of conformity, but saw all sorts of glaring social problems covered up or de-emphasized with relative ease, from Jim Crow laws to fraudulent propaganda about communist infiltration to overthrows and assassinations in foreign countries.

The wink-wink arrangement that big media companies had with the government persisted through the early sixties, and enabled horribly destructive lies about everything from the Bay of Pigs catastrophe to the Missile Gap to go mostly unchallenged, for a simple reason: if you give someone formal or informal power to choke off lies, theythemselvesmay now lie with impunity. Its Whac-a-Mole: in an effort to solve one problem, you create a much bigger one elsewhere, incentivizing official deceptions.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

That 1950s period is attractive to modern politicians because it was a top-down system. This was the era in which worship of rule by technocratic experts became common, when the wisdom of the Best and the Brightest was unchallenged. A yearning to return to those times runs through these new theories about speech, and is prevalent throughout todays Washington, a city that seems to think everything should be run by people with graduate degrees.

Going back to a system of stewardship of the information landscape by such types isnt a 21st-century idea. Its a proven 20th-century failure, and signing up Silicon Valley for a journey backward in time wont make it work any better.

This post first appeared at taibbi.substack.com and is republished here with permission.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Posted Newsletter will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

View post:
Matt Taibbi: A Biden appointee's troubling views on the First Amendment - National Post

In a victory for free speech, the rule of law, and common sense, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuitrecently ruledthat a philosophy professor at Shawnee State University in Portsmouth, Ohio, could not be forced to use a transgender students preferred pronouns, and that his suit against the university for violation of his First and 14th Amendment rights could proceed.

The courts decision is the first of its kind, and establishes a needed boundary against American cultures new, brutish sexual orthodoxy.

At least within academia, one can no longer be compelled to say things one doesnt believe.

The incident that precipitated this suit occurred in January 2018, when Shawnee State philosophy professor Nicolas Meriwether responded to a male students question during a Socratic dialogue in his political philosophy class by saying, Yes, sir. After class, the student approached Meriwether, stated that he was transgender, and demanded that the professor refer to him as a woman, with feminine titles and pronouns.

Instead, Meriwether offered to use the students last name, or any other name of the students choosing, but politely declined to use the transgender students pronouns. The student became belligerent and promised to get Meriwether fired.

The student then filed a complaint with the university, which launched a formal investigation through the universitys Title IX office. Meriwether again offered various compromises in an attempt to protect his rights of conscience while being respectful to the transgender student, but the university rejected any arrangement other than the use of preferred pronouns, or the elimination of sex-based pronouns altogether (a virtual impossibility in a scholastic setting).

When Meriwether refused, the university formally charged him with a violation of Title IX, claiming he [had] effectively created a hostile environment for the student. The university placed a written warning in Meriwethers personnel file and threatened further corrective actions unless he articulated the universitys groupthink.

Two years prior, in 2016, Meriwether had received a faculty-wide email from Shawnee State leadership, directing all faculty to refer to students by their preferred pronouns. At that time, Meriwether, a devout Christian, had approached his department chair, Jennifer Pauley, with concerns about the policy. Pauley was not only dismissive of Meriwethers concerns,she was patently hostile.

Knowing Meriwether had successfully taught courses on Christian thought for decades, Pauley claimed Christians are primarily motivated out of fear, and should be banned from teaching courses regarding that religion. In her view, even the presence of religion in higher education is counterproductive.

Meriwether was told that even if a professor had moral or religious objections to the use of preferred pronouns, the policy would still apply.

Two years later, Meriwethers spotless record was marred by a disciplinary note, and he was teaching under the threat of further discipline, including suspension without pay or termination, unless he agreed to fall in line with Shawnees pronoun policy.

In November 2018, Meriwether sued the university in Ohio federal court for violation of his rights of free speech and religious liberty under the First Amendment, and violation of his due process and equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment. U.S. District Judge Susan Dlottthrew out Meriwethers lawsuiton Feb. 12, 2020, and among other things, held that a professors speech in the classroom is never protected by First Amendment. Meriwether appealed to the 6th Circuit.

InMeriwether v. Hartop et al., an impatient panel for the 6th Circuit wasted no time with perfunctory legalese or institutional pandering. It cut right to the chase in its frustration with Shawnee States stamping out of debate and open dialogue vis-a-vis its malignant speech policy.

Theopinion, which was written by Judge Amul Thapar and joined by Judge Joan Larsen and Senior Judge David McKeague, begins:

Traditionally, American universities have been beacons of intellectual diversity and academic freedom. They have prided themselves on being forums where controversial ideas are discussed and debated. And they have tried not to stifle debate by picking sides. But Shawnee State chose a different route: It punished a professor for his speech on a hotly contested issue. And it did so despite the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment.

The district court dismissed the professors free-speech and free-exercise claims. We see things differently and reverse.

The court went on to clarify that theSupreme Court has recognizedthat the government may not compel a speaker to affirm a belief with which the speaker disagrees. It added that courts haverecognizedthat the free speech clause of the Constitution applies at public universities, and that professors do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the [university] gate.

Thapar, the first South Asian federal judge in American history, and the son of self-made immigrants from India, seemed hard-pressed in containing his displeasure at the universitys looseness with long-standing judicial principles. Its clear he doesnt take kindly to Shawnee States loutish attempts at conformity.

In relaying a dizzying body of precedent, Thapar stressed that the court has rejected as totally unpersuasive the argument that teachers have no First Amendment rights when teaching, or that the government can censor teacher speech without restriction.

Simply put, the judge wrote, professors at public universities retain First Amendment protections at least when engaged in core academic functions, such as teaching and scholarship because the need for free exchange of ideas in the college classroom is unlike that of other workplace settings.

In a critical discussion on the use of pronouns themselves, Thapar wrote:

[T]itles and pronouns carry a message. The university recognizes that and wants its professors to use pronouns to communicate a message: People can have a gender identity inconsistent with their sex at birth. But Meriwether does not agree with that message, and he does not want to communicate it to his students.

Thats not a matter of classroom management; thats a matter of academic speech Never before have titles and pronouns been scrutinized as closely as they are today for their power to validateor invalidatesomeones perceived sex or gender identity. Meriwether took a side in that debate. Through his continued refusal to address Doe as a woman, he advanced a viewpoint on gender identity

Shawnee State allegedly flouted [a] core principle of the First Amendment. Taking the allegations as true, we hold that the university violated Meriwethers free-speech rights.

The courts opinion in Meriwether v. Hartop is long overdue comfort to those who refuse to bend the knee on leftist groupthinkthe kind that forces a subjective and manipulable view of one persons self to become a defining reality for everyone else. It is a stake in the ground on behalf of religious dissenters and academic freedom.

Andwith poetic suitability to a Socratic dialoguethe decision reminds us that there are no personal truths, but only truths immemorial: realities that exists independent of our wishes to the contrary.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal.

Read this article:
The 6th Circuit Reached the Right Conclusion on Preferred Pronouns. Other Courts Should Follow Suit. - Heritage.org

For much of the past four years, psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a professor at Yale University, warned the public about the mental health of then-President Donald Trump. Her statements ended up costing her her job at Yale, and this week, Lee sued Yale for breaking her employment contract.

The survival of human civilization for four years turned on the psychological condition of a man whom Lee believed in her professional opinion was mentally unfit for office.

Some observers, including myself and my law school classmate George T. Conway III, agreed with Lees assessment, publicly expressing concern that Trumps extreme narcissism made him dangerous.

Up until noon this past Jan. 20, Trump had the power to launch a nuclear attack. The survival of human civilization for four years turned on the psychological condition of a man whom Lee believed in her professional opinion was mentally unfit for office.

Many of us urged that Trump be removed under the 25th Amendment, which was ratified in the 1960s to address physical or mental incapacity of a president. Along with Norman Eisen of the Brookings Institution, I co-authored a chapter on the 25th Amendment to Lees book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.

But not everyone agreed with our assessment of Trumps mental health. Dr. Ronny Jackson, the White House physician at that time who later successfully ran for Congress as a Republican believed Trump was fit for office. Law professor Alan Dershowitz, often an apologist for Trump and Trumps lawyer in his first impeachment trial, believed our concerns about Trumps mental condition were overblown. Some psychiatrists agreed with that assessment as well. Who was right?

Nuclear war did not come, so our worst fears never came to be. But Trumps reaction to his election loss in November and his incitement of the Capitol riot of Jan. 6 proved that he could be extremely dangerous. The events of Jan. 6 also proved that agitation can spread easily between a charismatic leader and his followers when egging one another on to do more irrational and more violent things.

The events of Jan. 6 proved that agitation can spread easily between a charismatic leader and his followers.

All of us had the freedom to raise our concerns about Trumps mental health without fear of retribution. The First Amendment gave us that right, and our employers respected our freedom to speak our mind on a matter of great public importance. All of us, that is, except Lee.

Lee continued to question Trumps mental health and point out the danger he posed for our country and the world. Things appeared to come to a head when she also raised questions about Dershowitz in response to a tweet I myself posted after the professor boasted that he had a perfect sex life which, I pointed out, echoed Trumps narcissistic boast in 2019 that he had had a perfect phone call with the president of Ukraine.

Lee questioned whether Dershowitz and Trump shared the same psychosis. Dershowitz, normally a champion of free speech, wrote Yale and demanded an investigation. In 2020, the university fired Lee, who was on a term contract to teach at the medical school. Yales reason: Her alleged violation of the Goldwater Rule.

The rule was endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s after some psychiatrists expressed concern about 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwaters mental fitness to be commander in chief.

But regardless of whether these psychiatrists were correct about Goldwater a fiery speaker who was nonetheless a model of mental stability compared with Trump the Goldwater Rule is wrong. It was an attempt by the psychiatric profession to prevent its members from participating in one of the most important parts of political discourse, which is assessment of the character of our leaders.

The psychiatric profession needs to repudiate the Goldwater Rule.

The psychiatric profession needs to repudiate the Goldwater Rule. The mental health condition of public officials is not simply a private matter. The public, including psychiatrists themselves, must be free to talk about it. The 25th Amendment recognizes that physical or psychiatric incapacity of a president can be grounds for removal by the Cabinet and Congress. That removal mechanism, as well as the election process to remove a president, is substantially weakened if psychiatrists are not permitted to speak out about the presidents mental health. A free country depends upon free speech, and that includes free speech for Lee.

There is the fact that Yale, as a private university, is not a state actor bound by the First Amendment. Lee was not tenured, so perhaps Yale believed that meant she had less of a right to free speech. But the university has repeatedly committed itself to the principle of academic freedom, including its well known 1974 Woodward Report and statements about freedom of expression in the faculty handbook, and is bound to honor that commitment in its contracts with academic employees including Lee.

This matter should not have to be decided in a court of law. Yale should stand up for the academic freedom of its faculty, which is essential to the core mission of a university. Even if Lees comment about Dershowitz was superfluous, it was well within the scope of her academic freedom.

Her observations about Trump were a critical part of the public conversation about the psychological disposition of a very controversial president. Everyone knew that she had not examined Trump as a patient and that her observations were based on publicly available information.

And her observations, as well as her experience with mental health, are as important in the case of Trump as her opinions are important in the many cases where she has examined patients, including as an expert witness for mental capacity in criminal trials.

Even more important than Lees lawsuit against Yale is that we should examine the role of mental health professionals in our political system. A few have played a pernicious role, including the psychologists who advised the government on how to make the post-9/11 torture program more effective for coercing detainees. Others, such as Lee, have played a constructive and necessary role in warning about the consequences of vesting political power in persons who might abuse it. For that she should not be punished.

Richard W. Painterwas the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007, underPresident George W. Bush. He is currently the S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Minnesota, and is a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School.

View original post here:
Was a Trump critic's 1st Amendment violated by Yale? We're about to find out. - MSNBC

Douglas Storys white supremacist street cred was easy to find. He had a white pride tattoo and a neo-Nazi license plate. In extremist online forums he made ominous, N-word-filled posts about President Obama: If someone puts a 30.06 round into the base of his skull, huh ya think?" The Aryan Nations even booted Story from its website when he sought help for converting his AK-47 rifle into a fully automatic machine gun a federal crime.

But none of that factored into his 2012 sentencing after the FBI arrested him in Virginia for possession of that modified gun. A federal judge blocked prosecutors from discussing Storys white supremacist views, because the First Amendment protects speech, no matter how offensive. Prosecutors could only focus on Storys illegal weapon.

Storys path to a prison cell reveals a common workaround that police and prosecutors use when investigating those who spew white supremacy, far-right or violent anti-government rhetoric. Its easier to send someone to prison for traditional crimes, often involving guns or drugs, than to convince a judge that repulsive hate speech breaks the law.

In the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, federal law enforcement is fending off complaints that it goes easy on white supremacists while monitoring Black and Muslim activists. These frustrations escalated after last months mass shooting in Atlanta that killed six Asian women. Many Democrats, advocates and even some within the ranks of law enforcement have long criticized the FBI and federal prosecutors for not doing more to crack down on white extremists. Some are now pushing again for a law that labels such crimes as domestic terrorism, but civil rights proponents worry that would also increase policing of communities of color.

On Tuesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland acknowledged the increasing problem with hate crimes and ordered a 30-day review of how the Justice Department combats it.

To understand how white supremacists are policed and punished, The Marshall Project analyzed nearly 700 federal prosecutions from 2012 to 2020 that involved what the FBI calls racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism and hate crimes. Academics at the University of North Carolina mined Justice Department press releases for cases involving extremism. Almost all the cases involved White men.

The research did not include Black extremist groups because few exist, said Ashley Mattheis, a communications expert at the University of North Carolina who studies violent extremism and propaganda. Its an incredibly small percentage, she said.

Two-thirds of the 671 cases The Marshall Project analyzed involved gun and drug charges against white supremacist gangs that formed in prison and spread to the outside world. Convictions and lengthy prison sentences were common.

But when we dug into the remaining 194 cases, we found that:

A third of the non-prison gang cases involved guns, silencers and bombs. Given the First Amendment complications, prosecutors say they prefer to bring these easier-to-win criminal charges as a workaround. Often these investigations featured lone wolves flagged for advocating ethnic hatred. If they had a criminal past, federal prosecutors slapped them with charges such as a felon in possession of a firearm. "Federal firearm laws are the Achilles heel of white supremacists," said Tom Brandon, recently retired acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

A quarter of the cases involved threats made online, in person or on the phone but not carried out. The victims were diverse: Tulsas district attorney and his daughter, who are White, received death threats; a Black city council candidate in Charlottesville, Virginia, was pressured to quit the race after a torrent of racist vitriol; a pair of halal grocers in Florida complained that law enforcement ignored threats to blow up their stores.

In a handful of threat cases, prosecutors resorted to other workarounds, such as accusing people of lying on federal job applications or failing to disclose mental health histories to the military.

Our analysis reflects only a portion of the FBIs work: investigations that ended with charges filed. It doesnt include the untold hours agents spend watching people they think could end up breaking the law.

FBI guidelines prohibit launching any investigative activity solely on the basis of someone's race, religion or identity. The guidelines allow agents to explore publicly available information such as social media posts and to do knock and talks unannounced visits where agents ask people to talk voluntarily.

The FBI doesnt release data on knock and talks and other surveillance activity. Nor does the agency share information about its investigations unless charges are filed in court.

We are not seeing that full picture, said Hugh Handeyside, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is suing the FBI for surveillance files on Black demonstrators.

Activists in the Muslim community and the Black Lives Matter movement say these knock and talks are terrifying and all too common. The Council on American Islamic Relations said the FBI visited more than 100 Pakistani families across the country in 2016 on the grounds agents were investigating threats to the election, said Zahra Billoo, who heads the organizations office in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The bar for prosecutions is much higher. While Black Lives Matter activists and Muslim communities have sued the government over what they say is unfair surveillance, we found that criminal charges for racially motivated extremism which require probable cause, a much higher standard of proof involved almost exclusively White men.

The Justice Department shared an annual tally of people charged with either a federal hate crime, or threatening someone over state lines whether in person, online or by phone. But that tally also includes incidents that dont involve political or racist motives. A spokesperson said the agency didnt have a nationwide breakdown detailing if a suspect had ties to any racist extremists or anti-government groups.

In a recent letter to Congress, the FBI said half its 120 domestic terrorism arrests for the year ending Sept. 30 were linked to racism, with a vast majority involving people who advocate for the superiority of the White race. And 45% were listed as anti-government or anti-authority.

Tom OConnor, a retired FBI agent who specialized in domestic terrorism for 23 years, said the 2012 case he led against Douglas Story in Virginia was a textbook example of the challenges of investigating white supremacists.

Storys vanity license plate, 14CV88, alluded to a white supremacist slogan and a Hitler salute. He hung out on white extremism forums where he vowed to kill police if martial law was ever declared or if a neo-Nazi race war erupted. Story posted that a 30.06 rifle bullet was his preferred way to remove then-Attorney General Eric Holder, the first Black person to hold the office.

Citing such language, the FBI opened a preliminary investigation, but the threats against Obama and Holder were not specific enough to file criminal charges.

Hes not saying hes going to do something, hes not telling someone else to do something, said OConnor. Hes saying that if someone is shot in the head theyre going to die.

The FBI managed to work around the free speech obstacles after Story posted a message on a neo-Nazi website, wanting to convert his AK-47 to a fully automatic machine gun, a felony that could bring up to 10 years in prison.

An FBI agent posing as an underground gunsmith got the job done, leading to Storys arrest.

But when prosecutors detailed Storys hate speech in court documents, his defense lawyer acknowledged it was inflammatory language, but said it had nothing to do with his client owning a machine gun.

The judge ordered prosecutors not to talk about Storys white supremacist posts or his vitriol toward Obama at sentencing. The judge gave him one year in prison, a sentence OConnor described as a heartbeat.

Story did not respond to requests for an interview, but in an email denied being an extremist. I wasn't some wild eyed white supremacist, he wrote. My arrest, in my head, anyway, I consider a combination of FBI entrapment plus stupidity and naivete on my part.

Former federal officials say workarounds are inevitable because threat cases are hard to win. They are certainly more legally complicated than a gun case or a drugs case, said David J. Freed, the former U.S. Attorney in central Pennsylvania who left the post in January.

His office generally chose to forgo threat charges if there were more typical crimes involving violence or vandalism, Freed said. Prosecutors want to avoid courtroom debates over whether threats were a crime or protected speech. Any responsible prosecutor will know, you are buying yourself a fight, he said.

The Marshall Projects analysis showed that prosecutors generally pursued the most severe winnable charge, usually those involving guns and drugs. At least in one case, however, the opposite happened.

In 2016, Omar Rabbo, a halal grocer in Fort Myers, Florida, was angry that local police wouldnt arrest James Benjamin Jones, a 35-year-old White man who threatened to blow up Rabbos store, according to court records.

Frustrated, the Palestinian immigrant called the FBI; an agent was at his shop within an hour.

When the FBI went to Jones home, a psychedelic mushroom farm and illegal moonshine distillery were in plain sight. State prosecutors slapped Jones with felony drug and alcohol manufacturing charges. He faced up to 20 years in a Florida prison.

Prosecutors had a sure win with the drug and alcohol charges, according to Jones defense attorney, Christopher H. Brown, who described what happened next as the strangest swaps in history. Instead of pursuing the state felonies, the U.S. attorneys office told county prosecutors to drop the case, as part of a deal that let Jones plead guilty to two federal hate crimes instead which Brown saw as a way for the feds to win a hate crime prosecution.

In my personal opinion, the U.S. attorney saw it as a statistical thing, to say in this district we have a threat conviction involving Muslims, Brown said. I did the best interest for my client.

The best criminal justice reporting from around the web, organized by subject

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorneys Office in the Middle District of Florida said the Justice Department is still reviewing facts of the case. The crimes Jones admitted to carried a maximum of 10 years in prison for someone with a long criminal history. That was not the case for Jones, who got probation in the deal.

The plea agreement didnt bother Rabbo, the store owner, who believes Jones was mentally ill and brainwashed by people on the internet. I asked the judge for mercy, he told The Marshall Project.

That was an unusual sentence. Out of the nearly three dozen suspects convicted of federal threat crimes in the eight-year period analyzed, only five were placed on probation. The average prison sentence was 2.5 years, the longest being 10 years.

The Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol reignited a debate over how the country should handle domestic terrorism. There is no official tally of domestic terrorism crimes because there is no law that expressly bans Americans from using or threatening violence for political motives.

After the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in 2017, Mary McCord, a Georgetown law professor and former federal prosecutor, began urging Congress to create a new criminal charge without increasing police powers. The new law would plainly label racist or extremist plots and attacks as terrorism, which could help thwart future violence, she argued.

McCord pointed to The Base, a violent neo-Nazi group that was building machine guns to trigger a civil war to create a white ethno-state. Prosecutors charged them with firearm violations and harboring an undocumented resident.

"Having crimes that fit the threat you are trying to thwart drives more resources and provides a more appropriate match between the resources and the crime," McCord said. "A statute would say this is a priority."

Proponents also argue a new law would address the lack of consistent punishment when a white extremist threatens to harm someone even high-profile politicians. In recent years a New York man was sentenced to 46-months for threatening to kill Obama and U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters. Yet another New York man got a year in prison for threatening to kill U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, who requested mercy in the case.

Civil rights advocates who oppose a new domestic terrorism law argue that it would only increase police surveillance in communities of color.

"The real solution here is certainly not to expand their budgets or their legal authorities, said Ramzi Kassem, a law professor at the City University of New York, referring to law enforcement. Kassem directs the CLEAR project, which provides legal counseling to people targeted by national security investigations.

When asked why she requested mercy for the man who threatened her, Omar said white nationalism poses a serious criminal threat. But we must also understand that no matter how odious these acts are, taking a punitive approach will not rehabilitate white supremacists, she wrote in a statement. Instead of treating this as a purely criminal matter, we must stay rooted in respect for justice and of human rights and of civil liberties as we respond.

Steve Kunzweiler, the district attorney in Tulsa whose family received threats, still feels cheated. As his office prepared to charge a Tulsa police officer who fatally shot an unarmed Black man, a Connecticut resident began to post the online threats. The poster vowed to kill the families of Kunzweiler, the police chief and other investigators.

Kunzweiler hoped that the judge would rule in favor of iron bar therapy, referring to a lengthy prison sentence. Instead, the suspect received probation for using the internet to send threats across state lines.

We are in this world of criminal justice reform, and I guess courts can look at that and say well, it was just words, Kunzweiler said. Yes, it was just words, but those words were directed at me and directed at my daughter.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the academic specialty of Ashley Mattheis. She has a doctorate in communications.

Read more:
Why It's So Hard to Prosecute White Extremists - The Marshall Project