Mediaboss Marketing

The killing of George Floyd and the ensuing civil unrest have placed journalists at the center of

large-scale protests and demonstrations across the United States, including in major metropolitan

centers throughout Texas. In the course of covering these protests, many journalists have found

themselves in harms way, and members of the press corps have been assaulted, detained, or

arrested in the line of duty. The press has a responsibility to cover these public events, and the

First Amendment protects journalists ability to cover public demonstrations, such as those going

on in response to the death of George Floyd. The following outlines First Amendment

protections as they relate to coverage of protests and demonstrations.

Does the Press Have a First Amendment Right to Cover Protests?

Yes. In general, journalists have a First Amendment right to cover protests and demonstrations.

Members of the press cannot be excluded from public spaces simply because they are journalists.

Similarly, law enforcement cannot prevent journalists from reporting, and law enforcement or

government officials cannot retaliate against journalists for doing their job.

At the same time, these First Amendment protections do not place journalists above the law.

Journalists are still generally subject to the same laws and restrictions as the public, including

PAGE 2

orders regulating the time, place, and manner of First Amendment activity. Furthermore,

members of the press typically do not enjoy special access to places or information that are not

accessible to the public, and the First Amendment does not allow journalists to trespass or

otherwise break the law, even if they are doing so in furtherance of newsgathering efforts or to

report on protests or demonstrations.

Can Journalists Record Law Enforcement Activity at Public Protests?

Taking photographs or video of people or events that are visible in public is permissible and

constitutionally protected. Journalists who are lawfully present in a public space have the right to

record anything in plain viewincluding police activity, so long as the press activity is not

interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations. By contrast, when an individual is on

private property, the owner of the property may restrict anyones ability to record or require

individuals to leave for any reason.

As stated above, First Amendment protections to engage in newsgathering activity do not entitle

journalists to break the law, such as laws against trespassing. Journalists should also be familiar

with Texas wiretapping statute, which prohibits surreptitious recording of private conversations

without consent. Under Texas Law, a person may only record audio of conversations if those

conversations are in a public place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, or if at

least one party to the conversation has consented to the recording. As a matter of best practices,

journalists should clearly identify themselves as members of the press and remain open and

transparent about their use of recording devices.

When Can Journalists Be Detained or Searched?

If a law enforcement officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal

activity, that officer can temporarily detain him or her in what is known as a Terry stop, (also

known as a stop and frisk). During such a stop, a law enforcement officer may conduct a patdown to ensure that a detainee is not armed and dangerous. For a law enforcement officer to

arrest someone, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the person committed a

crime. This is a higher standard than the reasonable suspicion required for a temporary stopand-frisk.

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches or seizures of their

property. Furthermore, the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 prevents law enforcement officers

from searching and seizing a journalists work product, including notes, photographs, and video

footage, without a warrant. If a law enforcement officer demands to inspect such newsgathering

materials, journalists should clearly identify themselves as members of the press and explain that

they are covered by this law. Furthermore, in the absence of a warrant, journalists may withhold

consent for law enforcement to search their belongings or work product, including the contents

of recording devices and cellular telephones.

What Should Journalists Do if Confronted by Law Enforcement?

Journalists should exercise extreme caution covering protests and demonstrations. Members of

the press have reported incidents in which journalists have been targeted by law enforcement for

covering protests. Members of the press have been detained or arrested, shot with rubber bullets,

PAGE 3

and sprayed with tear gas or pepper spray in the course of their reporting in the field. Journalists

should remain alert and mindful that they may face hostility from both demonstrators and law

enforcement when covering these protests.

Journalists should be sure to carry a government-issued identification, as well as contact

information for attorneys or organizationsincluding the Texas Press Association or the

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Pressthat can provide legal resources and guidance to

journalists. Journalists should clearly identify themselves as members of the press and

prominently display all press credentials. Members of the press should remain alert and

cognizant of potential threats, and should calmly and respectfully discuss their rights with law

enforcement if they feel that their First Amendment rights to engage in newsgathering activity

are being violated.

Furthermore, journalists in the field should stay apprised and mindful of any dispersal orders or

curfews that may impact their ability to be in public spaces. Many state and local curfews

contain exemptions for members of the media, but members of the press should stay aware of

any developments that may impact their ability to safely or legally be at the scene of a public

demonstration.

Texas journalists should contact the Texas Press Association at 512-477-6755 or the Reporters

Committee for Freedom of the Press at 800-336-4243 or rcfp@hotline.org.

Originally posted here:
First Amendment Protections for Journalists Covering Protests - The killing of George Floyd and the ensuing civil unrest have placed journalists at...

I want to begin by expressing my sincere respect and confidence in our police, and recognize their dedication to protecting our lives, our property, and our freedom. At the same time, it is clear that there is something systemically wrong with the law enforcement and justice system in the United States. The rule of law at all levels of government is being undermined and the respect for the law is eroding among the population. This must change.

In September 2007, the Private Security Company (PSC), Blackwater, operating under contract with the U.S. Department of State, opened fire on a crowd of civilians at Nisour Square, Baghdad Iraq, killing 14. The use of force was unnecessary, excessive, and tragic. In addition to the loss of life, it fundamentally changed our relationship with the Iraqi people and damaged the reputation of the United States. After this event, legislative and departmental remedies were implemented to uphold accountability under the law for misconduct by PSCs. Noteworthy among these was the Congressional requirement to develop business and operational standards relevant to private security providers. At that time, I was the U.S. governments technical expert on Private Security and the development of such standards fell to me.

Congress primary concern was the assurance that companies were competent and capable of performing their contracted services. The Defense Department went beyond that, incorporating provisions of the recently concluded Montreux Document, an international framework covering private military and security companies. We worked with the State Department and the Department of Justice, along with other stakeholders from the PSC industry, academia, human rights organizations, and representatives from other governments, incorporating respect for human rights as integral to all aspects of private security company operations. The most critical aspect of this work was the one element that distinguishes private security from any other business or government contractor. The use of force, up to and including deadly force.

The Department of Defense issues very specific rules for the use of force. These are orders specifying when force may be used, the limitations on that force, and the requirement to de-escalate force as soon as it is safe to do so. Since 2008, contractors accompanying the armed forces have been subject to military justice, making those rules enforceable by both U.S. civilian and military law. Most PSCs, however, are not Defense Department contractors, or work for any U.S. agency or foreign government. The standards, therefore, needed to address the use of force applicable to any legal context by any PSC from any country. We began with the firm understanding that PSC personnel do not have the right to engage in combat and under no circumstances did they possess combatant immunity. The use of force by PSC personnel is restricted by their civilian status, similar to police. We were guided by two fundamental principles: There is an inherent right to life, which includes the right of self-defense and the defense of others against unlawful attack. Any use of force must be necessary and reasonable. That is, it must be necessary to use force to protect lives and property and the force used must be reasonable in intensity, duration, and magnitude.

Prior work in this area was critical to success. This work included existing use of force procedures in Defense Department directives and the UN Basic Principles for Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officers. Most important was review and comment by the U.S. Department of Justice. The language of the standard includes clear requirements to follow local law, when it is operative and wherever it is more restrictive than the standard, and to report any use of force. Soon after publication, the use of force guidance in the standards formed an integral part of the UN Office of Drug and Crime sponsored Handbook on the Use of Force for Private Security Companies. Since the publication of these documents, inappropriate use of force by PSC personnel has gone from usual to exceptional.

Considering that we based the standards requirements on the use of force principles common to U.S. police departments, and considering the success of these standards, recent police actions are very concerning. This includes the recent murder of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin and the other policemen with him. Sadly, this tragedy was not unique. There are frequent reports of the use of force by police that appear inconsistent with what is necessary and reasonable. Even if Chauvin and those like him represent only.01% of police, the effect of that misconduct adversely affects the relationship of the police with a large segment of the population, creating a spiral of fear and distrust. Such incidents, however, do not appear out of nowhere. They are the result of a long chain of events. A chain which could be broken at any link. What were the links that led to Minneapolis, or St. Louis, or New York, or Atlanta? I do not claim to have the right answers. I can try, however, to ask the right questions.

News about the murder of George Floyd is displacing news about another recent event; the death of Breonna Taylor in Louisville as the result of a No-Knock warrant. A no-knock warrant is an exception to the normal procedure called, knock and announce. In no-knock, police are allowed to execute forcible entry, often with a battering ram and considerable destruction of property. The justification is a situation where the official requesting the warrant provides evidence that knock and announce would place police at risk of serious injury or death or would allow the destruction of the evidence the warrant is intended to seize. There are an estimated 20,000 no-knock warrants every year in the United States. There are strong indications that the widespread use of these warrants is not necessary and may violate Supreme Court restrictions on their use. Does the proliferation of no-knock warrants indicate a rapid movement away from the rule of law and erosion of trust and confidence in the police?

No-knock warrants are also dangerous. The American Civil Liberties Union cited the dangers of no-knock warrants in 2015, arguing, No-knock warrants pose a danger to the lives of police officers as well as innocent civilians, In most states, homeowners are allowed to use deadly force to resist persons breaking and entering while the premises are occupied. The ACLU noted, If the police do not successfully communicate their identity in the split-second when they kick down the door, they are likely to encounter gunfire from citizens who believe they are justifiably defending their homes from lawless intruders.

This is what happened in Louisville. Just after midnight on March 13, 2020, plainclothes narcotics officers conducted a no-knock raid at the home of Breonna Taylor. Taylors boyfriend woke up and grabbed his legally owned firearm. He fired at the perceived intruders, and the police returned fire, shooting at least 20 bullets. Eight of these hit Taylor, killing her. The boyfriend was arrested for the attempted murder of a policeman, but charges were later dismissed. There were no drugs and the person the police were looking for was already in custody at the time of the raid. What risk analysis justified violent entry into Breonna Taylors residence?

This isnt a matter of a few rogue policemen. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a warrant for any search. Like any warrant, no-knock warrants have to be approved by a judge. The information provided, under oath and penalty of perjury, must be factually correct and must be specific. Warrants cannot be fishing expeditions. In 1997, the Supreme Court placed further restrictions on no-knock warrants. The unanimous decision clearly stated, The Fourth Amendment does not permit a blanket exception to the knock and announce requirement for felony drug investigations. The decision requires an issuing court to evaluate the reasonableness of each warrant request, examining the facts and circumstances of the particular entry justifying why knocking and announcing would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime. How did the court fulfill this responsibility in issuing the warrant for Breonna Taylors residence?

Unfortunately, in 2006 the Supreme Court undermined the effectiveness of this requirement, ruling that even if the police violate the knock-and-announce rule, they can still use any incriminating evidence found inside. This was a significant blow to both demanding reasonableness in no-knock entry and the protections of the 4th Amendment.

We are faced with a situation where the Supreme Court created ambiguity, judges allow no-knock entries without confirming necessity, and police use force that may appear unreasonable in intensity and magnitude. In executing these raids, police create the risk of being misidentified as burglars, and inviting a lethal response by the residenta particularly unwarranted risk in the 10 percent of cases where the police raid the wrong residence. In some cases, the justifying information is provided by an informant; information that sometimes proves to be misleading, false, and tragic. The outcome of this chain of events does not only affect the African-American community. Almost half of all no-knock raids are against Caucasian subjects and households.

These are just some potential links in a long chain leading to the death of Breonna Taylor. A chain that may also produce a culture attaching low importance to necessity and reasonableness and undermines of lack of commitment to the rule of law. This appears in less violent encounters, too, such as rough handling and handcuffing of cooperative subjects. The death of George Foley began as a non-violent arrest.

Returning to private security, the internationally accepted standard modeled its use of force language on that used by police departments throughout the United States. The language that requires the use of force, any force, must be determined as necessary for the protection of lives and property. Where the use of force is necessary, it must be limited to that which is reasonable in intensity, duration, and magnitude. Further, there must be a continuum of force, de-escalating as soon as higher degrees of force are no longer necessary. For private security providers who adopt these standards, and the organizations that hire them, this has been successful. Sadly, it seems to be less successful in the law enforcement organizations we modeled. Why do PSCs seem more successful in applying the use of force principles than the police?

I do not propose to have any solution for these recent and ongoing tragedies. I can only propose questions we can ask as we carefully examine the chain of eventsand break or repair links whenever we a defect.

Link:
Necessary and Reasonable - International Policy Digest

Remember when Donald Trump took a walk from the White House to St. Johns Episcopal Church to pose for a picture with a Bible? Well, to get to the church, he dispersed protesters from the area with tear gas and projectiles. Now, as a result, his little stunt has gotten him, and his administration sued.

Thursday, the Washington, D.C., chapter of Black Lives Matter filed a suit in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union against Trump and his administration. The lawsuit alleges the administration violated the organizations civil and constitutional rights. Monday, during the groups peaceful protest, they were forced out of Lafayette Square by U.S. Park Police, and the National Guard, who used horses, projectiles, and gas. Journalists and protesters were gathered in the square to demonstrate peacefully against police violence in the wake of George Floyds death, NBC News reports.

BLM and ACLU are asking for a jury trial in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia. Their suit alleges that the administration violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights, which protect the right to protest and protect against unreasonable search and seizure. Both parties of the suit claim authorities shot flash-bang shells, tear gas, smoke canisters, pepper balls, and rubber bullets into the crowd.

Out of all the devices used, the U.S. Park Police has disputed the use of tear gas.

The conspiracy targeted Plaintiffs protected First Amendment activities because Defendants held animus towards Plaintiffs viewpoints, the lawsuit said. The violent actions of the conspirators directly and unlawfully interfered with these activities. The suit also claims that the administration conspired to deprive them of their civil rights and protections.

The groups are also asking for a judge to grant relief by issuing an injunction to stop the administration from continuing to use force against protesters.

According to NBC News, Attorney General William Barr, who is named in the lawsuit, defended the use of force on the protesters Thursday. Barr alleged that the administration was provoked by increasing violence. On Monday, we were still facing very large demonstrations that were belligerent and throwing projectiles, Barr said, adding that its very important to use sufficient forces, law enforcement, to establish law and order in a city when you have riots running. If you use insufficient resources, its dangerous for everybody.

However, multiple news outlets in attendance on Monday disputed these claims and said protesters were in the park for hours without any incidents.

Defendants actions to shut down the Lafayette Square demonstration is the manifestation of the very despotism against which the First Amendment was intended to protect, the suit said.

Continued here:
Black Lives Matter Chapter In DC Sues the Trump Administration for Violating Their 1st & 4th Amendment Rights - balleralert.com

from the lobbying-for-a-worse-America dept

A COP IN EVERY HOUSE: that's the American dream. Maybe they can't enter the home, what with the Fourth Amendment and all, but they can be invited to every online get-together thrown by apps that promise neighborhood unity while asking law enforcement to get in on the action.

Ring, Amazon's doorbell/camera company, has made the relationship between neighborhood "sharing" and law enforcement explicit. It's right there in the term sheets. While Ring takes the PR reins to steer the official discourse, it's offering cops steeper discounts on Ring cameras they can hand out to citizens in exchange for pushing citizens to sign up for Neighbors, Ring's snitch app. Once attached to the app, Ring makes sharing of camera footage seamless and encourages homeowners to report suspicious people and activities. Unsurprisingly, many of the suspicious people reported are minorities.

It's not just Ring and Neighbors, as Citylab has discovered. Nextdoor -- a hyperlocal Facebook clone (and hotbed of bigotry) -- is courting cops as forcibly silenced partners in its plans to increase its user base.

Charles Husted, the chief of police in Sedona, Arizona, couldnt contain his excitement. He had just been accepted into the Public Agencies Advisory Council for Nextdoor, the neighborhood social networking app.

Youre the best!!! A great Christmas present, he wrote in a December email to Parisa Safarzadeh, Government Relations Manager for Nextdoor.com Inc., obtained by CityLab through a public records request.

The invitation was too good to turn down: an all expenses paid trip to Nextdoor's headquarters in San Francisco. The company covered the costs for all invitees. In exchange for their participation, Nextdoor picked up the estimated $16,900 tab. And it swore participants to silence with a non-disclosure agreement.

Unfortunately for Nextdoor, this doesn't cover public records, which is what Citylab used to uncover this unseemly relationship between the social media company and US law enforcement. Chief Husted has no regrets -- or at least none he's willing to share publicly, possibly because of the NDA he signed. From what he can see, this isn't questionable. It's just a step in the right direction.

Husted says that leaning on social media not just Nextdoor, but also Facebook or Twitter in the line of duty is an inevitability of the current age. Its naive to think as public safety folks that we can keep doing our work the same as we have for years and years, he said. We have to evolve with the times, and the times have to do with social media: Thats where our communities are at. We have to find a way to be there too.

He's right. Social media can't be ignored. But Nextdoor isn't inviting anyone from its largest group of stakeholders: members of the public. Instead, it's paying for government employees and officials to travel to San Francisco to hear its pitch for greater government involvement in a private company's communications platform. Nextdoor may claim to be connecting locals with each other, but its efforts are focused on roping in the people who are supposed to be serving its users: public servants.

Robbie Turner, a senior city strategist with Nextdoor, wrote to Husted that when expanding Nextdoors reach to Canada, the company was using the same strategy we used when we first launched in the U.S. recruit the major Police Departments and have them help us grow membership and engagement quickly.

That's the bottom line: bumps in usage and users. Turning public entities into tools of corporations is seldom a good idea and it's certainly a bad idea when Nextdoor's user base appears to be willing to turn themselves into snitches at the drop of a hyperlink. If cops want to break bias patterns, they need to steer clear of unsubstantiated reports from biased Nextdoor users. Instead, Nextdoor is encouraging police to embrace the platform and all the problems inherent in its "see something, say something" nudges.

As for other public officials who took advantage of Nextdoor's all-expense-paid offer, they're having a problem seeing a problem with any of this. Never mind the optics. Officials want everyone to focus only on the letter of the law, which contains enough loopholes to drive an entire junket through.

Several public officials who were part of the Public Agencies Advisory Council say that the trip didnt conflict with any city policies. Lara Foss, a corporate communications marketing consultant for the City of Austin, told CityLab that since the trip was work-related, it did not violate the citys gift policy. Sedonas Husted also said there were no endorsement regulations that prohibited him from participating. Katie Nelson, social media and public relations coordinator for the Mountain View Police Department in California, said that because the citys policy prohibits taking paid trips on clocked time, she took a few days off from work to participate in the San Francisco meet-up.

Being wined and dined on a corporate tab makes people more receptive to their pitches. Everyone knows this. And that's why nearly everyone thinks things like this reek of buying off cops and politicians. Everyone, that is, but the cops and politicians being seduced by a whirlwind trip to a tech company's headquarters.

Once the dirty has been done, it's time to let what happened at Nextdoor HQ stay at Nextdoor HQ. This isn't so much a slogan as it is an existential lawsuit threat. Shut up, says Nextdoor, or it will be more than an un-invite to future events. It will be your proverbial ass in a litigation sling. Public officials owe a duty of transparency to their constituents. But Nextdoor is appending a whole lot of asterisks to the duties of public officials. The exceptions include a completely separate arm of the government.

In the terms of Nextdoors NDA, advisory council members are not allowed to release public statements about the partnership without the consent of Nextdoor, nor are they able to follow a court order to disclose any information deemed confidential by Nextdoor without alerting the company first.

And Nextdoor has made it easy for its snitchiest users to bring the government in on conversations other Nextdoor users might have thought were private. The platform can't allow users to file actual police reports but it does give users an option to screw other users over. A feature called "Forward to Police" allows users to send copies of private conversations to officers monitoring accounts. This feature is activated by police departments themselves, so those willing to further demonstrate their indifference for the people they serve can give people an one-click solution for all their snitching needs.

Sure, any participant in a private conversation could take screenshots and hand them to law enforcement. Removing the minimal tech hurdles, however, encourages people to use this option anytime they come across something that bothers them. It's a "speak to the manager" button, but one that potentially involves government-blessed use of deadly force. If people don't even have to leave their chairs to engage in SWATting-adjacent activities, they won't. Giving them a button just increases the chance someone's going to get hurt or killed.

At the end of the day, it's problematic all over. Public officials are endorsing a platform that paid to have them feel good about it -- both by covering their trip to San Francisco and by giving them the impression they are doing something to make their communities better by making them members of a private company's "Public Advisory Council."

Filed Under: law enforcement, nextdoor, police, social media, surveillanceCompanies: nextdoor

Go here to see the original:
Nextdoor Is Courting Cops And Public Officials Using All-Expenses-Paid Trips To Its Headquarters - Techdirt

Accenture and the Digital Dollar Foundation have published a whitepaper laying out proposals for the development of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) in the US.

The partnership, known as the Digital Dollar Project, is seeking to future-proof the dollar against developments in the way consumers and businesses transact across the world.

Specifically, the Project wishes to protect the USDs status as the worlds reserve currency, which may be under threat with other national governments exploring launching CBDCs.

The paper also highlights the decline in the use of cash accelerated by the Covid-19 crisis, while also emphasising the potential financial inclusionary benefits of a digital dollar, as is stressed in all discussion around digital currencies.

However, the contribution of a digital dollar to international payments is also emphasised. The whitepaper points to the possibilities of enhancing competition in international payments and integrating financial markets, which would appear to be a statement of intent regarding the importance of the dollar retaining the status it has enjoyed for decades as the worlds de facto currency.

It cites the $30 billion in remittances that were sent from the US to Mexico in 2019 as an example of the potentials in cross-border payments without the need for an intermediary, while also reducing costs and other frictions.

The whitepaper concludes that the US must decide the role it wishes to play as this wave of digital token innovation gains momentum and questions over the dollars ability to remain a default analog instrument and unit of account.

The US must therefore take a prominent role in development of CBDCs the launch of a digital dollar is a logical step in achieving this.

This is a widespread view among experts in digital currency innovation, who believe that that the US has the most to lose in a race to develop and rollout a CBDC that achieves international use.

Carlos Cocuzzo, economist at ING, has noted that while countries like Canada and Japan could take a wait and see approach with their CBDC plans, the US cannot afford to.

If, for example, the Peoples Bank of China were to allow foreign customers or clients to access the digital yuan, that would have an impact on the demand for dollars in the foreign exchange market, he said in March.

Opportunity for modernisation

The Project puts forward a champion model that it proposes a digital dollar should follow. This would operate as a third form of money alongside existing fiat currency and commercial bank money and be distributed through the existing architecture of commercial banks and regulated money transmitters.

The whitepaper also favours a token-based system as it more closely replicates the use of cash, rather than an account-based model which relies on the authentication to updates balances on a ledger.

Addressing privacy, the Project describes the balance that needs to be found between complete anonymity and full traceability. The former would be incompatible with law enforcement, while the latter could inhibit adoption.

The whitepaper cites the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens from unreasonable searches or seizures of property, which one assumes would extend to the possession of digital currency.

Developers of a digital dollar would then need to consider where to draw the line, according to the Project, between sensible privacy rights and necessary KYC/AML compliance.

It suggests that one approach would be to treat the CBDC similarly to how cash is in the present system, though acknowledges that the comparison cannot be fully born out: cash is anonymous by its nature rather than by design.

Nonetheless, submitting an IRS form is required when receiving a cash payment of $10,000 or more, which points towards some parameters put in place to control who is allowed to possess digital dollars and in what quantity.

The champion model would also explore the use of blockchain technology, possibly with a number of both private and public organisations validating transactions.

A digital dollar would then spark a flurry of modernisation in the existing ecosystems throughout the banking and payments industries.

This could be compared to the advent of the internet and smartphones, which ushered in a wave of innovation and ingenuity in the way people and businesses are able to transact. A digital dollar, the paper claims, would provide a modern currency architecture to be leveraged and built upon.

One of these areas is cybersecurity, a key requirement of a digital dollar. While there are many solutions that can mitigate risk in this area, the current financial infrastructure is built on legacy systems that could be prone to exploitation.

The Fed would, of course, demand the highest standards of cybersecurity from any organisations wishing to use a digital dollar, which would require new infrastructure with updated technology.

Read more:
US must look to 'future proof' the dollar with a CBDC - Finextra