Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
rockaction

***Official*** Free Speech Thread

Recommended Posts

On 2/10/2019 at 11:26 AM, Rove! said:

Both you and I know it’s much more complex than “hey billy bob, get out of my establishment.”  We know that groups like the SPLC have close and deep ties to people in the government and political operatives.  We know that the banking industry has close and very deep ties to the government and political operatives.  What we have is an organized attempt by a group of powerful people aimed at controlling speech.  

Actually, it's pretty simple and you decided to make it complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2019 at 8:18 AM, Rove! said:

Your type must have loved the Hollywood blacklists for “Communists”

 

Your type?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rania Khalek @RaniaKhalek

Facebook has suspended all of @IntheNow_tweet's facebook pages, apparently in coordination w/ CNN, on the grounds that In The Now doesn't disclose who funds it (Ruptly). This is an outrageous standard that is not applied to other outlets, like NPR or AJ+.

This is after weeks of CNN digging around to find dirt on us. We then reached out to CNN and let them interview us, which felt more like a police interrogation. The interviewer didn’t like my anti war political views, even attacked my criticism of Trump’s coup in Venezuela.

CNN says it was alerted to @IntheNow_tweet by The German Marshall Fund, which receives funding from the US government. So here you have a US government funded outfit prompting CNN to help get us kicked off Facebook.

This is a case where the US government has found a legal loophole to suppress speech, in this case speech that is critical of destructive US government policies around the world. Even if you hate what I say in my videos, you should be outraged by this speech suppression.

CNN should be ashamed for helping the US government suppress speech they don’t like. They claim to be for a free and open media, but their behavior in coordinating with Facebook to shut down @IntheNow_tweet shows what bs that is. CNN isn’t state media, but it sure acts like it.

One more thing: Facebook suspended us on the grounds we don’t disclose we receive funding from Ruptly, who’s parent company is RT . But this standard is not applied to NPR, AJ+ or TRT. It’s discrimination, part of a McCarthyist witch-hunt.

On a side note, CNN kept asking if I have editorial control at @IntheNow_tweet (I do). The interviewer didn’t believe me. So I asked where Marc Lamont Hill’s editorial freedom was when CNN fired him 4 telling the truth about Israeli occupation of Palestine. Response was crickets

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice Clarence Thomas Calls for Reconsideration of Landmark Libel Ruling

Quote

WASHINGTON — Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday called for the Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 ruling interpreting the First Amendment to make it hard for public officials to prevail in libel suits.

He said the decision had no basis in the Constitution as it was understood by the people who drafted and ratified it.

“New York Times and the court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,” Justice Thomas wrote.

Justice Thomas, writing only for himself, made his statement in a concurring opinion agreeing that the court had correctly turned down an appeal from Kathrine McKee, who has accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault. She sued Mr. Cosby for libel after his lawyer said she had been dishonest.

An appeals court ruled against Ms. McKee, saying that her activities had made her a public figure and that she could not prove, as required by the Sullivan decision, that the lawyer had knowingly or recklessly said something false. Ms. McKee asked the Supreme Court to review the appeals court’s determination that she was a public figure.

Justice Thomas wrote that he agreed with the court’s decision not to take up that question. “I write to explain why, in an appropriate case, we should reconsider the precedents that require courts to ask it in the first place,” he wrote.

In Justice Thomas’s view, the First Amendment did nothing to limit the authority of states to protect the reputations of their citizens and leaders as they saw fit. When the First Amendment was ratified, he wrote, many states made it quite easy to sue for libel in civil actions and to prosecute libel as a crime. That was, he wrote, as it should be.

“We did not begin meddling in this area until 1964, nearly 175 years after the First Amendment was ratified,” Justice Thomas wrote of the Sullivan decision. “The states are perfectly capable of striking an acceptable balance between encouraging robust public discourse and providing a meaningful remedy for reputational harm.”

The events leading to the Sullivan decision test that assertion. The case arose from an advertisement in The Times seeking support for the civil rights movement. The ad contained minor errors.

L.B. Sullivan, a city commissioner in Montgomery, Ala., who was not mentioned in the ad, sued for libel. He won $500,000, which was at the time an enormous sum. It was one of many suits filed by Southern politicians eager to starve the civil rights movement of the oxygen of national attention. They used libel suits as a way to discourage coverage of the movement by national news organizations.

Against this background, and animated by an urge to protect the American public’s ability to assess the situation in the South for itself, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled for The Times and revolutionized American libel law.

Justice Thomas’s statement came in the wake of complaints from President Trump that libel laws make it too hard for public officials to win libel suits.

“I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Mr. Trump said on the campaign trail. “We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”

Thanks to the Sullivan decision, it is indeed hard for public figures to win libel suits. They have to prove that something false was said about them, that it harmed their reputation and that the writer acted with “actual malice.” That last term is misleading, as it has nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of malice in the sense of spite or ill will.

To prove actual malice under the Sullivan decision, a libel plaintiff must show that the writer knew the disputed statement was false or had acted with “reckless disregard.” That second phrase is also a term of art. The Supreme Court has said that it requires proof that the writer entertained serious doubts about the truth of the statement.

Justice Thomas questioned those standards.

“There appears to be little historical evidence suggesting that the New York Times actual-malice rule flows from the original understanding of the First or Fourteenth Amendment,” he wrote.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, routinely made the same point in his speeches. But Mr. Trump’s two Supreme Court appointees — Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh — have expressed support for broad libel protections in their opinions as appeals court judges.

At his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in March 2017, Justice Gorsuch was asked about the Sullivan decision by Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota. She wanted to know whether “the First Amendment would permit public officials to sue the media under any standard less demanding than actual malice.”

Judge Gorsuch, reticent when asked about other precedents, seemed comfortable with preserving that one.

“New York Times v. Sullivan was, as you say, a landmark decision and it changed pretty dramatically the law of defamation and libel in this country,” he said. “Rather than the common law of defamation and libel, applicable normally for a long time, the Supreme Court said the First Amendment has special meaning and protection when we’re talking about the media, the press in covering public officials, public actions and indicated that a higher standard of proof was required in any defamation or libel claim. Proof of actual malice is required to state a claim.”

“That’s been the law of the land for, gosh, 50, 60 years,” he said.

As an appeals court judge, Justice Gorsuch showed no hesitation in applying the line of cases that began with the Sullivan ruling.

Some plaintiffs, he wrote in a 2011 opinion, have reputations so poor that even serious accusations cannot damage them. Libel law, he said, is “about protecting a good reputation honestly earned.”

He added that minor inaccuracies in a news report can never serve as the basis for a libel suit, calling that “a First Amendment imperative.”

In 2015, Justice Kavanaugh, as an appeals court judge, wrote that posing provocative questions generally cannot be the basis for libel suits, choosing an interesting example.

“Of course,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote, “some commentators and journalists use questions — such as the classic “Is the president a crook?” — as tools to raise doubts (sometimes unfairly) about a person’s activities or character while simultaneously avoiding defamation liability.”

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

His mom and his cow are both kind of funny, except that the cow account might be fake.

Well if that cow is real it has some explaining to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real costs of Devin Nunes’s defamation lawsuit

Quote

 

CONGRESSMAN DEVIN NUNES’S LATEST LAWSUITagainst people he thinks are making him look bad—this one, filed April 8, seeks $150 million in damages from The McClatchy Company and anti-Trump Republican strategist Liz Mair—appears unlikely to succeed and, in the eyes of media-law experts, is virtually free of merit. That makes it a lot like the California Republican’s first such suit, a $250 million defamation claim filed last month against Mair, Twitter, and parody Twitter accounts claiming to be “Devin Nunes’s Mom” and “Devin Nunes’s Cow.”

Just because the new lawsuit might be laughed out of court doesn’t make it a laughing matter for McClatchy or Nunes’s other targets. Fighting a defamation suit, however baseless, against a prominent, deep-pocketed plaintiff like a congressman can burn up plenty of time, attention, and money.

And that might be the point.

“It seems to me to be stunt litigation,” Ken White, a former federal prosecutor who’s now a criminal defense and First Amendment lawyer in Los Angeles, says. “Increasingly, people seem to sue people for the publicity over the litigation, and the legal outcomes are secondary to the outcome of thrilling your base and whipping them up with the fact that you’re taking on the enemy.”

Nunes’s enemies in this case include the Fresno Bee, a McClatchy-owned paper that covers his district in California’s Central Valley. Last year, the Bee published a story about a San Francisco Bay cruise in 2015 on the SS Alpha Omega, a yacht owned by a nonprofit affiliate of Alpha Omega Winery, of which Nunes is a part owner.

According to a lawsuit filed by a winery employee who was on the cruise, the 25 men on board drank to excess, snorted cocaine openly, and paid to have sex with women, some of whom appeared to be underage. The winery settled the suit out of court. Nunes was not on the yacht or named in the lawsuit.

The Bee’s story about the cruise is the nexus of Nunes’s lawsuit. The suit claims the story was part of “McClatchy’s scheme to defame Nunes and injure his reputation,” by “implying that he was involved with cocaine and underage prostitutes.”

Nunes cites what he claims are factual errors and “stealth edits” made after the story’s initial publication. Nunes also claims McClatchy and reporter Mackenzie Mays conspired with Mair to defame him, because Mair was quoted in McClatchy articles and tweeted links to McClatchy articles, and because Mays had liked or retweeted Mair’s tweets about Nunes.

In a statement issued April 9, the Fresno Bee and McClatchy stood by their reporting and called the lawsuit “a baseless attack on local journalism and a free press.” Nunes declined to be interviewed for the Bee’s article and has never asked for a correction in the 10 months since it was published, the company said.

Nunes’s congressional office did not respond to requests for comment, nor did his attorney in the defamation cases, Steven Biss of Charlottesville, Virginia.

The bar that Nunes and Biss must meet to prove defamation is very high. The Bee’s statements must be provably false and cause actual harm to Nunes’s reputation, but that by itself isn’t enough. Because Nunes is a public figure, he must show the Beeacted with “actual malice”—that the editors and reporters knew the information they published was false or acted with “reckless disregard” for whether it was true.

On top of that, Nunes must show the story is false when taken in context and in its entirety. “If the gist of something is true, it doesn’t matter if a couple of non-material details are wrong,” White says. “This story puts out there that he’s involved in this company; that’s undisputed. This company has this yacht; this yacht got used for these purposes. There’s no suggestion that he was there.” White, who co-hosts the NPR show “All The President’s Lawyers,” described Nunes’ Twitter lawsuit as “unusually buffoonish” on a previous episode, and called the McClatchy lawsuit “even worse.”

Apart from factual and legal deficiencies and prose that White says “reads more like a YouTube comment than a professional document,” there are problems with Nunes’s choice of venue. The case was filed in Albemarle County, Virginia. Mair is based in Virginia, but McClatchy doesn’t own any papers there. It would make more sense, White says, to hear the case in California, where McClatchy and the Fresno Bee are headquartered, where Nunes’s district is located, and where the debauched yacht party took place.

The lawsuit states Virginia is an appropriate venue because McClatchy is an investor in Moonlighting, a tech startup based in Charlottesville, and because “McClatchy publishes hundreds of stories a year on matters of unique concern to Virginians.”

White suspects the real reason Nunes and his lawyer chose Virginia is because it does not have an anti-SLAPP law as strong as California’s. (SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.) Under his home state’s anti-SLAPP law, Nunes would be at greater risk of being made to pay McClatchy’s and Mair’s legal fees if his suit is dismissed.

The cost of defending a media company against such a lawsuit could easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, Michael Overing, an adjunct professor of media law at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, says.

“The fact that Trump’s attorneys were awarded nearly $300,000 against Stormy Daniels tells you minimally what both sides could expect to pay,” Overing writes in an email to CJR, referring to the attorney’s fees Daniels was ordered to pay when her defamation lawsuit against Trump was dismissed last year. Cases with less publicity are cheaper, but when a president or congressman is involved, the stakes are higher and the billable hours tend to creep up.

However, media companies are insured against libel and defamation lawsuits, so McClatchy almost certainly won’t get a six-figure legal bill. (McClatchy, which provided CJR with a copy of their April 9 statement concerning the lawsuit, did not respond to a follow-up.) And the Nunes suit is unlikely to succeed; Overing sees a relatively straight path to a dismissal. The real cost to McClatchy would be the nuisance of defending itself and “having to respond publicly to dumb stuff,” Overing says.

This lawsuit might go away, but the idea of tying a news organization up in litigation when you don’t like its reporting doesn’t appear to be going anywhere. Even though the law is typically on their side, journalists and publishers are spending more time responding publicly to dumb stuff.

“It’s just the sheer weight of these things happening all the time,” White says. “It has an effect on people’s willingness to speak and to write.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is making the rounds. Police attempt to batter down journalist's door to obtain leak/source for prior reportage about Public Defender's death in San Francisco. Good story inside.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sf-reporter-police-raid-adachi-20190511-story.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, rockaction said:

This one is making the rounds. Police attempt to batter down journalist's door to obtain leak/source for prior reportage about Public Defender's death in San Francisco. Good story inside.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sf-reporter-police-raid-adachi-20190511-story.html

So much effort wasted on the campus and social media controversies, this is the heart and soul of American free speech.

When a reporter would not betray his source, police came to his home with guns and a sledgehammer

The banging jolted Bryan Carmody awake. Outside his San Francisco home Friday morning, the longtime journalist saw a throng of police officers with a sledgehammer, trying to break down his front gate.

Carmody told the eight to 10 officers he would only let them in with a search warrant. Police confirmed a judge signed off on their barging into his home. Then the officers drew their guns and scoured his residence. When police left, they carted away his notebooks, computers, cameras, phones and even his fiancee’s iPod from her college days.

“I knew what they wanted,” Carmody told The Times. “They wanted the name.”

A few weeks before, he said two San Francisco police officers — a sergeant and a lieutenant — knocked on his door and “cordially” asked him to identify the source who shared a confidential police report into the Feb. 22 death of San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi.

“Of course, I politely declined,” Carmody said of the visit from police last month. He had the same response Friday.

After police came into his home, officers handcuffed him for six hours as they collected his equipment. A receipt certifying his release from custody confirms he was handcuffed from 8:22 a.m. to 1:55 p.m. The search warrant for his home said officers were investigating “stolen or embezzled” property.

It was unclear whether he was handcuffed because of the guns he says he legally owns. Carmody said the guns were locked in a safe, and he said that over the hours-long search, it was evident officers didn’t view him as a threat. At one point, some police took off their bulletproof vests on account of the heat, he said.

While he was shackled, officers got a second warrant to search his newsroom, where police seized a thumb drive, CDs and, inside a safe, the sought-after police report about Adachi’s death.

Carmody, 49, said he has not shared the name of his source with anyone, and no markings on the document could be traced to the person who provided it.

Fellow journalists in the Bay Area and beyond were outraged by the search of Carmody’s home and office. And the incident provided a new wrinkle into the evolving aftermath of the unexpected death of Adachi, who left behind a legacy of championing civil rights.

Initial reports said the 59-year-old public defender had been traveling when he suddenly had a heart attack.

Carmody remembers his goal as a reporter on the story was to figure out where exactly Adachi died. But soon, salacious details emerged that were difficult to confirm. “There were leaks happening all over the place,” he recalled. He ultimately obtained an incident report that detailed Adachi’s final moments.

The San Francisco Chronicle also obtained a copy of the report, but not from Carmody.

The document, as reported by KGO-TV in San Francisco, detailed that shortly before his death, Adachi had dinner with a woman named “Caterina” who was not his wife, then returned to an apartment he arranged to use for the weekend. The woman called 911 for emergency medical help, and Adachi was taken to the hospital, where he died. Later that night, officers went to the apartment and found “alcohol, cannabis-infused gummies and syringes believed to have been used by the paramedics,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported. Photos of the apartment circulated online by KTVU and other outlets. The city medical examiner would later conclude Adachi died of an accidental overdose of cocaine and alcohol.

Carmody said he called up his clients and sold the fruits of his news-gathering, which included the police report. He told the Chronicle that he sold the package to three TV stations.

Amid a public mourning, city officials chastised police for allowing the details of a confidential report to end up in the headlines. The police launched an internal investigation into the report’s leaking, which led to Friday’s raid at Carmody’s home.

“The citizens and leaders of the City of San Francisco have demanded a complete and thorough investigation into this leak, and this action represents a step in the process of investigating a potential case of obstruction of justice along with the illegal distribution of confidential police material,” police spokesman David Stevenson said in a statement Saturday to The Times.

The city’s public defender’s office, which Adachi once led, said in a statement that “all of the criminal justice and City Hall leaders agree that the release of police reports in this fashion is wrong and we hope that the truth of who leaked the police report will emerge so that it doesn’t happen again.”

The FBI was not involved in the search. Katherine Zackel, a spokeswoman for the agency, said two agents were present solely to interview the journalist.

To Carmody and his attorney, the raid smacks of impropriety and an invasion into the work of a professional reporter.

“It’s designed to intimidate,” said his lawyer, Thomas Burke. “It’s essentially the confiscation of a newsroom.”

Burke, a partner with Davis Wright Tremaine who has previously represented the Los Angeles Times, said under usual circumstances, journalists would receive a subpoena and retain an attorney to help secure protections. That process also is efficient for detectives, he added, because of the time and resources required to search through phones, hard drives, computers and notebooks.

“So much information has nothing to do with the purpose of their investigation,” Burke said. “If you are looking for one piece of information, that’s why you issue a subpoena.”

The affidavits that police used to search Carmody’s home were filed under seal, so it’s unclear what investigators told the judge to secure the warrants. Burke said he did not know whether the judges were aware Carmody was even a journalist.

The search has brought Carmody’s business, North Bay News, to a halt. As a freelance videographer for nearly three decades, he works through the night to supply the locations, video, images, and on- and off-camera interviews that feed the beast of local TV news. The search warrant documents show police collected check stubs from Fox, Disney and CBS, among others.

He estimates that police hauled off between $30,000 and $40,000 worth of equipment, along with personal photos. Without functional equipment, he cannot work — so his friend Aaron Lee started an online fundraiser to collect donations.

Carmody is insisting on protecting his source’s identity. And he swears he never paid the person for the police report. “No,” he said, “not even a cup of coffee.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

A few weeks before, he said two San Francisco police officers — a sergeant and a lieutenant — knocked on his door and “cordially” asked him to identify the source who shared a confidential police report into the Feb. 22 death of San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi.

“Of course, I politely declined,” Carmody said of the visit from police last month. He had the same response Friday. 

After police came into his home, officers handcuffed him for six hours as they collected his equipment. A receipt certifying his release from custody confirms he was handcuffed from 8:22 a.m. to 1:55 p.m. The search warrant for his home said officers were investigating “stolen or embezzled” property.

It was unclear whether he was handcuffed because of the guns he says he legally owns. Carmody said the guns were locked in a safe, and he said that over the hours-long search, it was evident officers didn’t view him as a threat. At one point, some police took off their bulletproof vests on account of the heat, he said.

While he was shackled, officers got a second warrant to search his newsroom, where police seized a thumb drive, CDs and, inside a safe, the sought-after police report about Adachi’s death.

Incredible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

This one is making the rounds. Police attempt to batter down journalist's door to obtain leak/source for prior reportage about Public Defender's death in San Francisco. Good story inside.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sf-reporter-police-raid-adachi-20190511-story.html

It must really suck to live in an authoritarian police state like . . . uh . . . San Francisco. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 11:55 AM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

So much effort wasted on the campus and social media controversies, this is the heart and soul of American free speech.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

When a reporter would not betray his source, police came to his home with guns and a sledgehammer

The banging jolted Bryan Carmody awake. Outside his San Francisco home Friday morning, the longtime journalist saw a throng of police officers with a sledgehammer, trying to break down his front gate.

Carmody told the eight to 10 officers he would only let them in with a search warrant. Police confirmed a judge signed off on their barging into his home. Then the officers drew their guns and scoured his residence. When police left, they carted away his notebooks, computers, cameras, phones and even his fiancee’s iPod from her college days.

“I knew what they wanted,” Carmody told The Times. “They wanted the name.”

A few weeks before, he said two San Francisco police officers — a sergeant and a lieutenant — knocked on his door and “cordially” asked him to identify the source who shared a confidential police report into the Feb. 22 death of San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi.

“Of course, I politely declined,” Carmody said of the visit from police last month. He had the same response Friday.

After police came into his home, officers handcuffed him for six hours as they collected his equipment. A receipt certifying his release from custody confirms he was handcuffed from 8:22 a.m. to 1:55 p.m. The search warrant for his home said officers were investigating “stolen or embezzled” property.

It was unclear whether he was handcuffed because of the guns he says he legally owns. Carmody said the guns were locked in a safe, and he said that over the hours-long search, it was evident officers didn’t view him as a threat. At one point, some police took off their bulletproof vests on account of the heat, he said.

While he was shackled, officers got a second warrant to search his newsroom, where police seized a thumb drive, CDs and, inside a safe, the sought-after police report about Adachi’s death.

Carmody, 49, said he has not shared the name of his source with anyone, and no markings on the document could be traced to the person who provided it.

Fellow journalists in the Bay Area and beyond were outraged by the search of Carmody’s home and office. And the incident provided a new wrinkle into the evolving aftermath of the unexpected death of Adachi, who left behind a legacy of championing civil rights.

Initial reports said the 59-year-old public defender had been traveling when he suddenly had a heart attack.

Carmody remembers his goal as a reporter on the story was to figure out where exactly Adachi died. But soon, salacious details emerged that were difficult to confirm. “There were leaks happening all over the place,” he recalled. He ultimately obtained an incident report that detailed Adachi’s final moments.

The San Francisco Chronicle also obtained a copy of the report, but not from Carmody.

The document, as reported by KGO-TV in San Francisco, detailed that shortly before his death, Adachi had dinner with a woman named “Caterina” who was not his wife, then returned to an apartment he arranged to use for the weekend. The woman called 911 for emergency medical help, and Adachi was taken to the hospital, where he died. Later that night, officers went to the apartment and found “alcohol, cannabis-infused gummies and syringes believed to have been used by the paramedics,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported. Photos of the apartment circulated online by KTVU and other outlets. The city medical examiner would later conclude Adachi died of an accidental overdose of cocaine and alcohol.

Carmody said he called up his clients and sold the fruits of his news-gathering, which included the police report. He told the Chronicle that he sold the package to three TV stations.

Amid a public mourning, city officials chastised police for allowing the details of a confidential report to end up in the headlines. The police launched an internal investigation into the report’s leaking, which led to Friday’s raid at Carmody’s home.

“The citizens and leaders of the City of San Francisco have demanded a complete and thorough investigation into this leak, and this action represents a step in the process of investigating a potential case of obstruction of justice along with the illegal distribution of confidential police material,” police spokesman David Stevenson said in a statement Saturday to The Times.

The city’s public defender’s office, which Adachi once led, said in a statement that “all of the criminal justice and City Hall leaders agree that the release of police reports in this fashion is wrong and we hope that the truth of who leaked the police report will emerge so that it doesn’t happen again.”

The FBI was not involved in the search. Katherine Zackel, a spokeswoman for the agency, said two agents were present solely to interview the journalist.

To Carmody and his attorney, the raid smacks of impropriety and an invasion into the work of a professional reporter.

“It’s designed to intimidate,” said his lawyer, Thomas Burke. “It’s essentially the confiscation of a newsroom.”

Burke, a partner with Davis Wright Tremaine who has previously represented the Los Angeles Times, said under usual circumstances, journalists would receive a subpoena and retain an attorney to help secure protections. That process also is efficient for detectives, he added, because of the time and resources required to search through phones, hard drives, computers and notebooks.

“So much information has nothing to do with the purpose of their investigation,” Burke said. “If you are looking for one piece of information, that’s why you issue a subpoena.”

The affidavits that police used to search Carmody’s home were filed under seal, so it’s unclear what investigators told the judge to secure the warrants. Burke said he did not know whether the judges were aware Carmody was even a journalist.

The search has brought Carmody’s business, North Bay News, to a halt. As a freelance videographer for nearly three decades, he works through the night to supply the locations, video, images, and on- and off-camera interviews that feed the beast of local TV news. The search warrant documents show police collected check stubs from Fox, Disney and CBS, among others.

He estimates that police hauled off between $30,000 and $40,000 worth of equipment, along with personal photos. Without functional equipment, he cannot work — so his friend Aaron Lee started an online fundraiser to collect donations.

Carmody is insisting on protecting his source’s identity. And he swears he never paid the person for the police report. “No,” he said, “not even a cup of coffee.”

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I think that the time and effort isn't wasted. Campuses seem to be the bellwether of how much speech is allowed, both by legality and by approbation.

However, this strikes me as more fundamental regarding pure political speech than most of the campus controversies. This is the actual police battering down doors to find a leak within their department.

Who watches the watchers? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YouTube, Facebook Purges Are More Extensive Than You Think

A site called News2Share, run by journalist Ford Fischer, was removed by YouTube this week under the new plan. Fischer received a notice:  “We found that a significant portion of your channel is not in line with our YouTube Partner Program policies.”  Fischer was one of the first people I spoke with for a Rolling Stone story about Internet censorship published last year. His site acts as a kind of clearing house for political footage of all kinds, including demonstrations, marches, police misconduct and even flash mobs.

News2Share content spans the spectrum: the site currently contains everything from a protest against the “Barr Coverup” of the Mueller report, to pro-Assange protests in Britain, to a square-off between gun militias and Antifa in Ohio.  It’s valuable, original journalism, not aggregated clickbait.  “Almost the entire channel is video shot by me, or someone I hire,” Fischer says.  Two videos apparently determined his fate under the new program. One involved a pro-Israel activist and pro-Palestine activist arguing with a Holocaust denier. The second was video of a speech given by white nationalist Mike “Enoch” Peinovich.  Fischer says that “while unpleasant,” the footage is “essential research for history.” It was even used as part of a PBS documentary called “Charlottesville.” Fischer was listed as an executive producer in the film.

His work regularly appears in documentaries about subcultures of all types, including the Frontline series “Documenting Hate” (you can see him credited just above Getty Images at the end). Fischer’s videos have even appeared in Vox.  Now his work has been removed because the new policy does not distinguish between showing a Holocaust denier or a white supremacist, and being one. Fischer describes the first video that got him in trouble, which showed Antifa protesters arguing with a Holocaust denier: “While it’s true that the Holocaust denier says Holocaust-denier stuff,” he says, “this is raw vid documenting him being shut down.”  Being demonetized on YouTube will deal a blow to Fischer’s business. He says YouTube ad revenue is “about half of my reliable, baseline income,” the rest coming from Patreon.

The Fischer case speaks to the inherent inanity of asking nameless, faceless Silicon Valley overlords to weigh things like journalistic intent. While there’s an argument to be had about clamping down on the purveyors of hate speech, what social or journalistic purpose is served by concealing the existence of such people? And what possible rationale could there be for allowing PBS or a commercial news network to publish such videos, but not smaller shooters like Fischer?

As part of the new program, YouTube also pulled down a video published by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In it, journalist Max Blumenthal interviewed Holocaust denier David Irving. Blumenthal quickly said the removal program had “gone beyond its stated aim” to “carpet-bombing style censorship.”  Blumenthal, like many of the people targeted in removal campaigns, is a controversial figure who has been a consistent critic of U.S. policy. He worried that such deletions are “just a test balloon for a much wider campaign to suppress content by dissenting voices.”

YouTube in his case seemed to acknowledge throwing the baby out with bathwater.  “We know that this might be disappointing,” it told the L.A. Times, “but it’s important to us that YouTube is a safe place for all.”  YouTube has not responded to a request for comment about why Fischer remains removed.

On 9/25/2018 at 9:41 PM, ren hoek said:

Are #resisters relieved that their dismay over fake news and Russian disinformation has now manifested itself in the stratification of monolithic tech giants, Silicon Valley billionaires, states, and militarist thinktanks deciding what does and doesn't constitute real news for billions of people?  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

Was just coming here to post this exact article.

Thus is scary stuff. Up until Trump, I was almost always in the corner of unfettered free speech, pro- first amendment, consequences be damned. Now I'm not sure what to think. Maybe I'm just older and wiser and more ok with my own hypocrisy than I used to be. Or maybe we're all just ####ed and I should learn to stop worrying and welcome the new overlords, whomever they may be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Herb said:

Was just coming here to post this exact article.

Thus is scary stuff. Up until Trump, I was almost always in the corner of unfettered free speech, pro- first amendment, consequences be damned. Now I'm not sure what to think. Maybe I'm just older and wiser and more ok with my own hypocrisy than I used to be. Or maybe we're all just ####ed and I should learn to stop worrying and welcome the new overlords, whomever they may be.

 

I find it really counter-intuitive to see people backing away from free speech principles because of Trump.  This is a guy who very clearly would shut down media outlets that say mean things about him if he had the ability to do so.  It seems to me that the rational response to a Trump presidency should be for all of us to double-down on our shared commitment to free expression and freedom of the press, because that's the best way to keep bad leaders like Trump in check.  Yet for some reason people are actually becoming more in favor of censorship.

Not picking on you personally.  This is just something I've noticed during the past two years.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Herb said:

Was just coming here to post this exact article.

Thus is scary stuff. Up until Trump, I was almost always in the corner of unfettered free speech, pro- first amendment, consequences be damned. Now I'm not sure what to think. Maybe I'm just older and wiser and more ok with my own hypocrisy than I used to be. Or maybe we're all just ####ed and I should learn to stop worrying and welcome the new overlords, whomever they may be.

Looks like it's coming whether we wanted it or not.  With a populace this easy to manipulate, I guess it was just a matter of time.  

I like Taibbi's work a lot.  I have a few 3-month Untitledgate subscriptions to give away if you'd like one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Looks like it's coming whether we wanted it or not.  With a populace this easy to manipulate, I guess it was just a matter of time.  

I like Taibbi's work a lot.  I have a few 3-month Untitledgate subscriptions to give away if you'd like one.  

Whoa. What is Untitledgate? If it's Matt Taibbi, I'd like one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I find it really counter-intuitive to see people backing away from free speech principles because of Trump. 

This is just something I've noticed during the past two years.

This is an odd phenomenon. People are not seeing the long term, and are really adjusting to what they believe is the ignorant masses having a potent voice. The elites are so distant in all things cultural and economic that they can't figure out why these drastic actions and elections are happening. But the answer is not more restriction of information and better gate-keeping; if anything, free media and speech -- of course this is my opinion -- is absolutely crucial to democracy to function right now. The corporations that own these information platforms aren't pure journalism, but since they de facto have the ability to reach the millions who get their only news source from them, they ought to be really careful about the spirit of the First Amendment writ large, not just as applies to state actors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, rockaction said:

This is an odd phenomenon. People are not seeing the long term, and are really adjusting to what they believe is the ignorant masses having a potent voice. The elites are so distant in all things cultural and economic that they can't figure out why these drastic actions and elections are happening. But the answer is not more restriction of information and better gate-keeping; if anything, free media and speech -- of course this is my opinion -- is absolutely crucial to democracy to function right now. The corporations that own these information platforms aren't pure journalism, but since they de facto have the ability to reach the millions who get their only news source from them, they ought to be really careful about the spirit of the First Amendment writ large, not just as applies to state actors.

I see it on both sides. Saw it when Obama was in office as well. People willing to sacrifice values for victory. 

Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

I see it on both sides. Saw it when Obama was in office as well. People willing to sacrifice values for victory. 

Yeah, this isn't really a "sides" issue for me, but the restrictions on Facebook and Twitter and YouTube users are new and partly a reaction to Trump's election and the misinformation promulgated on social media.

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

Yeah, this isn't really a "sides" issue for me, but the restrictions on Facebook and Twitter and YouTube users are new and partly a reaction to Trump's election and the misinformation promulgated on social media.

The only catch to it is that these are private companies who have some right to control their space and content. It is complex though- I’m thinking of this as almost a virtual version of cases like Marsh v Alabama, Lloyd Corp v Tanner and  Pruneyard v Robins. Even our highest courts seem unsure of how to handle free speech in publicly used but privately owned gathering spaces. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

The only catch to it is that these are private companies who have some right to control their space and content. It is complex though- I’m thinking of this as almost a virtual version of cases like Marsh v Alabama, Lloyd Corp v Tanner and  Pruneyard v Robins. Even our highest courts seem unsure of how to handle free speech in publicly used but privately owned gathering spaces. 

Indeed. Instead of basic property questions, that was our first question on our Property Law exam -- we had two or three exam questions for a three-hour exam -- my first year of law school. I remember knowing nothing about easements and other fundamentals, but knocking that out of the park.

The high courts have no idea how to handle public spaces, be they virtual spaces or meatspaces.

I don't err on the side of more gov't regulation of industry often, and this one really gets to the core of my beliefs about regulation and government oversight. Effectively, I'm hoping -- hoping -- these companies see themselves as somewhat of public utilities, but that's asking a bit too much in the face of sociopolitical pressure, it seems.

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

The only catch to it is that these are private companies who have some right to control their space and content. It is complex though- I’m thinking of this as almost a virtual version of cases like Marsh v Alabama, Lloyd Corp v Tanner and  Pruneyard v Robins. Even our highest courts seem unsure of how to handle free speech in publicly used but privately owned gathering spaces. 

This isn't all that different from the periodic flare-ups about moderation that we have around here from time to time.  

This is Joe's board.  None of us have a right to post here, and he has a clear, absolute right to moderate the board the way he sees fit.  If we don't like it, we can find another board, or start up on:e: of our own.  I think we all agree with this assessment.

On the other hand, I'm also entitled to have an opinion about what moderation standards Joe should adopt, and I'm free to advocate for those standards.  If I think Joe is being too restrictive by locking the yoga pants thread or too permissive in allowing trolling or whatever, there's nothing wrong with me holding that point of view.  Maybe I'll persuade Joe and he'll change the way he moderates the board.  Or maybe he won't.  Either way, 1) it's his call to make and 2) I'm free to advocate for my preferred system.

It's the same with YouTube and other social media sites.  They're private third parties, and I strongly believe that they should be allowed to host or not host whoever they want for any reasons they want.  But regardless of what they're legally allowed to do, I also strongly believe that they should choose a norm of free speech.  If I was king of YouTube, it would not occur to me to ban Steven Crowder knowing what little I've learned about him in the past few days, and if somebody told me that I should do so, I would laugh at them.  There's a line out there that would make me comfortable banning literal hate groups, but you can't even see that line from where Steven Crowder is standing.  I think the argument about what the moderation standard ought to be is a lot more interesting than the argument about who gets to decide on what that standard should be.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Indeed. Instead of basic property questions, that was our first question on our Property Law exam -- we had two or three exam questions for a three-hour exam -- my first year of law school. I remember knowing nothing about easements and other fundamentals, but knocking that out of the park.

The high courts have no idea how to handle public spaces, be they virtual spaces or meatspaces.

I don't err on the side of more gov't regulation of industry often, this one really gets to the core of my beliefs about regulation and government oversight. Effectively, I'm hoping -- hoping -- these companies see themselves as somewhat of public utilities, but that's asking a bit too much in the face of sociopolitical pressure, it seems.

Would you want Elizabeth Warren deciding who gets to post on social media and who doesn't?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Would you want Elizabeth Warren deciding who gets to post on social media and who doesn't?

That's really my bugaboo about government regulating this. I don't want them involved. My gut reaction is a resounding "no" to that. I feel like both speech and myself are better off subject to the whims of private corporations and their -- and this is important -- competition than to federal oversight and regulation.

It's similar to the FCC and their Fairness Doctrine, which has thankfully been scuttled. They had no business being involved in regulating speech, either.

All of that is IMHO. 

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

If I was king of YouTube, it would not occur to me to ban Steven Crowder knowing what little I've learned about him in the past few days, and if somebody told me that I should do so, I would laugh at them.  There's a line out there that would make me comfortable banning literal hate groups, but you can't even see that line from where Steven Crowder is standing.

I think suspending (or demonetizing) Crowder is like suspending someone here for constant personal insults. With Crowder, my understanding is that it wasn’t his substantive ideas that got him demonetized. It was his continual harassment of other individuals in the form of, essentially, odious name-calling.

While I’d expect YouTube to be less restrictive than FBG on that score, I’m fine with private companies having terms of service that try to maintain some common decorum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think suspending (or demonetizing) Crowder is like suspending someone here for constant personal insults. With Crowder, my understanding is that it wasn’t his substantive ideas that got him demonetized. It was his continual harassment of other individuals in the form of, essentially, odious name-calling.

While I’d expect YouTube to be less restrictive than FBG on that score, I’m fine with private companies having terms of service that try to maintain some common decorum.

I think that standard is fine for a small site like this.  For a major platform like YouTube or Twitter, if you ban everybody who peppers their argument with juvenile insults, you'll be left with like half a dozen people talking to themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Twitter: you'll be left with like half a dozen people talking to themselves.

New slogan if the SJWs keep it up with the conservative culture warriors. 

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The standards are almost impossible to maintain.

Honestly I have no problem with white supremacist content being banned. However, the funny thing is that part of Hillary's platform was getting private tech companies to ban Isis and AQ and other similar recruiting and inciting style content. Why do we treat these things differently? 

What was a big deal under the Dem president - islamist use of the internet, even though it is still going on - is hardly mentioned, while the domestic terrorist use of it under the Trump administration is? We are not consistent ourselves.

But my problem with Hillary's proposals still adhere here - even if the government does not control the media, organizing it or pressuring it or coordinating with it is not any better.

And I don't like Trump pressuring companies because of their private decisions either. It's inherently socialistic and authoritarian.

Still these platforms do have a social responsibility to deal with this privately.

But Stephen Crowder doesn't seem like a hard one to me. Meza works with Vox and he has marshaled national media to his aid to call out YT. But on what basis? The use of an offensive term (more than one actually) to mock and satirize him? I think Meza's point which is valid is what if Crowder was using a racial or ethic term and was raking up anger against him amongst extremists, how would that be treated? Fair point to probably say differently. But even so, this is a comedian mocking a political writer and that's at the basis of this.

You can't have people banned from the internet, or punished for behavior on it, because they say things in an offensive manner. Can't do it. If it's the offensiveness, then loads of satire and criticism would be punishable. 

I think a tougher question is something like the Pelosi video. It was fake, it was created with malicious intent, it was done for a profit motive ultimately. But what if it was done for satire? What if it was done alongside an explanation that this is the 'real' Pelosi? What if the point was to highlight hypocrisy (for example, 'this woman is drunk with power')? It would be indistinguishable. 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2019 at 10:49 AM, ren hoek said:

YouTube in his case seemed to acknowledge throwing the baby out with bathwater.  “We know that this might be disappointing,” it told the L.A. Times, “but it’s important to us that YouTube is a safe place for all.”  YouTube has not responded to a request for comment about why Fischer remains removed.

I do think l this has been going on. I've read reports of Syrian democracy activists and war reporters thrown off, I suppose in some sort of sweep of dummy accounts.

I really don't think this can be done with simple algorithms and the numbers make it daunting. But at least better beta test the damned process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This isn't US but obviously Australia is an allied democracy: 

Federal Police boss defends raids on media, could still prosecute journalists

Quote

AFP officers raided ABC headquarters on Wednesday over stories published in 2017 that suggested Australian troops may have committed war crimes.

The raid came a day after the AFP searched the home, computer and mobile phone of News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst over a story she wrote last year detailing an alleged government proposal to spy on Australians.

AFP is basically the Aus version of the FBI and ABC is a major network there.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This isn't US but obviously Australia is an allied democracy: 

Federal Police boss defends raids on media, could still prosecute journalists

Quote

AFP officers raided ABC headquarters on Wednesday over stories published in 2017 that suggested Australian troops may have committed war crimes.

The raid came a day after the AFP searched the home, computer and mobile phone of News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst over a story she wrote last year detailing an alleged government proposal to spy on Australians.

AFP is basically the Aus version of the FBI and ABC is a major network there.

Also, Australia's ABC network is owned by the government.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rockaction said:

Indeed. Instead of basic property questions, that was our first question on our Property Law exam -- we had two or three exam questions for a three-hour exam -- my first year of law school. I remember knowing nothing about easements and other fundamentals, but knocking that out of the park.

The high courts have no idea how to handle public spaces, be they virtual spaces or meatspaces.

I don't err on the side of more gov't regulation of industry often, and this one really gets to the core of my beliefs about regulation and government oversight. Effectively, I'm hoping -- hoping -- these companies see themselves as somewhat of public utilities, but that's asking a bit too much in the face of sociopolitical pressure, it seems.

As someone with very little law knowledge, I’m just glad that thought was well received and not deemed objectionably offbase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

As someone with very little law knowledge, I’m just glad that thought was well received and not deemed objectionably offbase.

Naw, you were pretty much spot-on, more than I was. I knew what you were going for and remembered the general holdings of the cases and where they happened, but I forgot the exact questions presented by the cases and looked them up, to be honest. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Naw, you were pretty much spot-on, more than I was. I knew what you were going for and remembered the general holdings of the cases and where they happened, but I forgot the exact questions presented by the cases and looked them up, to be honest. 

I only am somewhat abreast of it because I taught a small unit on it in a government class where we looked at freedom of speech cases and how they are relevant to us now. This cluster of cases was one of the topics covered, 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I only am somewhat abreast of it because I taught a small unit on it in a government class where we looked at freedom of speech cases and how they are relevant to us now. This cluster of cases was one of the topics covered, 

Very cool. Good to hear they're teaching that stuff in school. I remember my favorite courses were high school classes where we studied either:

  1. Civics
  2. Government
  3. The Supreme Court and its main cases
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Very cool. Good to hear they're teaching that stuff in school. I remember my favorite courses were high school classes where we studied either:

  1. Civics
  2. Government
  3. The Supreme Court and its main cases

Our Government class is broken into 4 parts: formation/foundational principles, executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch. Each of those units have 2 areas of emphasis. My main goal is to get the kids who care to be challenged and the kids who don’t care to care. History teachers are most successful when they can tie together the past and the present. I rarely teach anything without emphasizing why I’m teaching it. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Our Government class is broken into 4 parts: formation/foundational principles, executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch. Each of those units have 2 areas of emphasis. My main goal is to get the kids who care to be challenged and the kids who don’t care to care. History teachers are most successful when they can tie together the past and the present. I rarely teach anything without emphasizing why I’m teaching it. 

Awesome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the whole concept of censoring political stuff ridiculous. 

Why should we censor that but we let websites advertise complete bs stories that are not political? Even espn website has complete trash ads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

I find the whole concept of censoring political stuff ridiculous. 

Why should we censor that but we let websites advertise complete bs stories that are not political? Even espn website has complete trash ads. 

Shouldn’t the owners of the site that is hosting it get to decide if they want it on their site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think suspending (or demonetizing) Crowder is like suspending someone here for constant personal insults. With Crowder, my understanding is that it wasn’t his substantive ideas that got him demonetized. It was his continual harassment of other individuals in the form of, essentially, odious name-calling.

While I’d expect YouTube to be less restrictive than FBG on that score, I’m fine with private companies having terms of service that try to maintain some common decorum.

Crowder is very intelligent but just awful.  He is hateful and a bigot IMO.  

Social media platforms are not public utilities.  They do not need to participate in hate speech if they do not want to.  

Whether censoring speech on private platforms is ultimately good or bad is debatable.  Social media is, IMO, the biggest reason that truth is under attack.  

One has the right to say whatever they want in America.  Which is a good thing.  They don’t have the right to say it wherever they want, and I think that is also a good thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

I find the whole concept of censoring political stuff ridiculous. 

Why should we censor that but we let websites advertise complete bs stories that are not political? Even espn website has complete trash ads. 

Do you think that Crowder’s continuous attacks on Maza are “political”?

Edited by zoonation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.