The DOJ's Rules For Spying On Journalists Get A Bit Flimsy When It Reaches The FISA Court

Legal Issues

from the the-first-amendment-matters dept

Back in the spring of 2013, just a month or so before Ed Snowden started revealing all sorts of surveillance shenanigans, there was another important revelation: the Obama DOJ had gone way overboard in spying on journalists, including grabbing the phone records of some AP reporters (without letting them know) and, even worse, telling a court that a Fox News reporter was a “co-conspirator” with a leaker in order to get his phone and email records.

The Obama administration’s war on the press has been well documented on this site, with many in the press highlighting how he was the most secretive — not to mention the most aggressive in abusing the Espionage Act to target leakers and journalists more times than every other President combined prior to him. Once those two stories above came out, the DOJ initially promised to create new guidelines, though, when those guidelines came out, they seemed pretty limited and left a lot of avenues open for the government to spy on journalists, including using National Security Letters — the meaningless “letters” the FBI/DOJ often hands out like post-it notes, demanding all sorts of info with zero due process, and frequently with an indefinite gag order.

Back in 2015, we noted that the Freedom of the Press Foundation was suing the DOJ demanding the details of the rules used around those national security letters, given that the DOJ didn’t want to release them. Earlier this week, the Freedom of the Press Foundation stated that (thanks to the lawsuit), the DOJ has now revealed its rules for seeking FISA Court orders spying on journalists, which are different than its rules for collecting general information from journalists (and different than the rules for the FBI to use NSLs, which is still secret).

As Trevor Timm, Freedom of the Press’s executive director, points out, the rules revealed here are “much less stringent” than the (already not that stringent) rules the DOJ came out with in 2015. Basically, the rules state that if the DOJ wants to get a FISC order on a journalist… it has to get approval from the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General. That’s much less than the regular DOJ guidelines that involve a multi-part test to make sure that surveillance of the journalist is actually critical to the investigation and not simply a shortcut to info (or, worse, a way to harm journalistic sources).

If you can’t read that, it just says:

This memorandum directs the National Security Division (“NSD”) to implement the following procedures that are designed to ensure that the Attorney General (“AG”) or Deputy Attorney General (“DAG”) reviews those FISA applications targeting known media entities or known members of the media, so that review of such FISA applications occurs at even higher levels than otherwise permitted by FISA and existing AG orders.

And some may argue that having to escalate such FISA applications to the tippy-top of the DOJ represents some level of oversight, that oversight only goes as far as you can trust the Attorney General. And when’s the last time we had an Attorney General anyone actually trusted (I can’t ever remember having such an AG…). Indeed, our current AG, Jeff Sessions has publicly stated that he wants to prosecute more journalists and has suggested that he’s even less interested in balancing the careful interests and rights of journalists than his predecessors.

And, of course, we still have no idea what rules the FBI uses for its NSLs. However, as Timm points out, it’s pretty ridiculous that the FISC rules have now been declassified but the FBI’s NSL rules remain secret:

If these rules can now be released to the public, why are the FBI?s very similar rules for targeting journalists with due process-free National Security Letters still considered classified? And is the Justice Department targeting journalists with NSLs and FISA court orders to get around the stricter ?media guidelines??

Filed Under: doj, fbi, fisa, fisa court, fisc, guidelines, journalists, national security letters, nsls, privacy, surveillance

State Cops Accidentally Out Their Surveillance Of Anti-Police Groups With Browser Screenshot

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the 'intel-techniques,'-indeed dept

A little opsec goes a long way. The Massachusetts State Police — one of the most secretive law enforcement agencies in the nation — gave readers of its Twitter feed a free look at the First Amendment-protected activities it keeps tabs on… by uploading a screenshot showing its browser bookmarks.

Alex Press of Jacobin Magazine was one of the Twitter users to catch the inadvertent exposure of MSP operations.

If you can’t read/see the tweet, it says:

the MA staties just unintentionally tweeted a photo that shows their bookmarks include a whole number of Boston’s left-wing orgs

The tweet was quickly scrubbed by the MSP, but not before other Twitter users had grabbed screenshots. Some of the activist groups bookmarked by the state police include Mass. Action Against Police Brutality, the Coalition to Organize and Mobilize Boston Against Trump, and Resistance Calendar.

Here’s a closer look at the bookmarks.

The MSP did not deny they keep (browser) tabs on protest organizations. Instead, it attempted to portray this screen of left-leaning bookmarks as some sort of non-partisan, non-cop-centric attempt to keep the community safe by being forewarned and forearmed.

We have a responsibility to know about all large public gatherings of any type and by any group, regardless of their purpose and position, for public safety reasons.

Ok. But mainly these groups? The ones against police brutality and the back-the-blue President? Seems a little one-sided for an “of any type and by any group” declaration.

The statement continues in the same defensive vein for a few more sentences, basically reiterating the false conceit that cops don’t take sides when it comes to activist groups and the good people of Massachusetts are lucky to have such proactive public servants at their disposal.

Whatever. If it wasn’t a big deal, the MSP wouldn’t have vanished the original tweet into the internet ether. The screenshot came from a “fusion center” — one of those DHS partnerships that results in far more rights violations and garbage “see something, say something” reports than “actionable intelligence”. Fusion centers are supposed to be focused on terrorism, not on people who don’t like police brutality or the current Commander in Chief.

What this looks like is probably what it is: police keeping tabs on people they don’t like or people who don’t like them. That’s not really what policing is about and it sure as hell doesn’t keep the community any safer.

Filed Under: activists, bookmarks, boston, first amendment, massachusetts, massachusetts state police, surveillance

Tanzania Plans To Outlaw Fact-Checking Of Government Statistics

Free Speech

from the dodgy-data dept

Back in April, Techdirt wrote about a set of regulations brought in by the Tanzanian government that required people there to pay around $900 per year for a license to blog. Despite the very high costs it imposes on people — Tanzania’s GDP per capita was under $900 in 2016 — it seems the authorities are serious about enforcing the law. The iAfrikan site reported in June:

Popular Tanzanian forums and “leaks” website, Jamii Forums, has been temporarily shut down by government as it has not complied with the new regulations and license fees required of online content creators in Tanzania. This comes after Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA) issued a notice to Jamii Forums reminding them that it is a legal offense to publish content on the Internet without having registered and paid for a license.

The Swahili-language site Jamii Forums is back online now. But the Tanzanian authorities are not resting on their laurels when it comes to introducing ridiculous laws. Here’s another one that’s arguably worse than charging bloggers to post:

[President John] Magufuli and his colleagues are now looking to outlaw fact checking thanks to proposed amendments to the Statistics Act, 2015.

“The principal Act is amended by adding immediately after section 24 the following: 24A.-(1) Any person who is authorised by the Bureau to process any official statistics, shall before publishing or communicating such information to the public, obtain an authorisation from the Bureau. (2) A person shall not disseminate or otherwise communicate to the public any statistical information which is intended to invalidate, distort, or discredit official statistics,” reads the proposed amendments to Tanzania’s Statistics Act, 2015 as published in the Gazette of the United Republic of Tanzania No. 23 Vol. 99.

As the iAfrikan article points out, the amendments will mean that statistics published by the Tanzanian government must be regarded as correct, however absurd or obviously erroneous they might be. Moreover, it will be illegal for independent researchers to publish any other figures that contradict, or even simply call into question, official statistics.

This is presumably born of a thin-skinned government that wants to avoid even the mildest criticism of its policies or plans. But it seems certain to backfire badly. If statistics are wrong, but no one can correct them, there is the risk that Tanzanian businesses, organizations and citizens will make bad decisions based on this dodgy data. That could lead to harmful consequences for the economy and society, which the Tanzanian government might well be tempted to cover up by issuing yet more incorrect statistics. Without open and honest feedback to correct this behavior, there could be an ever-worsening cascade of misinformation and lies until public trust in the government collapses completely. Does President Magufuli really want that?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: fact checking, free speech, internet, tanzania

How Regulating Platforms' Content Moderation Means Regulating Speech – Even Yours.

Free Speech

from the democratization-of-the-Internet dept

Imagine a scenario:

You have a Facebook page, on which you’ve posted some sort of status update. Maybe an update from your vacation. Maybe a political idea. Maybe a picture of your kids. And someone comes along and adds a really awful comment on your post. Maybe they insult you. Maybe they insult your politics. Maybe they insult your kids.

Would you want to be legally obligated to keep their ugly comments on your post? Of course not. You’d probably be keen to delete them, and why shouldn’t you be able to?

Meanwhile, what if it was the other way around: what if someone had actually posted a great comment, maybe with travel tips, support for your political views, or compliments on how cute your kids are. Would you ever want to be legally obligated to delete these comments? Of course not. If you like these comments, why shouldn’t you be able to keep sharing them with readers?

Now let’s expand this scenario. Instead of a Facebook page, you’ve published your own blog. And on your blog you allow comments. One day you get a really awful comment. Would you want to be legally obligated to keep that comment up for all to see? Of course not. Nor would you want to be legally obligated to delete one that was really good. Think about how violated you would feel, though, if the law could force you to make these sorts of expressive decisions you didn’t want to make and require you to either host speech you hated or force you to remove speech that you liked.

And now let’s say that your website is not just a blog with comments but a larger site with a message board. And let’s say the message board is so popular that you’ve figured out a way to monetize it to pay for the time and resources it takes to maintain it. Maybe you charge users, maybe you run ads, or maybe you take a cut from some of the transactions users are able to make with each other through your site.

And let’s say that this website is so popular that you can’t possibly run it all by yourself, so you run it with your friend. And now that there are multiple people and money involved, you and your friend decide to form a company to run it, which both gives you some protection and makes it easier to raise money to invest in better equipment and more staff. Soon the site is so popular that you’ve got dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people employed to help you run it. And maybe now you’ve even been able to IPO.

And then someone comes along and posts something really awful on your site.

And someone else comes along and posts something you really like.

Which gets to the point on this post: if it was not OK for the law to be able to force you to maintain the bad comments, or to delete the good ones, when you were small, at what point did it become OK when you got big ? if ever?

There is a very strong legal argument that it never became OK, and that the First Amendment interest you had in being able to exercise the expressive choices about what content to keep or delete on your website never went away ? it’s just that it’s easier to see how the First Amendment prevents being forced to make those choices when the choices are so obviously personal (as in the original Facebook post example). But regardless of whether you host a small personal web presence, or are the CEO of a big commercial Internet platform, the principle is the same. There’s nothing in the language of the First Amendment that says it only protects editorial discretion of small websites and not big ones. They all are entitled to its protection against compelled speech.

Which is not to say that as small websites grow into big platforms there aren’t issues that can arise due to their size. But it does mean that we have to be careful in how we respond to these challenges. Because in addition to the strong legal argument that it’s not OK to regulate websites based on their expressive choices, there’s also a strong practical argument.

Ultimately large platforms are still just websites out on the Internet, and ordinarily the Internet allows for an unlimited amount of websites to come into being. Which is good, because, regardless of the business, we always want to ensure that it’s possible to get new entrants who could provide the same services on terms the market might prefer. In the case of platform businesses, those may be editorial terms. Naturally we wouldn’t want larger companies to be able to throw up obstacles that prevent competitors from becoming commercially viable, and to the extent that a large company’s general business practices might unfairly prevent competition then targeted regulation of those specific practices may be appropriate. But editorial policies are not what may prevent another web-based platform from taking root. Indeed, the greater the discontent with the incumbent’s editorial policies, the more it increases the public’s appetite for other choices.

The problem is, if we regulate big platforms by targeting their editorial policies, then all of a sudden that loss of editorial freedom itself becomes a barrier to having those other choices come into being, because there’s no way to make rules that would only apply to bigger websites and not also smaller or more personal ones, including all the nascent ones we’re trying to encourage. After all, how could we? Even if we believed that only big websites should be regulated, how would we decide at what stage of the growth process website operators should lose their right to exercise editorial discretion over the speech appearing on their sites? Is it when they started running their websites with their friends? Incorporated? Hired? (And, if so, how many people?) Is it when they IPO’d? And what about large websites that are non-profits or remain privately run?

Think also about how chilling it would be if law could make this sort of distinction. Would anyone have the incentive to grow their web presence if its success meant they would lose the right to control it? Who would want to risk building a web-based business, run a blog with comments, or even have a personal Facebook post that might go viral, if, as a consequence of its popularity, it meant that you no longer could control what other expression appeared on it? Far from actually helping level the playing field to foster new websites seeking to be better platforms than the ones that came before, in targeting editorial policies with regulation we would instead only be deterring people from building them.

Filed Under: bias, content, free speech, regulations, social media

White House Potentially Exploring Executive Order On 'Social Media Bias'

Politics

from the the-first-amendment-would-like-a-word dept

The White House may be preparing an executive order for the President, pushing for investigations of “bias” at social media companies. It is not definite, but someone has leaked us a draft two page executive order. We’re not releasing the draft because, despite it coming directly from someone in the White House, others have insisted it’s not an accurate document, even as the approach to some extent mirrors the announced plans of the DOJ to investigate bias. Another reason we’re not releasing the document itself is that we’re quite aware of reports saying that there are attempts to find “leakers” in the White House, and one common method of doing so is to put small indicators in documents. We cannot guarantee that this document is not such a document and thus will be reporting on the basic concept of what’s in this draft, without revealing the full document.

But, to be clear, if this document is accurate, it would almost certainly lead to a huge First Amendment fight, which it seems likely the companies would win.

Obviously the issue of social media and supposed political bias has been a big topic in DC lately — including with the President — despite the near total lack of actual evidence to support these claims. Yes, there is evidence of people being kicked off these platforms… but there is no evidence that the reasons have anything to do with political bias (people of all political stripes have been removed from these platforms). And, yes, there is also evidence that employees at many internet companies may lean one way politically, but that too is overstated and says nothing about how the platforms actually work.

Recently, we noted that the DOJ and various state Attorneys General were talking about using antitrust law against social media companies over bias, and explained in fairly great detail why that would almost certainly run afoul of the First Amendment and a whole long list of Supreme Court cases detailing how the government cannot compel speech of this nature.

And that’s where this executive order, as leaked, would almost certainly run into huge First Amendment issues. It tries to hide these behind antitrust claims, saying that it’s about ensuring competition and preventing the exercise of market power that “harms consumers, including through the exercise of bias.” The Executive Order itself doesn’t hide the intent, as “bias in online platforms” is specifically in the title. Basically, the order would task the White House with “investigating” social media platforms for bias and then seek to use antitrust actions (or pass it off to the DOJ or FTC) to punish companies that show loosely defined “bias.” The document takes as default that any kind of “bias” on major internet platforms should be taken as anti-competitive (which seems incredibly questionable) and then also requires that various agencies give the President a report on how to “address” social media bias.

I have trouble seeing how this could possibly be constitutional under the First Amendment, as it is, quite explicitly, the government trying to regulate speech, and clearly does not fall into any of the exceptions to the First Amendment. It’s possible this executive order will never actually become anything — perhaps someone in the White House will prevent it from moving forward (it’s also clear that the draft I’ve seen is not complete, as there are still notes about what’s being worked on). But the fact that this is even being considered is certainly notable.

I asked Ken White, well known around here as a former Assistant US Attorney and current First Amendment lawyer what he thought of the draft and he noted that the document seemed so weakly put together that he had a hard time believing it was something anyone was seriously considering, though, he noted “with this administration it’s very difficult to tell.” He also noted that it appeared to be “more posturing than substance” and designed to “preach to the choir” rather than anything serious. As for the substance, he noted that while it asserts that “bias” is a violation of antitrust law, that’s not at all accurate:

That?s a distortion and exaggeration. Nothing in the document elaborates or supports it. To the extent antitrust is concerned with bias it?s not the “kick the Nazis off the platform” kind. It’s more like a concern about, for instance, Google altering search results to prefer products and services it owns.

Indeed, the general point of antitrust is to deal with when a dominant player is abusing its position to favor its own offerings, not on how it handles general moderation duties. So, while I wouldn’t put it past this administration to mock up this kind of executive order as an exercise in thinking through what it can “do” about the exaggerated and misleading claims of “political bias” in search results, I have a hard time believing the administration would bother pushing forward with this idea, and if it actually did get that far that it would have any luck in convincing anyone (who matters) that this was constitutional. That said, if the point is just, as Ken suggested, preaching to the choir, I also wouldn’t put it past this administration to push out this executive order just to rile up Trump’s most ardent supporters, who continue to scream to the heavens about political bias in search results, despite a near total lack of evidence to support such claims.

Filed Under: antitrust, bias, doj, donald trump, executive order, first amendment, free speech, social media bias
Companies: facebook, google, twitter

EU Continues To Kill The Open Web: Massive Fines For Sites That Don't Censor Within An Hour

Free Speech

from the what-the-hell-is-going-on-in-brussels? dept

The EU really seems quite hellbent on absolutely destroying the open internet. Just as the EU Parliament was voting to approve the EU Copyright Directive, requiring that much of the internet be licensed and curated, rather than open for anyone, the EU Commission decided to move forward with an awful idea that it had first proposed earlier this year: that social media companies must disappear “terrorist content’ within one hour.

Back when this was proposed, we pointed out how this was holding companies to an absolutely impossible standard… and it appears that the EU really just doesn’t give a fuck, because they’re super excited about putting this into practice:

The European Commission proposed new rules on Wednesday that would require internet platforms to remove illegal terror content within an hour of it being flagged by national authorities. Firms could be fined up to 4% of global annual revenue if they repeatedly fail to comply.

Got that? 4% of global revenue. As the article notes, that means if Google fucks up a single download, it could owe $4.4 billion to the EU. Facebook could owe $1.6 billion.

“You wouldn’t get away with handing out fliers inciting terrorism on the streets of our cities ? and it shouldn’t be possible to do it on the internet, either,” EU security commissioner Julian King said in a statement.

First of all, leaving aside the (very important!) broad free speech concerns around what counts as “terrorist” content, as opposed to just dissenting content, the statement by Julian King is idiotic. If you want to use that analogy, what the Commission is proposing here is the equivalent of if someone was handing out fliers inciting terrorism on the streets of a city, that the city would then get to seize all the buildings on that street. That’s almost exactly what this proposal is stating. If you want to go after people distributing terrorist content, go after the people distributing terrorist content. Don’t go after the tools they use to post it. That makes no sense.

And, of course, we already know how this is going to lead to massive and widespread censorship. No company is going to want to risk a fine that massive, and with merely 1 hour to respond, no company will have the capability or context to carefully adjudicate the takedown demands to make sure they are proper and aboveboard. Obviously, they’ll just start pulling down content incredibly quickly. Indeed, we’ve already seen what a mess this kind of rule can create. We’ve talked about the German law that gives sites 24 hours to takedown “hate speech,” and how that’s already leading to censorship of political speech and satire. Now switch that to just one hour, with even more drastic consequences.

It is literally insane that anyone could possibly think this is a good idea.

Activists are already pointing out that this proposal has simply ignored its obligation to review how such a law would impact human rights, because apparently if you just wave your hands in the air screaming “terrorists’ the EU will toss basic human rights out the window.

At some point you have to wonder if the EU really just wants the internet shut off completely.

Filed Under: censorship, eu commission, social media, takedowns, terrorist content
Companies: facebook, google, twitter

Google Fights In EU Court Against Ability Of One Country To Censor The Global Internet

Free Speech

from the this-is-important dept

For quite some time now we’ve been talking about French regulators and their ridiculous assertion that Google must apply its “Right to be Forgotten” rules globally rather than just in France. Earlier this week, the company presented its arguments to the EU Court of Justice who will eventually rule on this issue in a way that will have serious ramifications for the global internet.

In a hearing at the EU Court of Justice, Google said extending the scope of the right all over the world was ?completely unenvisagable.? Such a step would ?unreasonably interfere? with people?s freedom of expression and information and lead to ?endless conflicts? with countries that don?t recognize the right to be forgotten.

?The French CNIL?s global delisting approach seems to be very much out on a limb,? Patrice Spinosi, a French lawyer who represents Google, told a 15-judge panel at the court in Luxembourg on Tuesday. It is in ?utter variance? with recent judgments.

Even if you absolutely despise everything about Google, the argument of French regulators should be of massive concern to you. France’s argument is that if a French regulator determines that some content should be disappeared from the internet, it is necessary for it to be memory holed entirely and permanently, literally calling such deleting of history “a breath of fresh air.”

?For the person concerned, the right to delisting is a breath of fresh air,? said Jean Lessi, who represents France?s data protection authority CNIL, told the court. Google?s policy ?doesn?t stop the infringement of this fundamental right which has been identified, it simply reduces the accessibility. But that is not satisfactory.?

Where one can be at least marginally sympathetic to the French regulator’s argument, it is in the issue of circumvention. If Google is only required to suppress information in France, then if someone really wants to, they can still find that information by presenting themselves as surfing from somewhere else. Which is true. But that limited risk — which would likely only occur in the very narrowest of circumstances in which someone already knew that some information was being hidden and then went on a quest to search it out — is a minimal “risk” compared to the very, very real risk of lots of truthful, historical information completely being disappeared into nothingness. And that is dangerous.

The broader impact of such global censorship demands can easily be understood if you just recognize that it won’t just be the French looking to memory hole content they don’t like. Other governments — such as Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran — certainly wouldn’t mind making some information disappear. And if you think that various internet platforms will be able to say “well, we abide by French demands to disappear content, but ignore Russian ones,” well, how does that work in actual practice? Not only that, but such rules could clearly violate the US First Amendment. Ordering companies to take down content that is perfectly legal in the US would have significant ramifications.

But, it also means that we’re likely moving to a more fragmented internet — in which the very nature of the global communications network is less and less global, because to allow that to happen means allowing the most aggressive censor and the most sensitive dictator to make the rules concerning which content is allowed. And, as much as people rightfully worry about Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey deciding whose speech should be allowed online, we should be much, much, much more concerned when its people like Vladimir Putin or Recep Erdogan.

Filed Under: censorship, france, global censorship, jurisdiction, right to be forgotten
Companies: google

The First Emojiment: New T-Shirts & More By Techdirt

Free Speech

from the make-no-law dept

Get your First Emojiment gear on Teespring »

You know the words — or at least you should! Introducing the latest line of t-shirts, hoodies, mugs and stickers from Techdirt: our emoji-fied version of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, available now on Teespring. The design is based on the Twemoji icon set, licensed under CC-BY 4.0.

Also, be sure to check out our recently-released Free Speech Pro-Tip gear and all the other great designs in our Teespring store.

Filed Under: emoji, first amendment, free speech

German Court Tells Facebook It Can't Delete Comments, Even Though German Law Says It Must Delete Comments

Legal Issues

from the damned-if-you-do,-damned-if-you-don't dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about Germany’s free speech suppressing “hate speech” law, which required that social networks remove “hate speech” within 24 hours or face massive fines up to €50 million. Making it even more ridiculous, the law even provided for personal fines up to €5 million for EMPLOYEES at the social networks who were in charge of taking down ill-defined “hate speech.”

This, of course, is a recipe for massive censorship. If you are facing fairly massive fines for failing to take down certain speech, you’re very likely going to default towards the “take it down, take it down NOW!” side of things. And, indeed, merely 3 days after the law was on the books, a satirical magazine had its Twitter account blocked (no satire for you!). Just a few days later, the ridiculousness of this law became even more obvious, when Twitter deleted a tweet of Heiko Maas, now Germany’s Minister of Foreign Affairs (and at the time its Federal Minister of Justice).

Pretty ridiculous, right?

Hold on. It just got more ridiculous. You see, the Higher Regional Court in Munich (the Munich Oberlandesgericht or OLG — sorta, kinda, not quite like a state appeals court in the US) has now ruled that Facebook cannot delete comments that harm freedom of expression. Facebook had chosen to delete “a controversial statement,” by a Bavarian politician (a member of the nationalist AfD party) Heike Themel, saying it violated community standards. But the court determined that Facebook deciding to delete such content was violation of Themel’s freedom of expression.

So, uh, good luck to social media platforms in Germany, huh? If they don’t remove content reported by users as “hate speech,” they (and their employees directly) face massive fines. If they do delete content, they could get hauled into court and told they’re violating freedom of expression rights. That seems like a complete no win situation.

Of course, this is just one mid-level regional court in Germany, and another report on this story notes that another regional court (in Heidelberg) just ruled the opposite way, saying that as a private company, Facebook had every right to manage its platforms by its own rules.

While I imagine that this kind of ruling might excite some of the people who have recently been suing platforms in the US over a similar theory (some of whom might already have… let’s say… an affinity for historical Germany…), it should actually help demonstrate how absolutely ridiculous these laws are becoming — both ordering websites to remove content while simultaneously telling them they cannot.

Thankfully, we haven’t had the same legal mess play out in the US (and, thankfully, the First Amendment should mostly prevent this from happening), but the larger debate is effectively the same. You have a bunch of people demanding that social media disappear “bad” content, and a bunch of people demanding that social media not disappear content they like. Sometimes, it’s the same people. But the end result is literally impossible to deal with.

Filed Under: content moderation, free speech, germany, hate speech, munich, takedowns
Companies: facebook, twitter

Judge Roy Moore Sues Sacha Baron Cohen For Ruining His Immaculate Reputation

Defamation

from the CAN-I-HAVE-SOME-MONEY-NOW dept

Judge Roy Moore — perhaps most famous for his (alleged) predilection for jailbait — is suing entertainer Sacha Baron Cohen for somehow ruining his spotless reputation with the ol’ libelslander. Moore is represented by stunt lawyer Larry Klayman, which assures this complaint will be greeted with a heavy sigh by the presiding judge, and that a not-insignificant amount of the billable hours will be eaten up by Klayman getting admonished by the court.

As can probably be inferred without even reading the complaint [PDF], Moore got duped by Cohen to appear on his show, regrets being duped, and thinks Cohen (and Showtime/CBS) should pay him real money for tarnishing his otherwise squeaky-clean reputation. Let’s just see what he’s asking for…

[…] actual, compensatory, and punitive damages in excess of $95,000,000 USD, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, and any other relief that this Court may deem just and proper.

Moore, with the assistance of Klayman, figures his appearance on Cohen’s new show did nearly $100 million in damage to Moore’s reputation — one pre-sullied by sexual misconduct targeting teenaged girls allegations. Moore estimates his reputation is $95 million worse off, thanks to his inability to vet requests for public appearances.

Here’s how all the “defamation” went down, according to the complaint.

In order to fraudulently induce Judge Moore and Mrs. Moore to travel to Washington, D.C., where filming was to and did take place, and where the majority of acts pled herein occurred, on or about February 14, 2018, Defendant Cohen and his agents falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that Yerushalayim TV – which does not actually exist – was the producer and broadcaster of the show that Judge Moore would appear on, instead of the actual network that the show that later appeared on Showtime. In addition, Defendant Cohen and his agents falsely and fraudulently represented that Judge Moore and Mrs. Moore were both being invited to Washington, D.C., for Judge Moore to receive an award for his strong support of Israel in commemoration of its 70th anniversary as a nation state. This ceremony, and presentation of this award, Defendant Cohen falsely and fraudulently represented was to occur during the interview.

Somehow this is Cohen’s fault (and by extension, his co-defendants’ fault — CBS and Showtime) even though Moore admits he did nothing to ensure he wasn’t being led astray by a nonexistent television station.

Had Judge Moore and Mrs. Moore known that Defendant Cohen had fraudulently induced Judge Moore into this interview, which as a “set up” to harm and thus damage Plaintiffs and the rest of their entire family, Judge Moore would not have agreed to appear. Plaintiffs relied on and had reason to rely on Defendant Cohen’s and his agents’ representations including Defendants Showtime and CBS, which he was led to believe were truthful and he had no reason to doubt.

As Cohen has proven time and time again, nothing drops public officials’ guard faster than appealing to their ego. Cohen fronted a nonexistent production company and offered Moore an award for his lifetime of service to Israel. Having been properly flattered, Moore never thought to question why he was being given an award for something he’s not particularly known for. Nothing in his Wikipedia page or bio suggests he’s ever had much interest in Israel, beyond the usual affinity sported by fundamentalists who refer to it as the “Holy Land” in passing.

This point is reiterated in numerous paragraphs, as if being too stupid to question bizarrely-tangential generosity out of nowhere was an actionable tort.

Then the complaint gets to the actual defamation allegations. And they’re quite the read. A shot for every “false” or “fraud” in this lawsuit will see you hospitalized for alcohol poisoning by the 10th page.

Defendant Cohen’s character falsely and fraudulently introduced a false and fraudulent “device” supposedly invented by the Israeli Army to detect pedophiles. During the segment, Defendant Cohen’s “device” – as part of the false and fraudulent routine – purports to detect Judge Moore as a sex offender, thus defaming him.

Hahaha it’s almost as if someone were making some crude commentary on the sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Moore. You know, the allegations about pedophilia and sex offending. It was in all the papers. This — THIS! — says Klayman, is defamation. And he says it as only Klayman can: by providing the defendants a defense.

This false and fraudulent portrayal and mocking of Judge Moore as a sex offender, on national and international television, which was widely broadcast in this district on national television and worldwide, has severely harmed Judge Moore’s reputation and caused him, Mrs. Moore, and his entire family severe emotional distress, as well as caused and will cause Plaintiffs financial damage.

Let’s give Ken White/Popehat the floor for a moment:

By adding “mocked” to that sentence, Klayman is beclowning himself, which is quite a feat for someone who comes pre-beclowned.

He’s basically saying “the utterly obvious and inevitable defense to this is correct, and here I am confirming it.”

Only something that can reasonably be taken as a provable statement of fact can be defamatory. Mockery is by definition not defamatory — like ridicule, insult, etc. When a public figure is at hand, it’s also not, by definition, intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On and on the complaint goes about “reckless” and “malice” and “defamation per se” and all of it doesn’t matter because the defense is right there in the accusations. This was commentary on Roy Moore’s pre-existing reputation, which was already in the gutter thanks to numerous accusations directly on point with a fake Mossad tool’s “sex offender” determination.

The downside of this case is that if it survives the first motion to dismiss, it’s going to chew up some time and cash. It was filed in the DC federal court, which has already decided it doesn’t need to apply Washington, DC’s anti-SLAPP law at the federal level. This means the case might go on longer than it needs to, even though it’s crystal clear Moore’s just trying to exact litigious revenge for allowing himself to be suckered in by a little flattery.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, dc, defamation, larry klayman, roy moore, sacha baron cohen, slapp suits
Companies: cbs, showtime