Censorship

A District of Columbia judge ruled that a Web host provider must provide the government with digital data from a website widely used to help organize protests against President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January. The ruling by District of Columbia Superior Court Chief Judge Robert E. Morin marked a win for the government, although Judge Morin said he would supervise the government’s use of the data it collects from Web host DreamHost. Chris Ghazarian, general counsel for DreamHost, said the company needed to review the ruling before deciding whether to appeal.

In a 90-minute hearing Aug 24, Judge Morin ruled from the bench that DreamHost must provide the government with all other data from disruptj20.org that it sought under the search warrant. But Judge Morin put restrictions on what they could do with the material. He ruled that the government must disclose how they plan to review the data, identify those involved in the process, and explain how they will avoid collecting protected information about "innocent visitors" to the website. Judge Morin also limited the scope of the search from when the website domain was created in October 2016 to Inauguration Day on Jan. 20. He also said Justice cannot distribute or publicize the data it collects, including to any other government agency.

Several research groups in the United States and Europe now see the white supremacist and jihadi threats as two faces of the same coin. They’re working on methods to fight both, together — and slowly, they have come up with ideas for limiting how these groups recruit new members to their cause. Their ideas are grounded in a few truths about how extremist groups operate online, and how potential recruits respond. After speaking to many researchers, I compiled this rough guide for combating online radicalization.
1) Recognize the internet as an extremist breeding ground.
2) Engage directly with potential recruits.

Tens of thousands of counterprotesters crammed Boston Common and marched through city streets Aug 19 in efforts to drown out the planned “free speech” rally that many feared would be attended by white-supremacist groups. By 1 pm, the handful of rally attendees had left the Boston Common pavillion, concluding their event without planned speeches. A victorious cheer went up among the counterprotesters, as many began to leave. Hundreds of others danced in circles and sang, “Hey hey, ho ho. White supremacy has got to go.”

City officials said that at least 40,000 people participated in the counter protest, 20,000 of whom participated in a march across town. Tensions flared as police escorted some rally attendees out of the Common, prompting several physical altercations between police and counterprotesters. Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said there were 27 arrests, primarily for disorderly conduct. He said no officers or protesters were injured and there was no property damage. Evans said there were three groups of people in attendance: attendees of the “free speech” rally, counter protesters, and a small group of people who showed up to cause trouble.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had sued the city of Charlottesville (VA) to allow the Unite the Right rally to happen downtown. And now, it had happened, and blood had been spilled. The backlash has already spurred other ACLU chapters to declare that they don’t believe free-speech protections apply to events like the one in Charlottesville, and led the ACLU’s national director, Anthony Romero, to declare the group will no longer defend the right to protest when the protesters want to carry guns.

The Charlottesville rally called attention to an important fault line between the ACLU’s traditional vision of justice and the way the progressive grassroots movement sees justice in 2017: a fight over whether the best way to protect the powerless is to stand against the principles that could be used to crush them, or simply to stand on the side of people seeking social equality by whatever means are necessary.

[Commentary] It took the death of a young woman at the hands of one of the neo-Nazis she was protesting to force the ever-expanding media universe to face a question it has been evading for years: Where’s the line?

Unlike the last big communications revolutions — brought about with radio and then television — this one came with no barrier to entry in terms of expensive equipment like towers and studios. There have been no governmental limits like broadcasting standards and licensing requirements. But as the downsides of informational democratization become more evident — the opening it has provided for nefarious state actors, terrorists and hate mongers — those who have some control over the web’s content stream have had a hard time figuring out where to build some much-needed dams. The trouble has come in finding the line between what some may find offensive and what is objectively dangerous speech. But at this point, if we can’t set a line at neo-Nazis and white nationalists inciting hatred and violence, can we set any line at all?

[Commentary] I’ve been struck by the similarity between recent calls for suppressing white supremacist speech and past calls for suppressing Communist speech. Of course, there are differences as well — there always are for any analogy — but I thought I’d note some likenesses. Communists, neo-Nazis, neo-Confederates — I can’t stand them. They are supporters of ideologies of slavery and murder. They are losers, who lost for very good reason. But their speech should be protected, I think; and the cases for stripping protection from such speech have always been very similar.

[Eugene Volokh teaches at UCLA School of Law]

President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign said that CNN has denied its offer to buy air time for a campaign ad, marking the second time the network has refused to run a pro-Trump campaign spot. The ad, called “Let President Trump Do His Job,” accuses the media of “attacking our president” and briefly displays pictures of news anchors from several news outlets, including CNN anchors Jake Tapper, Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper.

“The president’s enemies don’t want him to succeed,” the ad states. “Let President Trump do his job.” The ad also touts U.S. economic growth, the stock market, jobs figures and military strength, while accusing Democrats of obstruction. “One of the many reasons that so many millions of Americans support President Trump is because of their complete mistrust of the mainstream news media, and the president’s refusal to allow their biased filter to interfere with his messages,” Trump campaign executive director Michael Glassner said in a statement.

[Commentary] Today, US technology companies adhere to a wide array of requirements from repressive governments that undermine Internet freedom and privacy. These demands violate international law, including the right to freedom of expression. But the enormous benefits of market access outweigh the relatively low costs associated with accepting repressive governments’ demands.

Undoubtedly, there are circumstances in which requests for information or access to accounts are reasonable, such as when investigating terrorism and major crimes. But the misuse and abuse of this power by authoritarian governments are routine. Unless the U.S. government stands in support of companies that refuse to comply with wrongful requirements, authoritarian regimes will feel emboldened to make ever-increasing and unreasonable demands. And while U.S. technology companies should be able to invest in Internet-restricting countries, if their choices directly facilitate the persecution of these governments’ political opponents, then they should bear the costs.

[Jared Genser is an international human rights lawyer based in Washington.]

[Commentary] There is no doubt that public concern about the vitality of free speech and political debate on American college campuses has legitimate causes. However, the current round of attacks – from the extreme right and left — is a pretext. It is part of a broader assault on the idea of the university itself: on its social functions, on the fundamental importance of advanced knowledge and enlightened debate, on the critical role of science and expertise in public policy and on the significance of intellectuals and serious thought leaders more generally.

The time has come to defend the university vigorously, even as we insist on seeking to open it up further: to new ideas, to even more vigorous debate, to more students who have never had the opportunity for advanced education, to engagement with the world, and to the public more generally for whom the idea that college is a public good needs stressing, and demonstrating, today more than ever.

[Nicholas B. Dirks is former chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley.]

The News Media Alliance didn’t like what it heard out of the Justice Department about potentially subpoenaing media outlets in the ongoing investigations of leaks. "The News Media Alliance strongly condemns these statements, as they are an attempt to chill communications between the press and government officials," the group said. "The free flow of information to reporters is crucial in order to bring matters of great public importance to light. Threatening the use of subpoenas that could compel reporters to testify, and, in particular, to reveal the identity of a confidential source, will restrict the flow of information to reporters and ultimately to the public on matters of public interest, such as waste, fraud and abuse within the government and in the private sector." "The press provides a vital role in helping the public to hold the government accountable," said Alliance President David Chavern. "The Attorney General’s statements are an attempt to stifle communications between government officials and journalists which will ultimately keep the public in the dark.”