Monthly Archives: September 2020

Julian Assange is not on trial for his personality but heres how the US government made you focus on it – The Independent

Posted on by

On Monday Julian Assange was driven to the Old Bailey to continue his fight against extradition to the United States, where the Trump administration has launched the most dangerous attack on press freedom in at least a generation by indicting him for publishing US government documents. Amid coverage of the proceedings, Assanges critics have inevitably commented on his appearance, rumours of his behaviour while isolated in the Ecuadorian embassy, and other salacious details.

These predictable distractions are emblematic of the sorry state of our political and cultural discourse. If Assange is extradited to face charges for practising journalism and exposing government misconduct, the consequences for press freedom and the publics right to know will be catastrophic. Still, rather than seriously addressing the important principles at stake in Assanges unprecedented indictment and the 175 years in prison he faces, many would rather focus on inconsequential personality profiles.

Assange is not on trial for skateboarding in the Ecuadorian embassy, for tweeting, for calling Hillary Clinton a war hawk, or for having an unkempt beard as he was dragged into detention by British police. Assange faces extradition to the United States because he published incontrovertible proof of war crimes and abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, embarrassing the most powerful nation on Earth. Assange published hard evidence of the ways in which the first world exploits the third, according to whistleblower Chelsea Manning, the source of that evidence. Assange is on trial for his journalism, for his principles, not his personality.

Youve probably heard the refrain from well-meaning pundits: You dont have to like him, but you should oppose threats to silence him. But that refrain misses the point by reinforcing the manipulative tropes deployed against Assange.

When setting a gravely dangerous precedent, governments dont typically persecute the most beloved individuals in the world. They target those who can be portrayed as subversive, unpatriotic or simply weird. Then they actively distort public debate by emphasizing those traits.

These techniques are not new. After Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to journalists to expose the US governments lies about Vietnam, the Nixon administrations White House Plumbers broke into Ellsbergs psychiatrists office in search of material that could be used to discredit him. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden was falsely portrayed as collaborating with the Chinese, then the Russians. Obsession with military intelligence analyst Mannings mental health and gender identity was ubiquitous. By demonizing the messenger, governments seek to poison the message.

Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy - a timeline

The prosecution will be all too happy when coverage of Assanges extradition hearing devolves into irrelevant tangents and smears. It matters little that Assanges beard was the result of his shaving kit having been confiscated, or that reports of Paul Manafort visiting him in the embassy were proven to be fabricated. By the time these petty claims are refuted, the damage will be done. At best, public debate over the real issues will be derailed; at worst, public opinion will be manipulated in favour of the establishment.

By drawing attention away from the principles of the case, the obsession with personality pushes out the significance of WikiLeaks revelations and the extent to which governments have concealed misconduct from their own citizens. It pushes out how Assanges 2010 publications exposed 15,000 previously uncounted civilian casualties in Iraq, casualties that the US Army would have buried. It pushes out the fact that the United States is attempting to accomplish what repressive regimes can only dream of: deciding what journalists around the globe can and cannot write. It pushes out the fact that all whistleblowers and journalism itself, not just Assange, is on trial here.

This piece was written by Noam Chomsky and Alice Walker, co-chairs of AssangeDefense.org

Original post:
Julian Assange is not on trial for his personality but heres how the US government made you focus on it - The Independent

Attack the press – NationofChange

Posted on by

Over the past few years, authorities in many countries have become increasingly bold in their attacks on journalists, especially those who work in alternative media. Julian Assange, who began his extradition hearing at Londons Old Bailey court after a four month delay this past Monday, has become a powerful symbol of the hypocrisy of western states that claim to champion a free press.

A common argument made by centrist and rightwing leaders since Wikileaks embarrassed the American government by releasing documents leaked by Chelsea Manning in 2010 is that someone like Assange, who faces up to 175 years in prison if sent to the United States, is not a professional journalist and thus not afforded the same protections that apply to those who toil in corporate news rooms. Even more speciously, the current Secretary of State has argued that the countrys 1stAmendment doesnt apply to the publisher because hes Australian.

Worse still, in representative democracies now governed by so-called populists of the right, leaders routinely call stories they dont like fake news and demonize outlets and reporters critical of them at every opportunity. Some, like Brazils Jair Bolsonaro, evenpersonally threatenindividual journalists for asking uncomfortable questions.

At the state and local level here in North America, current attacks by authorities, not only on journalists but on the right to free assembly, have tended to be more physical in nature. While weve seen similar behavior on the part of police in confronting the press at anti-pipeline protests and other actions throughout the continent over the past decade, the context of a widespread Black Lives Matter uprising in the United States this year and the politically motivated hysteria of the far right in reaction to it has led to what appears at some times like targeted, and at others like indiscriminate violence against journalists covering the protests, in some cases leading toserious injuries.

Thanks to the work of theU.S. Press Freedom Tracker, its possible to see a troubling trend line over the course of the current U.S. presidents term. As reported by the group, there were a total of 144 attacks on press freedom in all of 2017while, As of Sept. 1, the Tracker has confirmed 238 press freedom violations including physical assaults, arrests, and equipment searches and seizures more than three quarters of which occurred while journalists were documenting the Black Lives Matter protests.

This impunity on the part of local authorities, encouraged by the countrys president and many of his surrogates, was on display on a national news network on May 29thin Minneapolis. As he was reporting on the protests following the murder of George Floyd, CNN reporter Omar Jimenez, who is African American,was arrested on cameraby the citys police.

Jimenez, aveteran reporterbased in Chicago, previously covered the trials of the officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore and was nominated for an individual Emmy award when employed by local Baltimore station WBAL, where he worked prior to taking a job as a correspondent for CNN in 2017.

Its hard to argue that Jimenezs arrest didnt to some degree come about as the result of bias.More so after it wasreported by the Guardiana few days laterthat, another of CNNs correspondents, Josh Campbell, who is white, was reporting about a block away from Jimenez. He said police were polite when they approached him to ask him which outlet he was with, and they told him: OK, youre good.

Soon after Jimenezs release, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action suit in Minnesota to put an end to what it claimed was the unconstitutional targeting of journalists during the protests.

As an ACLU attorney said in astatementabout the suit, We are facing a full-scale assault on the First Amendment freedom of the press. We will not let these official abuses go unanswered. This is the first of many lawsuits the ACLU intends to file across the country. Law enforcement officers who target journalists will be held accountable.

Rather than being something unique to the United States and its current political scene, examples of this kind of bias in the policing of some journalists as opposed to others is also demonstrated by the ongoing case of Karl Dockstader, a journalist and radio host from Oneida Nation of the Thames in the Canadian province of Ontario, who has beencharged with mischief and violating a court imposed injunctionas a result of his reporting from an indigenous protest camp established on a construction site south of Canadas largest city, Toronto.

While journalists in Canada have fewer protections under the law than those south of the border, exceptions for press covering protests by the countrys indigenous people have been carved out as recently as 2019, when adecisionfrom the Supreme Court of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador found, An injunction can be a very blunt instrument. Unless carefully crafted in its scope and judiciously applied in its enforcement, it risks wrapping within its purview persons who were not part of the mischief to which the original injunctive remedy was directed and also risks unnecessarily trenching upon such other important constitutional and legal values like freedom of association, freedom of the press and, in appropriate cases like the present one, the protection of rights pertaining to indigenous interests.

No charges were brought against any other reporter at what is called the 1492 Land Back Lane protest encampment that Dockstader was covering, leading one to the suspicion that like Jimenez in Minneapolis, his identity plays a role in the case being made by Ontario police against him.

As Dockstader told Canadas national broadcaster,the CBC, I never thought I was going to have to sit my 10- and 12-year-old daughters down in our living room and talk to them about how their dad was arrested. Thats a cycle of violence that I am trying to break as an Indigenous man and I thought that an honorable career like journalism would give me an opportunity to break the cycle of violence, not to bring it into my own house It was just earth-shattering.

Back in the U.S., less troubling in terms of possible motivation on the part of authorities but arguably more worrying in terms of tactics, wasthe arrest and alleged assaultin Seattle on July 1st,of U.K. Independent correspondent Andrew Buncombe as he covered the dismantling of the CHOP (Capital Hill Organized Protest) autonomous zone in the city.

Still, outlets like CNN and the Independent have the resources and reputation to fight back against such overreach on the part of police, but what of those journalists without this kind of institutional backing?

One such reporter isEddy Binford-Ross, a student covering the protests for her high school paper, the Clypion, where she is also editor in chief covering the protests in Portland. Though wearing a helmet and other tags toclearly identify herself as press, Binford-Ross has faced tear gas and other non-lethal projectiles used by police over the course of her work this summer.

As Binford Ross explained to the SPLC (Student Press Law Center) in aninterview, Its very concerning to me that they seem to be targeting the press and, at the very least, disregarding the distinction between who is a member of the press and who is a protester. Sometimes, when I identify myself as a journalist, theyll say okay Ill leave you alone, but normally it doesnt seem to phase them.

In normal times, we often see a gradual chipping away of basic rights like weve seen in the trials of Julian Assange, where a narrative, some of it true, a lot of it based on character assassination and outright lies, has been built over time, denying the publisher the presumption of innocence. In extraordinary circumstances, like after 9/11 or in our current era of crisis, norms are smashed to bits instead of merely being degraded in individual cases over time, with consequences that are often far ranging and permanent.

Although it is in many ways a conservative document, the United States constitution set a new standard for the world in establishing the 4thEstate as a kind of unofficial branch of government tasked with informing the public, this is why oligarchs and politicians have been trying, with some success, to either terrorize or control its practitioners ever since.

FALL FUNDRAISER

If you liked this article, please donate $5 to keep NationofChange online through November.

Read more:
Attack the press - NationofChange

Enemies of the State Film Review: Powerful Documentary Cuts to the Heart of Internet-Era Persecution and Paranoia – Yahoo Entertainment

Posted on by

Was hacker Matthew DeHart a whistleblower, a spy or a child pornographer? Or some combination of the above? Watching the provocative new documentary Enemies of the State, your opinion may shift more than once, as director Sonia Kennebeck (National Bird) pursues both the elusive nature of truth and the seductive qualities of conspiracy theories.

Featuring interviews with the key players alongside dramatized recreations the documentary pioneer of this method, Errol Morris, acts an executive producer here Kennebeck takes us deep inside one familys harrowing ordeal and pulls the rug out from our assumptions and prejudices, offering an array of contradicting experts whose judgment and assertions shift in their credibility.

The facts are these: Air National Guard veteran Matt DeHart, who purports to be involved with on-line whistleblowers Anonymous and Wikileaks, has his house ransacked by federal investigators looking for evidence regarding child pornography allegations against Matt. He flees to Mexico shortly thereafter with thumb drives he claims contain volatile classified information regarding an FBI investigation into a CIA operation.

Also Read: 'David Byrne's American Utopia' Film Review: Byrne and Spike Lee Burn Down the House With Style

His parents Paul and Leann both veterans themselves rally to their sons defense, and the next few years involve attempted defections to Russia and Venezuela, an application for asylum in Canada, a car accident on a snowy highway, allegations of government torture and interrogation using the drug Thorazine, and activists and journalists seeking to help out Matt, particularly in the wake of events surrounding Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning.

In the face of all these conflicting testimonies, then whats the truth? Thats the onion that Kennebeck and her editor Maxine Goedicke (Pope Francis: A Man of His Word) so skillfully unwind over the course of Enemies of the State. People prone to assume the worst about governments and the best about individuals will evaluate the presented evidence in one way, and their opposites in the other, and it isnt until the films final 15 minutes that the audience is presented with the most unassailable facts. (In the timeline of making the film, this final bit of intel came late in the game as well, or so the films intertitles suggest.)

Story continues

Also Read: Toronto International Film Festival Reverses Optional Mask Policy Inside Theaters

Without ever announcing itself as such, the film brilliantly dissects the way that conspiracy theories work and why theyre so irresistible. In an age when so many are willing to dismiss reputable, sourced news and science in favor of shadowy and even anonymous internet experts, Enemies of the State sneakily but indelibly takes us through one individual case and tests our individual ability to filter out white noise and presupposition in favor of whats irrefutable.

For a story about espionage on one hand and accusations of child endangerment on the other, the film focuses on a family that, on paper, seems to be as upright and four-square as possible: Paul DeHart, who entered the ministry after serving in both the Army and the Air Force, describes Leann and himself as the kind of kids who always sat down and followed the rules. Theyre clearly loving parents to Matt, but as the film progresses, we are left to wonder whether or not theyre playing too large a role in the life of their son as he enters his late twenties, and whether or not their distrust of the authorities represents creeping paranoia or a justified response to outrageous government interference.

Also Read: How the Pandemic Will Shake Up Toronto Film Festival's (Virtual) Sales Market

Its also a case study in extremes; its plausible, given years of disclosure of governmental dirty tricks, that accusations of child molestation would be used to silence an activist who has become privy to confidential information. By the same token, its just as plausible that someone guilty of child pornography might weave a fiction around himself and his family to explain being the target of a federal investigation. Kennebecks ability to work with both possibilities seems to have translated in access to players on both sides, from the DeHarts to the Tennessee prosecutors working the child pornography case.

Enemies of the State is a chilling watch, both for what it contemplates and for the internal path that each viewer will take while experiencing it. That some will come away from the film unwilling to accept its conclusions merely proves the films point.

Read original story Enemies of the State Film Review: Powerful Documentary Cuts to the Heart of Internet-Era Persecution and Paranoia At TheWrap

More here:
Enemies of the State Film Review: Powerful Documentary Cuts to the Heart of Internet-Era Persecution and Paranoia - Yahoo Entertainment

Charlie and the First Amendment | Columns | theadanews.com – Theadanews

Posted on by

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you are a regular reader of mine, you have already figured out that I like to write about former students and the many things I learned from them. Back in the early 1980s, I taught in a small country school. It was culturally diverse and mostly poor. I had a very memorable student who dropped out when he turned 16 named Charlie. By the way he dressed, Charlie had been born in the wrong decade. He wore neatly pressed khaki pants, plaid cotton shirts, and brown leather shoes. His hair was short, brushed to the side, and had hair cream on it to keep it slicked down tight. He was mostly silent in class, very respectful, and his classwork was punctual and thorough.

There was something unusual about Charlie besides his dress and quiet manner. When we would say the Pledge of Allegiance in assemblies, I noticed that Charlie would stay seated and silent. I was so surprised because he was one of the most respectful students I had ever had. A few days after noticing this, I pulled him aside after class and asked him about it. In his usual quiet way, he said that his religious beliefs did not allow him to say the pledge or to stand for the National Anthem. He said his church believed it to be a form of idolatry.

I was totally astonished and asked him what church he attended. He said he was a Jehovahs Witness, as were most of his family. I thanked him for the explanation and he went on his way. How had I lived in this country my whole life and had never heard this?

I occasionally heard other students talk about Charlie and these differences. I heard them mention that his family did not celebrate Christmas, either. The students discussing this were not being rude or mean, they were just stating a fact. They thought it was a little odd, but didnt call him names, say he was unpatriotic and hated America, or anything of the sort. They accepted him for who he was and what he believed. When Charlie turned 16, he dropped out of school to take the GED. He turned his books in and told me his plan. He said he was leaving school because he wanted to help his family in their carpentry business, and thanked me for being his teacher. I had no doubt he would pass his GED with flying colors; he was an exceptionally smart young man.

His story resonates with me because even though Charlie did not do what was expected, no one vilified him for it. His classmates accepted the fact that his beliefs told him not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or stand for the National Anthem. They respected his decision and didnt give him any grief for it, which is pretty remarkable when you consider how mean some high school students can be. It makes me wonder how we got to where we are today, when someone taking a knee is immediately regarded by many with disdain and hatred. Whether or not I agree with those who choose to kneel during the National Anthem is besides the point; my opinion of such doesnt really matter. It is their First Amendment right. In fact, if you insist that every single person must stand because you think it is the right thing to do, that smacks of totalitarianism, not democracy.

It is saddening that we are at a place in our country where we think there is only one true point of view, one valid stance, or one right way to live. This goes for both those who lean right or left we stopped listening to and trying to understand one another a long time ago. As a former counselor, I know when someones behavior is questionable, rather than just vilify the behavior, it is of utmost importance to ask why that behavior is happening. Once one can decipher the reason behind something, the behavior often makes more sense. This holds true whether we are talking about a fussy baby or a rebellious twenty-something.

Our founding fathers understood that this country would be diverse and should be a place where a citizen has the freedom to think and express themselves, as long as it didnt bring physical harm to anyone. We are the most speech-protected and expression-protected country in the world. It is a freedom that our soldiers have fought and died for. If we as a country can ever hope to get past this current time of extreme polarization, we must go back to the first amendment, remember what it says, and begin listening to each other.

Even when its hard. Even when it is the opposite of what we believe. Our countrys health depends on it.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

More:

Charlie and the First Amendment | Columns | theadanews.com - Theadanews

First Amendment rights on display in Rochester protests – Newswise

Posted on by

Protests in Rochester, NY continued this week for the eighth day after a federal lawsuit revealed police involvement in the death of Daniel Prude in March along with a subsequent alleged cover up of the incident. The police chief and members of police department leadership have since resigned.

Tyler Valeska is a fellow at the Cornell University Law School First Amendment Clinic, which handles litigation, advocacy and policy matters related to First Amendment cases for news outlets, journalists, researchers, and scholars.

Bio: https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty/bio_clinical_fellows.cfm?id=1049

Valeska says:

The right to peaceful assembly is enshrined in our First Amendment for good reason: democracy requires that the people be able to gather in opposition to unjust governmental activity. The recent protests in Rochester are a prime example of this principle in action.

The protests have been largely nonviolent, with some exceptions, and have forcefully voiced the communitys outrage with how Daniel Prude was killed. Protestors are constitutionally protected in their expressive demonstrations and cannot be targeted based on the content of that activity. Police should not engage in any counter-demonstration efforts that unnecessarily chill protestors speech, such as firing projectiles into crowds indiscriminately or without justification. And police should refrain from targeting journalists covering the protests in any way. Even brief detainments of journalists, as have been reported, can undermine the critical newsgathering function the press plays.

Were very much in a broader moment of increased protest activity, both nationally and globally. Weve seen an increase of over 10% in the number of protests worldwide in the last decade, and domestically weve had over 25,000 protests attended by over 13.5 million people since President Trumps inauguration. That comprises big and small cities and underscores the criticality of First Amendment protections in an era of mass political demonstrations.

Excerpt from:

First Amendment rights on display in Rochester protests - Newswise

Silent majority hasnt been silenced (letter to the editor) – SILive.com

Posted on by

The idea that conservative free speech is under attack has been bandied about a lot these days. You recently published a few letters from readers who argue that their First Amendment rights are being violated and would be further threatened by a Biden presidency.

This is confusing, especially as these letters are coming from Staten Islanders. Really? Where I live, I cant walk or drive a block without seeing varied displays of support for Trump (and Malliotakis) on homes and lawns, not to mention the Trump-a-Palooza that operates outside the Walgreens on Arthur Kill Road and Ridgewood Avenue on a regular basis.

Trump supporters are free to fly any flag they like, and many, many do. I support that freedom because I support the First Amendment. To say conservative free speech is being threatened is not only wrong, its based on a misunderstanding of the First Amendment. Until Congress passes a law that allows government agents to come knocking on your door and demand that you take down your Trump flag, your freedom of expression remains completely protected.

If you feel that you will be judged by others in your classrooms, workplaces and communities for voicing support of one candidate or another, thats unfortunate, but completely legal. People are allowed to disagree with you; it doesnt mean theyre threatening your free speech.

As I see it, the members of the so-called silent majority on Staten Island have never been very silent.

(Anthony Bongiorno is an Annadale resident.)

See the article here:

Silent majority hasnt been silenced (letter to the editor) - SILive.com

How First and Second Amendments Apply in Protests – Duke Today

Posted on by

Recent political protests and associated gun violence in Wisconsin have put a spotlight on vigilantism and the rights of Americans under the Constitution to both peaceably protest and bear arms freely.

These topics, inextricably linked these days, were the focus of a Tuesday discussion by two Duke law scholars who took part in a virtual media briefing with journalists.

Watch the briefing on YouTube.

Here are excerpts:

ON GOVERNMENT POWER UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Nicole Ligon, First Amendment expert

The government has the authority to make and enforce rules for public health, safety, welfare such as the shutdown orders earlier this year. At the same time, the First Amendment protects peoples rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble. But very few constitutional rights are absolute.

The government is able to regulate the time, place and manner of speech in public forums as long as the restriction is narrowly focused to serve a significant government interest.

ON RECENT PERVASIVE VIGILANTISM

Darrell Miller, law professor

We as a sort of society have somehow drifted to a position where persons can cross state boundaries, sometimes heavily armed, appear on the streets again heavily armed, and theres very little that can happen beforehand in terms of an ability to stop it, with sometimes violent and calamitous results.

We dont have hard statistical data on this, but it should be noted that this is quite in contrast to absolutely innocuous events that turn out very, very badly with the deaths of young black men in America. Tamir Rice in Cleveland wasnt even a teenager, he was a young boy out on a playground playing with a toy gun. The police rode up and shot him dead.

It seems like theres two trigger fingers. Theres the trigger finger for African-Americans with guns and theres the trigger finger for whites with guns.

ON INTERPRETING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Darrell Miller

Were operating in an environment in which the constitutional law is still not very clear as a matter of judicial rulings. Lots of people are making claims about what the Second Amendment does or does not permit in a highly tense environment.

Its always important to remember the Second Amendment is a floor, not a ceiling. It does not say whether a state, for example, can allow more guns in more places. That becomes a policy matter. There are tradeoffs. If you have lots of people in a highly charged political environment, armed, it makes the ordinary, peaceful process of politics much more difficult.

ON IMPOSING CURFEW ORDERS UNEQUALLY

Nicole Ligon

To the extent that curfew orders are being differentially enforced based on viewpoint, that is viewpoint discrimination. That is not going to be permitted by the First Amendment.

Youre not going to be able to differentially apply a curfew order to someone based on viewpoint. Youre not going to be able to say Black Lives Matter protesters cant be out past a certain time, but pro-police protester can.

ON USE OF LEGAL OBSERVERS DURING PROTESTS

Nicole Ligon

Legal observers are not unique to the US. They exist all over the world and frequently document police interactions with citizens. They serve a check function. The idea is that if they are there, maybe then there will be less biased reactions, there will be more clean arrests.

We have so many examples of important protests that have happened. Legal observers help to insure that protests occur in a safer way but also that everything is being documented and reported.

They act as these neutral third-party observers. Theres a really important role they serve for the commission of justice.

These are really critical roles, and theyre good for everyone.

ARE THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENTS INCOMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER?

Darrell Miller

I think there is at least a challenge with trying to reconcile these two things. The right in the Second Amendment is a right to keep and bear arms so people who think you have a right to have guns anywhere you happen to be, focus on the bear part. The right in the First Amendment is the right to peaceably assemble. You have the right to assemble in a way that does not disturb the peace.

The fundamental challenge is trying to square these two things where to some people, the mere presence of lethal weaponry in private hands at a protest terrifies and therefore is a potential challenge to the peace.

In a densely populated urban area where people are showing up with firearms, the norms and behaviors and expectations and the perceptions of what is happening are going to be totally different.

Do you fear going to a place to register your political views if you think there are going to be armed private individuals there?

Nicole Ligon

Its very likely that there is some element of chilling that will occur if you have protesters that are going to be met with counter-protesters who are bearing arms, brandishing weapons.

The question is not so much that these people have weapons, its why do they have them. Is it necessary to their speech for a counter-protester to be holding that weapon?

There is this element of chilling that could definitely occur. Thats something that really needs to be examined and looked at.

ON WHAT PRIVATE MILITIAS ARE ALLOWED TO DO IN PUBLIC

Darrell Miller

It really depends on what state youre in. Some states have a long track record of actually forbidding this kind of activity. For example, the state of Washington in the early part of the 20th century outlawed private organizations of armed men in part because what had happened was big moneyed interests were using private military to engage in labor suppression.

The bigger challenge here is that in some ways, a combination of beliefs about the Second Amendment and what it stands for, fairly generous laws about open carry and Stand Your Ground, and self-defense, and the low, low barriers to coordinating lots and lots of people through social media has made it plausible to have many, many armed individuals show up in the public square and not really be members of a private militia as much as a group of individuals with firearms that show up. It has the same, potentially pernicious effect in terms of risk of injury and risk of confrontation.

We have to understand that the tolerance or the norm of having your political position in the public square supported by arms is not something we think of in a well-ordered society. This is something you see in other countries that have fragile democracies.

ON WHAT CAN BE DONE TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION RIGHT NOW

Nicole Ligon

A greater appreciation for viewpoint diversity. These protests again are so incredibly personal, but I do wish as a society we werent so quick to say, I know what that protest is about and I dont support those people.

I think were doing a lot of blending of things we dont like and were conflating them with messages we decide offhand we dont agree with.

It has been really disappointing to see how some people talk about these Black Lives Matter protests. I really wish we did a better job of understanding why are these viewpoints necessary to be heard, where people are coming from and being able to differentiate who is really involved in a moment and who is opportunistically engaging in something that is completely separate.

Darrell Miller

Martin Luther King Jr. and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in its early years recognized violence in the public square, or threats of violence, has the damaging feature of undermining the message youre trying to send. If youre trying to send a message that police brutality is unacceptable, it undermines your message to engage in violence or threat of violence.

If youre concerned that the reopen (movement) is not happening fast enough, it feels like it undermines your moral position to not engage with others as equal citizens but to threaten violence in order to persuade others about your political position.

Faculty Participants

Nicole LigonNicole Ligon is a lecturing fellow and the supervising attorney of the First Amendment Clinic at Duke Law School, where she teaches First Amendment law. Before coming to Duke, she litigated First Amendment issues in private practice.

Darrell MillerDarrell Miller is a law professor who specializes incivil rights, constitutional law, civil procedure and state and local government law at Duke University. He also co-directs theCenter for Firearms Lawat Duke Law School. His scholarship on the Second Amendment has been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court.

--

Duke experts on a variety of topics related the election and politics can be found here.

Read the original here:

How First and Second Amendments Apply in Protests - Duke Today

White House cites 1st Amendment in defending Trump rallies that flout COVID restrictions – ABC News

Posted on by

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Wednesday defended President Donald Trump's crowded rallies that contradict local COVID-19 rules and his own administration's health guidance -- saying supporters are exercising their First Amendment rights.

She argued there is a double-standard when it comes to allowing crowds at protests -- hours before the Trump campaign announced airport hangar rallies in Nevada planned for this weekend have been cancelled.

After touting the president's coronavirus response in North Carolina, a reporter asked McEnany at an afternoon White House briefing why the president chose to host a rally there with thousands of people, many not wearing masks, on Tuesday night when the state has limited its outdoor gatherings to 50 people and mandated masks in public.

"People have a First Amendment right if they so choose to show up and express their political opinion in the form of a peaceful protest which is what the president has held and there is a real double standard here," McEnany said.

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany speaks during a briefing in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 9, 2020.

"CNN had on a guest, apparently a doctor, Rob Davidson, who said, 'Now, true, there are social distancing issues with regard to the protests around the country. However, this is a public health crisis. They are marching against systemic racism.' So if you're allowed to march in aggregate in those protests, you are also allowed to show up at a political rally. You have a First Amendment right in this country," she continued.

Shortly after the briefing, the Trump campaign announced its airport hangar rallies scheduled in Nevada this weekend had been cancelled, which presumably would have flouted the state's COVID-19 restrictions limiting public gatherings to 50 people, and said that Trump would instead still hold other events in the state.

The Trump campaign said 15,000 supporters showed up at its airport-hanger rally on Tuesday night, and most attendees were packed together and not wearing masks, despite the state's restrictions that outdoor gathering shouldn't exceed 50 persons.

The White House coronavirus task force recently identified North Carolina as having the 18th highest rate of cases in the U.S. and recommended enforced social distancing and mask mandates -- but McEnany vehemently defended the gathering on Wednesday.

"If people want to show up and express their political views, that's their choice to do so. We hand out masks, we encourage the individuals to wear those masks. A lot of people did, I was in North Carolina last night and saw it. We give out hand sanitizer. But at the end of the day, if you want to join a peaceful protest you can do so," she said.

Fans cheer during a Make America Great Again Rally for President Trump at the Smith Reynolds Regional Airport in Winston-Salem, NC., Sept. 8, 2020.

The government's top expert on infectious diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, in an interview with CBS Wednesday was asked if it was frustrating to see thousands of people packed in at Trump's campaign rallies, with no social distancing and few masks -- and replied "yes."

"Well, yes, it is. And I've said that often. That situation is -- we want to set an example, because we know, we know that when you do four or five typical kind of public health measures -- masks, physical distance, avoiding crowds, making sure you do most things outdoors versus indoors - those are the kind of things that turn around surges and also prevent us from getting surges. So I certainly would like to see a universal wearing of masks," Fauci said.

Trump on Tuesday night also accused the state's Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, who is up for reelection, of imposing coronavirus restrictions to hurt Trump's re-election chances and urged North Carolinians to vote instead for the Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest.

"Your state should be open. It should be open," Trump told an enthusiastic crowd in Winston-Salem.

Supporters cheer as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event at Smith Reynolds Regional Airport in Winston-Salem, N.C., Sept. 8, 2020.

The president was scheduled to hold airport rallies in Reno and Las Vegas this weekend but both were cancelled, the campaign announced Wednesday afternoon.

Trump 2020 campaign Nevada co-chair Adam Paul Laxalt said in a tweet it was the Nevada governor who cancelled the rallies, in a tweet calling the move "outrageous" and "unprecedented" -- but the state's governor said Wednesday his office still hadn't received any planning information from the campaign.

Trump 2020 communications director Tim Murtaugh said in a statement that Trump will still travel to Nevada on Saturday and Sunday.

Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak earlier Wednesday tweeted that his office has "had no involvement or communication with the event organizers or potential hosts regarding the proposed campaign events advertised by the Trump campaign" but suggested a massive rally like the one seen in North Carolina would also not comply with his state's COVID-19 restrictions put in place because of White House guidance.

"Current statewide emergency directives include mandatory face coverings, limitations on public and private gatherings to no more than 50 people, and other measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19," Sisolak wrote.

"The Nevada-specific White House recommendations have consistently included recommendations to limit the size of gatherings for weeks now," he added.

ABC News' Ben Gittleson, Jordyn Phelps, Will Steakin, Justin Gomez, Terrance Smith, and Soo Rin Kim contributed to this report.

Go here to see the original:

White House cites 1st Amendment in defending Trump rallies that flout COVID restrictions - ABC News

Protesters have a right to speak, but shouting won’t get people in power to listen | Opinion – Tennessean

Posted on by

Sen. Kerry Roberts, Guest Columnist Published 5:01 a.m. CT Sept. 11, 2020

Protesters block the legislator's garage entrance, troopers arrest one protester and some protesters block traffic on MLK Blvd. Nashville Tennessean

Tennessee state Sen. Kerry Roberts: It is easy to champion someones First Amendment right when we are on their side, but not when we disagree.

Imagine walking downtown on a beautiful summer evening to meet some friends for dinner. Suddenly, an angry mob of protesters chases you down, surrounds you, and starts screaming at you! Because you are accompanying an elderly individual, you can only walk so fast.

The protesters keep you surrounded, shouting every step of the way. After a few minutes that seem like hours, you reach your destination and are finally able to escape the mob.

If that happened to you, would you defend the right of the protesters to do that?

That did happen to me and I shared that experience in both the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. But not, as some in the national media reported, in order for me to complain about noise or the act of protesting. It is just the opposite: I defended the right of the protesters to do what they did.

At the very heart of our republic is our constitutions First Amendment, that protects the right of people to say what they want to say. Even if we are the target even if we do not agree.

It is easy to champion someones First Amendment right when we are on their side. However, when we disagree, or when we are the object of protesters, we often become strangely silent about their rights. It is understandably difficult to defend someone yelling at you when you are surrounded by a mob.

After defending the protesters right to free speech, I pointed out one of lifes great lessons: if the goal is for meaningful dialogue to take place, shouting is not the way to achieve that goal.

Hear more Tennessee Voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

In everyday life, there is nothing controversial about that statement. Most of us learn at an early age that shouting does not tend to accomplish our goals. Shouting will get us heard, but is anyone listening? Is a dialogue taking place? Are meaningful thoughts exchanged? Are ideas discussed? Are problems identified? Do solutions emerge? If not, the shouting is just noise; noise that is often tuned out, discarded, or ignored.

The right to speak does not guarantee that someone is listening.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

What does it take for one person to listen to another? We tend to listen to people we respect. My comments were part of a larger conversation involving a bill being presented by one of my Democraticcolleagues.

The presenting Senator and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Even so, we decided early on not to let our ideological differences prevent us from being friends; we respect each other.

Consequently, we listen to each other and have intellectually honest conversations. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we dont. But our doors and our minds are open to each other.

Being surrounded by a mob was a tense and threatening situation. Even so, I absolutely defend a protesters right to free speech. That said, how a protester uses that right will largely determine whether anyone is listening. Any voice loud enough can be heard, but isnt the goal of protesting to have someone listen?

Tennessee state Senator Kerry Roberts, R-Springfield,chairs the Senate Committee for Government Operations, which provides legislative oversight of the State of Tennessees departments, agencies, boards, commissions, and councils.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2020/09/11/defending-first-amendment-rights-tennessee-senator-kerry-roberts/5762770002/

See original here:

Protesters have a right to speak, but shouting won't get people in power to listen | Opinion - Tennessean

Assange targeted for political views in terrifying threat to First Amendment, expert witnesses tell hearing – WSWS

Posted on by

By Laura Tiernan and Thomas Scripps 10 September 2020

Julian Assange is being targeted for prosecution under the Espionage Act for his political opposition to US-led wars and government secrecy, an expert witness told extradition hearings yesterday at the Old Bailey. Under current US-UK treaty arrangements, extradition for political offences is barred.

Paul Rogers, Emeritus Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University, a political scientist and author of nine books on the war on terror, who has published extensively on the Afghan and Iraq wars, testified via video link during the morning session.

Rogers explained how WikiLeaks revelations about US conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan had exposed the fiction of success promoted by the US government from 2001. His written testimony cited US academic Yochai Benkler that WikiLeaks was essentially a networked version of the Pentagon Papers which exposed US military intervention in Vietnam between 1945 and 1967.

The US had given a firm impression that Afghanistan was under control and that victory had been achieved, Rogers said. What the WikiLeaks revelations did was to confirm the view of some analysts that in fact the war had gone more or less wrong from the start. So the impression which was being given to the general public and the international community that this was a success, was clearly not the case, and the evidence published by WikiLeaks really confirmed that in a degree of detail that was not otherwise available.

On Iraq, Rogers said, From the start, the United States believed that the war in Iraq was going to be a very significant success. Within three weeks, the statue in that Baghdad square had come down and three weeks later George W. Bush gave his famous mission accomplished speech.

During the first year or two, there had been very clear evidence not available to the public that the war was going wrong. WikiLeaks was able to confirm much of that in 2011 and this had led to people reappraising the whole of the Iraq war.

WikiLeaks exposure of civilian casualties had played possibly the most important role in catalysing public opposition to both wars. The British NGO Iraq Body Count (IBC) had been doing very good work on this, but WikiLeaks added hugely to that and if I remember rightly the information they provided in various war logs was an additional 15,000 civilians killed, in addition to those carefully recorded by IBC. Thats probably one of the most significant parts of the whole appraisal, bringing to the public domain an unfortunate and very distressing aspect of the whole war.

Underscoring the implications of US-UK efforts to silence Assange, Rogers said that due to WikiLeaks exposures there had been a much greater caution by western countries, particularly by the United States and the UK, in the willingness to go to war at an early stage.

Assange was, someone with quite strong political views, Rogers said. Edward Fitzgerald QC for the defence read from a speech Assange delivered to a Stop the War rally at Londons Trafalgar Square in August 2011. Assange said that WikiLeaks had revealed, the everyday squalor and barbarity of war, information such as the individual deaths of over 130,000 people in Iraq, individual deaths that were kept secret by the US military who denied that they have counted the deaths of civilians Instead, I want to tell you what I think is the way that wars come to be and that wars can come undone. It should lead us also to an understanding because if wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth.

In 2012, Assange had founded the WikiLeaks Party in Australia, contesting elections to the federal senate on a platform of human rights, transparency, and accountability. Rogers said, At the root of this is a libertarian view of the need for individuals and public groups to produce a much greater degree of transparency and accountability Its a very clear political position.

Assanges political opinions, especially in relation to the Chelsea Manning disclosures, had placed WikiLeaks on a collision course with successive US administrations and at the crosshairs of dispute with the philosophy of the Trump administration.

James Lewis QC for the US government made several attempts during cross-examination to establish that Assange does not have political views and that WikiLeaks publications were not politically motivated. Rogers countered, showing the broader political context for the indictments, namely the Trump Administrations war on journalism and free speech, and the history of war over the last twenty years.

Rogers sought to draw a sharp distinction in his testimony between the actions of the Obama and Trump White House toward Assange, emphasising the Democrats alleged decision to not indict the WikiLeaks publisher. Lewis seized on this claim, stressing it was the Obama Administration which had launched the Grand Jury investigation into Assange. Lewis said there was no evidence Obama had decided not to prosecute Assange. He pointed to decisions by US federal judges in 2013 and 2015 that the investigation was being continued.

Lewis then challenged Rogers status as an expert witness, alleging bias and political sympathy for Assange. An Honorary Fellow at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, Rogers has taught senior defence personnel for 38 years, lecturing on international security at the highest levels of the British state, including the Home Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, MI5 and UK Special Forces. He countered that some of Assanges views he found objectionable.

The defence called Trevor Timm as an expert witness in the afternoon session. Timm is a qualified lawyer and the co-founder and executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation in the US. He submitted a statement testifying that the unprecedented charges against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks can be considered to be the most terrifying threat to the First Amendment in the 21st century and they would explicitly criminalise national security journalism. Timm elaborated in questioning that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein [the Watergate reporters] could have been charged under sections of the indictment against Assange.

The prosecution attempted to challenge Timms status as an expert, on grounds with chilling implications. Timm was asked whether he would feel threatened if this prosecution went ahead, having described the case as the thin end of the wedge to prosecute journalists. He replied that he worked on behalf of journalists in the United States, believed their rights are under threat and so felt fear on behalf of them. He added that, since the Espionage Act is written so broadly even people reading the newspaper containing classified information could potentially be violating it, everybody should be fearful of this case.

On this basis, Lewis argued he was not impartial, as demanded by his status as an expert witness, since there was a conflict of interest! That is, if the US government attempts to criminalise journalism, then anyone with a commitment to a free press should be barred from passing comment in court. The argument recalls the decision by the law Lords to overturn and earlier House of Lords ruling denying Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet sovereign immunity by citing the possible biased verdict due to the involvement of Lord Hoffmann, a director and chairman of Amnesty International Charity Ltd. Having already set a precedent for denying the accused basic legal rights to a defence, the Assange case is now stripping principled individuals rights to serve as expert witnesses in court.

The prosecution again tried to claim that Assange was not a journalist, citing the shameful September 2011 statement of the Guardian, New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde renouncing their work with WikiLeaks and condemning the organisation.

Lewis said that since the US government stated Assange was no journalist in its affidavits, they could not be accused of seeking to criminalise journalism.

Timm answered that it does not matter whether the government considers Julian Assange a journalist Nobody needs the New York Times to issue them a press pass to act as a journalist or receive First Amendment rights. This goes all the way back to the countrys founding with famous pamphleteers [Assange] was engaging in journalistic behaviour, he was acting as a publisher, and thats the right of everybody.

The final exchanges of the day dealt with procedural issues which underscored the deeply unfair treatment of the defence in this hearing. Lewis complained to the judge after learning his time for cross examination was limited to one or two hours for each witnesscompared to the half hour afforded the defence for chief examination. Baraitser refused to grant him unlimited time but gave him the opportunity to propose his own revised limits.

The hearing continues today.

Go here to see the original:

Assange targeted for political views in terrifying threat to First Amendment, expert witnesses tell hearing - WSWS