Court Says First Amendment Protects Ex-Wife’s Right To Publicly Discuss Her Ex-Husband On Her Personal Blog – Techdirt

from the [gestures-at-Dr.-Velyvis]-anyone-can-start-a-blog-on-Wordpress dept

What appears to be a very combative divorce between two very combative people in Marin County, California has reached the point of criminal charges. Not justifiable criminal charges, but criminal charges all the same.

Melissanne Velyvis has been very publicly documenting everything about her divorce proceedings and her ex-husband's (Dr. John Velyvis) alleged domestic abuse. In an apparent attempt to silence her from discussing her personal life (which necessarily involved discussing his personal life), John approached a judge and secured a restraining order forbidding his ex-wife from publishing "disparaging comments." Here's Judge Beverly Wood making her feelings clear about Melissanne's divorce-focused blogging:

I really came into this hearing not wanting to issue this order and really hoping that I wouldnt have to issue this order, but it has to stop, Wood said, according to a transcript of the proceeding. It really has to stop. And I need to tell you that if you dont stop this, this can become a criminal matter. I dont think you want to go there.

The order was expansive. It not only banned future "disparaging" posts but ordered the removal of everything fitting that description Melissanne had posted in the past.

I am making an order that you remove any posting on social media on Internet regarding Dr. John Velyvis and that you not post anything on social media regarding Dr. Velyvis or his children directly or indirectly. [...] I am going to order that you prevent disseminating any information about Dr. Velyvis to any parties absent a court order or subpoena.

Melissanne did not stop posting. Last December, Marin County prosecutors filed criminal charges over the violation of the restraining order. The prosecutor argued the prior restraint was Constitutional because the alleged harassment targeted by the order was unlawful.

Melissanne challenged the order. Seven months after being criminally charged for discussing her divorce and her ex-husband online, the restraining order has been dismantled by another county judge.

[Judge Roy] Chernus ruled on the petition on July 27. He agreed that the prior court order was an unconstitutional block on free speech, and said the criminal charge could not stand.

In California, a court must find that extraordinary circumstances exist in order to restrain the defendants right to share independently obtained information about another adult with other willing adults, Chernus wrote. The fact the public sharing of these comments might be humiliating to the targeted adult, or cause emotional distress or even cause harm to the subjects professional reputation, does not rise to the level of a compelling or extraordinary circumstance.

The ruling [PDF] (thanks, Volokh Conspiracy!) makes it clear the order is only unconstitutional as far as it applies to Melissanne's online postings. Other elements regarding "unwanted contact" still apply.

The court cites a handful of other divorce proceedings in which similar restraining orders were found unconstitutional. Just because one of the parties may feel harassed by the other party's discussion of ongoing acrimony doesn't make it unlawful for the party to engage in this speech. Unless the speech falls into narrow categories (like defamation or true threats), the speech is Constitutionally protected.

There is nothing on the face of the complaint, or in the Family Court judge's judicially-noticed findings of fact to indicate any of defendant's communications were previously found to be defamatory.

As stated in the DVPO, the Family Law judge found that defendant's statements about Dr. Velyvis were intentionally harassing, damaged his reputation and interfered with his personal relationships.

Based on the authorities discussed above, these reasons are insufficient to justify such a broad prohibition. The court finds that the portion of the DVPO restraining defendant from posting on the internet or communicating any information about defendant's ex-husband or his children is impermissibly overbroad and constitutes an invalid prior restraint under the federal and California constitutions.

Since the order is invalid, so is the criminal charge.

Violation of this portion of the DVPO, therefore, is not an actionable offense.

The protective order can still be violated but it can no longer be violated simply by posting content Dr. John Velyvis feels is disparaging or personally harmful. The First Amendment -- and California's own Constitution -- protects the right of divorce participants to make each other as miserable as possible. Which is as it should be, since divorce is just as much an American tradition as free speech itself.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, california, divorce, free speech, john velyvis, marin, melissanne velyvis

Read this article:

Court Says First Amendment Protects Ex-Wife's Right To Publicly Discuss Her Ex-Husband On Her Personal Blog - Techdirt

TikToking away at the first amendment | Columns | jcsentinel.com – Jackson County Sentinel

If you are like me, you were vaguely aware of the TikTok app before it was a word thrown around on the news.

TikTok is an app that is primarily used to watch short, funny videos created by people around the world. Users can film themselves lip-syncing to music, acting out various sketches and trends or creating some other kind of short-form original content. It currently has over 100 million American users.

My 11-year old loves to watch the original videos created by the kids on there. The app has helped keep her entertained during the pandemic as she watched other kids do creative dances and songs.

For months, President Trump has been complaining about TikTok and its security risks for users of the app. The administration advocated banning the app because it says its Chinese owners could be required to co-operate with the Chinese government and turn over information about its users.

He recently issued an executive order calling for a complete halt of all US transactions with TikToks parent company by September 20.

Microsoft has been in talks with the company to discuss buying its US operations, but no deal is yet in place.

TikTok is owned by a private Chinese company called ByteDance. It does not operate in China and says user data is stored on servers inside the United States. They also say they are prepared to sue to stop the sale of their company.

Trumps order lists a variety of concerns like data collection and the possibility of disinformation by the Chinese government.

TikTok has reportedly been under a national security review for almost a year by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. So far, there has been no public release of their findings on the company.

The app collects information including geolocation tags, unique device identifiers, and contents of in-app messages in order to track and predict consumer trends.

The practice is neither illegal nor uncommon for social network platforms. Facebook collects personal data and makes ad profiles based on users political and religious affiliations. According to a recent Washington Post article, they can even track users when they are not using the app. They were accused of sharing user information to third party companies for ad revenue in 2018.

Six other popular apps that collect data about your appearance, browsing history and geographical location are Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp, Google, Amazon and Flickr.

Any of those companies could be selling data which ultimately ends up in the hands of the Chinese or the Russians. Could be, being the operative words.

The only difference is the owner of TikTok is based in China, who Trump has an ongoing feud with. Some suggest Trumps goal with the ban is a political win against China.

His current interest in TikTok began after a less than sold-out crowd at his Tulsa, Oklahoma political rally. It was rumored that an anti-Trump troll campaign originated on TikTok and was responsible for the small crowd.

A recent CIA assessment reportedly found no evidence that the app was used by Chinese spy agencies to intercept data, according to the New York Times.

Allowing the government to ban TikTok would present a problem with our constitutional right of free speech. If they get away with this ban, it could set a precedent for digital censorship.

Perhaps this is just the beginning of a campaign to do that. Facebook and Twitter have recently added fact checks and even removed some of Trumps videos and tweets they claim contain false or misleading information.

No American president has ever invoked emergency powers against a piece of software.

Critics worry that Trumps actions could set a dangerous precedent in how the government tries to control the way citizens use the internet. Restricting internet use results in peoples inability to speak their mind. When countries like the United States do it, it erodes our democracy.

The irony of a TikTok ban is noteworthy because removing TikTok would be similar to the actions taken by China which does not allow Facebook, Twitter and Google because it censors what its citizens can do online. Now the Chinese can accuse us of the same thing.

So far, we have seen no evidence of the governments case, only accusations and speculation.

Banning an app in a country built around individual freedoms should require more proof than allegations made by an administration that consistently provides inconsistent and often misleading information. Big tech companies that entertain, inform and allow millions of people to share opinions should not be banned in a democracy where its citizens are free to express themselves.

Changes in federal privacy laws to require better standards for security and transparency would be more beneficial.

Protections, not restrictions, are the American way.

See the article here:

TikToking away at the first amendment | Columns | jcsentinel.com - Jackson County Sentinel

‘An attack on the First Amendment’: Voting rights groups sue postmaster general Louis DeJoy to reverse post office reforms – MSN UK

Provided by The Independent

Voting rights groups are suing the head of the postal service to reverse reforms which have caused backlogs and delays across the country months before an election in which record numbers are expected to vote by mail.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Maryland, accuses Louis DeJoy of weaponising the United States Postal Service to disenfranchise Americans who choose to vote by mail.

Mr DeJoy, a major donor to Donald Trump who was named head of the postal service in May, has overseen a raft of changes to working practices since his arrival including the removal of mail processing machines and a ban on overtime which caused severe delays to mail delivery.

Following an outcry from voting rights advocates and Democrats who said the delays amounted to election interference, he announced that he would suspend the reforms until after the November vote "to avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail.

But the lawsuit calls for a full reversal of the changes to working practices including the removal of mail processing machines and a ban on overtime which caused severe delays to mail delivery.

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has wreaked havoc across the country with reckless policies intended to disrupt the timely delivery of mail just weeks in advance of a general election, said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which is pursuing the case. Without question, DeJoy is weaponising the United States Postal Service (USPS) to disenfranchise Americans who choose to vote by mail amid an unprecedented pandemic gripping the nation.

Ms Clarke added that Mr DeJoys statement vowing to suspend changes rings hollow in the absence of remedial action taken to address the damage that his actions have caused.

Mr DeJoy claimed his reforms were long-planned and unrelated to the election. But the changes came at the same time president Trump has increased attacks on the validity of mail-in ballots and held up emergency funding for the postal service because he did not want to see their use expanded.

The suit was filed on behalf of voting rights groups the National Urban League, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters US against Postmaster General Louis DeJoy and the United States Postal Service.

It alleges that Mr DeJoy followed through on Mr Trumps publicly stated desire to undercut the delivery of mail ballots by weakening the postal service, which violates the constitution.

The drastic and disruptive changes to the Postal Service by the Trump administration have been an attack on every Americans right to vote and their First Amendment right to free speech and they must be rolled back definitively with more than just a press release, said Karen Hobert Flynn, President of Common Cause.

Following weeks of attacks against the post office and its ability to handle mail-in ballots in the upcoming election, Mr Trump offered a frank explanation last week about why he was blocking emergency funding for the service in the next coronavirus stimulus bill.

They need that money in order to make the Post Office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots, he told Fox Business. But if they dont get those two items, that means you cant have universal mail-in voting, because theyre not equipped to have it.

Mr Trump has blocked much-needed funding for the postal service to help it deal with the pressures of the coronavirus.

House Democrats have called for $25 billion for the post office as part of a $3 trillion coronavirus relief package. That package would also include $3.6bn for election funding to help states meet the demands of holding a vote during the pandemic. The White House has rejected that proposal, citing Mr Trumps false claims that granting the funding would lead to fraud.

Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell was one of more than 170 House members to sign a letter calling for the reversal of the reforms last week.

I think the motivation is quite clear. Donald Trump sees mail-in balloting as a threat to his reelection, and so he's seeking to dismantle the post office, he told The Independent.

Mr DeJoy is scheduled to testify in both chambers of Congress in the coming days, starting off with an appearance at the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Friday.

Video: Top Trump homeland security appointments improper, U.S. government watchdog says (Reuters)

Top Trump homeland security appointments improper, U.S. government watchdog says

Click to expand

UP NEXT

Continue reading here:

'An attack on the First Amendment': Voting rights groups sue postmaster general Louis DeJoy to reverse post office reforms - MSN UK

Will past comments hurt NYs case against the NRA? – Hornell Evening Tribune

NY AG Letitia James called the NRA a 'terrorist organization.'

ALBANY Two years ago, Letitia James then a candidate for New York attorney general made a provocative campaign promise.

The National Rifle Association, the nation's preeminent guns-rights group, had a "poisonous agenda" that was "directly antithetical" to New York's tough gun-control laws, James said at the time.

She vowed to investigate the powerful and controversial group to determine whether it should keep its charitable status, making it the first plank of her plan to combat gun violence.

"The NRA is an organ of deadly propaganda masquerading as a charity for public good," the plan read. "Its agenda is set by gun-makers who think arming teachers is a better idea than making it harder for kids to get military grade guns."

Two years later, James now the attorney general made good on her pledge, filing a lawsuit this month alleging a wide array of fraud and corruption at the NRA. James says it is enough to warrant shutting down the 148-year-old organization.

The NRA wasted no time trying to use James' campaign comments against her, filing a counter suit accusing the Democrat of displaying a preconceived outcome that guided her investigation into the organization and violated its First Amendment rights.

Ultimately, it will be up to the state courts to determine whether James' prior remarks will hurt her headline-grabbing case, which seeks to dissolve the NRA and oust longtime executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre.

"It's never helpful for any prosecutor to show any bias against a potential target in advance of litigation," said Sean Delany [Copy checked] , a Westchester attorney who led the Charities Bureau of the New York attorney general's office in the late 1990s.

"But given the amount of wrongdoing alleged in the complaint, which draws a picture of a cesspool of fraud, it's hard to believe that the attorney general won't be able to prevail if she can prove even a fraction of those allegations."

James has been critical of the NRA

James, then the New York City public advocate and a former City Council member, made no secret of her disdain for the NRA during her 2018 campaign.

Along with the comments sprinkled in her anti-gun-violence plan, James also called the NRA a "criminal enterprise" and a "terrorist organization" in interviews and a debate prior to her November 2018 election, saying an investigation into the group would be her "top issue" if elected.

"The NRA holds [itself] out as a charitable organization, but in fact, [it] really [is] a terrorist organization," James said in a 2018 interview with Ebony magazine.

Those comments, along with the quotes from her anti-gun-violence campaign, are at the center of the NRA's counter suit, which seems to severely limit the scope of James' ongoing investigation and force the state to pay the organization for damages.

In short, the NRA claims James unfairly targeted the organization for investigation because she disagrees with its efforts to stop gun-control laws, violating its free-speech and equal-protection rights.

"James's threatened, and actual, regulatory reprisals are a blatant and malicious retaliation campaign against the NRA and its constituents based on her disagreement with the content of their speech," according to the NRA's lawsuit.

Is the NRA trying to distract?

James contends the NRA is simply trying to take away from the widespread fraud and corruption alleged in her lawsuit.

The suit, filed Aug. 6 in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, lays out a series of highly detailed, specific accusations across more than 160 pages. The NRA, LaPierre and three other current and former organization leaders are named as defendants.

Much of it focuses on LaPierre, who is accused of using the longstanding organization to enrich himself and support his family's lavish lifestyle, wasting millions of dollars on private travel including eight trips to the Bahamas and use of a yacht with four staterooms, a jet boat and two jet skis.

LaPierre is also accused of engineering a post-employment contract without NRA board approval that guarantees him a lifetime salary even if he's let go. That contract is currently worth about $17 million, according to James' lawsuit.

LaPierre and the NRA are also accused of hiding spending in a number of ways, including by having Ackerman McQueen the NRA's longtime advertising firm cover travel and entertainment expenses before billing the organization for reimbursement.

That allegedly fraudulent relationship allowed LaPierre to file false personal tax returns, according to the lawsuit.

The NRA's counter suit is just an attempt to divert attention away from the organization's "deep-rooted" fraud, James said in a statement.

"The facts speak for themselves, and our lawsuit will continue undeterred," she said.

James has civil jurisdiction to investigate and regulate the NRA because the organization was chartered in New York way back in 1871, when it was formed to promote marksmanship.

Pursuing the dissolution of a charity is the most severe form of punishment the attorney general's office can pursue against a not-for-profit organization. And the NRA is the most prominent organization the state has sought that punishment against.

NRA known to defend aggressively

Ted De Barbieri, an associate professor at Albany Law School who specializes in nonprofit law, said the NRA has a history of aggressively defending itself against litigation.

Using James' campaign comments in its counter suit fits into that playbook, he said.

"Based on what I know of the NRA's litigation strategy in the past, they are very aggressive," he said. "They're going to use all the legal tools they have available."

James is not the first New York official the NRA has accused of violating its First Amendment rights by highlighting critical comments that preceded state action.

In 2018, the NRA filed a lawsuit against the Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state Department of Financial Services over state actions that dissuaded major insurers from doing business with the organization.

Later in the year, U.S. District Judge Thomas McAvoy dismissed much of the NRA's lawsuit. But he allowed the NRA to continue with its claim that Cuomo and the state agency violated its freedom-of-speech rights by making direct and implied threats against insurers that were in business with the organization.

"The allegations ... are sufficient to make out plausible First Amendment freedom-of-speech claims," McAvoy wrote at the time.

James said her investigation's conclusions are based on the NRA's action and clear violations of New York's charity laws not her position on gun control.

"This is not a question of the moment that I've been waiting for," she said Aug. 6, the day she filed her lawsuit.

"This is a question again of following the facts and applying the law, and when you apply the law, the only conclusion you can come to is that these four individual defendants and the NRA and all of its directors and officers violated the law."

See original here:

Will past comments hurt NYs case against the NRA? - Hornell Evening Tribune

Ending the Campfire Prohibition on the Chain Lakes Makes No Sense – – Adirondack Almanack

The 19,000-acre Essex Chain of Lakes between Indian Lake and Newcomb certainly has received lots of public attention. In 2007, it was a major part of the Finch, Pruyn and Company sale of 161,000-acres to the Adirondack Nature Conservancy, with help from the Open Space Institute.

Today, the first amendment to the Essex Chain of Lakes Primitive Area Unit Management Plan is up for public comment. Should it be approved? Before tackling that question, let us review.

What an earthquake the 2007 Finch, Pruyn sale felt like, with many aftershocks. It promised an exciting time for land conservation and for advocates for open space conservation like me and the nonprofits I worked with. It still is. It was a scary time for Finch employees, contractors, leaseholders, and many townspeople, including guides tied closely to the land and its future uses. The consequences of that land sale are still playing out and will continue to.

Also, it was a time to recall a longer continuum of debate about the Adirondack Park and what the Park should be and look like. During the 1950s people like my wilderness mentor Paul Schaefer had passionate exchanges with people like Lyman Beeman, then chairman of Finch, Pruyn, about the future of Finchs vast Adirondack holdings, about the practice of forestry, about wilderness, what was it and whether wilderness management of the Forest Preserve was desirable, achievable, worthy.

The National Wilderness Preservation Act passed in 1964, inspired by our forever wild State Constitution. State Lands (Forest Preserve) classified Wilderness, Primitive, Canoe, Wild Forest, Intensive Use came to pass in 1972 via the Adirondack Park Agency Act and its offshoot, the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan.

Paul Schaefer died in 1996. Even in his final year, he was still researching and speaking with Bob Flacke of Finch, Pruyns board (now also deceased) about how some of the Finch, Pruyn lands could be protected from development and eventually added to the Forest Preserve. In 2007, Pauls goal was amply fulfilled. In 2009 more than 90,000 acres of the 161,000 was sold with a conservation easement that prevented second home development but allowed continued forest harvesting and management, still ongoing. In 2012, Governor Cuomo and his DEC began to acquire on our behalf 65,000-acres for the Forest Preserve, where forest harvesting is prohibited by the NYS Constitutions Article XIV. The Essex Chain of Lakes were among those first acquisitions.

Land classification

Considering the miles of former logging roads, the history of mechanized uses, and the history of float plane landings on certain of the lakes, DEC initially proposed a Wild Forest classification for the Essex Chain of Lakes. The public immediately engaged in debate and hearings. Adirondack Wild pushed hard for a Wilderness classification, for good reasons we felt. Certain APA members, notably Dick Booth, and certain APA staff, argued effectively that the rare wetland plants, the extent of those wetlands fringing on the lakes, the 19,000-acres, the remote feel, the exquisite ecological and recreational values all pointed to greater resource protection than Wild Forest would permit. Ultimately, the classification decision was Primitive to allow the float plane uses to continue yet for most the lakes to be managed as near to Wilderness as possible. A Wild Forest snowmobile corridor would run between the Primitive Hudson River and the Chain Lakes.

Then in 2014-15 came the Essex Chain Unit Management Plan. Further exceptions to wilderness management were made at the insistence of the DEC, with APA members Booth and Lussi dissenting. With support from Governor Cuomo, DEC led APA by the nose to accommodate more recreational uses, such as bicycling. Regardless of how ill-suited these former logging roads, now trails, were for family bike touring an exception was carved out to authorize bicycling in this one Primitive area (bikes are not authorized in Wilderness, or on non-mechanized trails in all other Primitive areas).

Then, DEC wanted motorized vehicles to maintain those trails for bicycling and that, also, was authorized by Master Plan amendment in what Adirondack Wild and others viewed as an especially egregious violation of the State Land Master Plan.

From our viewpoint, yet even more egregious violations of law by DEC (and APA) were to follow, most prominently by allowing pre-existing uses to continue on Forest Preserve, including snowmobile corridors and bridges within Scenic River areas. These were authorized by the UMP and then by DEC permit. We took the agencies to court over the UMP and the permit. Some of those core issues went all the way up to the Court of Appeals. Adirondack Wild and Protect eventually lost that one 4-3 in 2019.

Proposed changes

Now in mid-2020, during a pandemic, comes the very first amendment to the Essex Chain of Lakes UMP. What is our DEC now proposing as a change to the UMP and why? In our view, a continuation of the pattern: still more accommodation to recreational uses at the expense of natural resource protection. And what is Adirondack Wild doing? Speaking up for the Essex Chain Lakes UMP that we took to court earlier. Who would have thought it?

The Essex Chain UMP of 2016 may have led to serious violations of the law in our view, but at least the document was thorough and backed by site specific information and data. This proposed amendment is anything but thorough. It amounts to guesswork. The data and rationale for it are entirely anecdotal, and the DEC admits it.

The proposed 2020 amendment would end the current prohibition of open campfires within 500 feet of the shoreline of the Essex Chain of Lakes, classified Primitive. The DECs amendment justifies the proposed action on three grounds: 1. Local community demand for increased visitor use; 2. it is believed that a portion of the low public use is due to the waterfront campfire prohibition based upon anecdotal negative feedback; 3. the Adirondack region has relatively little observational data regarding the impacts of campfires on natural resources.

As to reason # 1, local community demand for increased visitor use is a perfectly legitimate demand so long as it is not the driving force behind this amendment, which it appears to be.

As to reason # 2, the statement that It is believed that a portion of the low public use is due to the waterfront campfire prohibition is hardly an actionable basis for campfires which have known negative impacts to the natural resources along these shores, as detailed in the 2016 UMP.

Further, I suspect (and DEC ought to suspect) that a more fundamental reason why visitation has been below expectations over the past six years is the long 12-mile, remote drive from State Route 28 N to Deer Pond parking area. Visitor deterrence is largely the result of a long, slow drive on this remote road network.

As to reason # 3, it is contradicted by the UMP itself. The UMP devotes considerable attention on page 3 to the ecological significance of the Essex Chain shoreline, and the impacts that campfires have on natural resources, especially understory trees and course woody debris removal from firewood gathering. In fact, the decision to classify the Essex Chain of Lakes as Primitive was due, in part, to the ecological significance of the lakes and their ecologically rare and valuable, fringing wetlands.

Simplified management?

DEC adds this additional rationale for the amendment, that removing the campfire prohibition around these shorelines will contribute to simplified management and ease in visitor understanding of the area. That makes no sense. The public grasps the reasons described in the UMP why campfires along a sensitive lake shoreline are prohibited to protect the soil and vegetation and water quality. Visitors generally understand that the very act of searching for and obtaining firewood or carrying it into a campsite and burning things like trash in it can cause serious environmental damage to sensitive shorelines. They wish to be partners with DEC in protecting these beautiful, vulnerable lakeshores by using a camp stove.

What Forest Ranger will devote themselves to monitor the dozen or so primitive tent sites for abuses? Who will then clamp down again and prohibit campfires once environmental damage is found? Remediating damage after-the-fact instead of preventing it strikes me as the opposite of simplified management.

Given severe DEC staff shortages, future monitoring and tent site remediation along these shores appears to me overly expensive and unrealistic. The departments fundamental legal responsibility here, as elsewhere, is to proactively protect natural resources. In the 2016 UMP DEC presents documented evidence of the actual damage caused by firewood gathering at primitive tent sites elsewhere in the Adirondack Forest Preserve. That evidence led to the campfire prohibition. That prohibition ought to remain in place.

Another amendment

The second amendment to the Essex Chain UMP involves the former Gooley Farmhouse site north of Indian Lake and is similarly unsupported by factual data. The 2016 UMP called for that structure to be retained for a range of potential uses even though its perpetuation would be a violation of the forever wild provision of our state constitution. Time and neglect caused the structure to fall apart. Now, the amendment calls for its complete removal. In its place DEC is encouraging parking for cars and trucks with space for up to six horse trailers. Horse riding along this Wild Forest corridor is an appropriate and compliant use, but six? That number is unsupported by any analysis of actual or projected use or the ability of that area to withstand such uses. Whatever the precise number it should have a substantive basis. What about other actual or potential uses? UMP amendments are expected by the Master Plan to include the same detail that a full UMP should contain. That absence of carrying capacity information for the Outer Gooley Farmhouse area alone should be sufficient to reject the proposed amendments recommendation and return it to DEC for additional work.

The mid-August comment period for the draft UMP amendment has passed. Readers can still find the amendment on the APA website. See Adirondack Wilds comment letter here letter to DEC and APA. The amendment remains in draft form, so further public comment opportunities are expected to be set by DEC and APA.

Dave Gibson, who writes about issues of wilderness, wild lands, public policy, and more, has been involved in Adirondack conservation for over 30 years as executive director of the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, executive director of Protect the Adirondacks and currently as managing partner with Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve

During Dave's tenure at the Association, the organization completed the Center for the Forest Preserve including the Adirondack Research Library at Paul Schaefers home. The library has the finest Adirondack collection outside the Blue Line, specializing in Adirondack conservation and recreation history.

Currently, Dave is managing partner in the nonprofit organization launched in 2010, Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve.

Read the rest here:

Ending the Campfire Prohibition on the Chain Lakes Makes No Sense - - Adirondack Almanack

What will it take to stop violent protests in Portland? – KGW.com

A retired assistant U.S. attorney offers his thoughts on the ongoing unrest including fires, vandalism and riots.

PORTLAND, Ore. Retired assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Peifer has a unique perspective on the violent protests in Portland. During his time as a federal prosecutor, Peifer handled domestic-terrorism cases and learned a lot about anarchists, eco-terrorists and violent extremists. Peifer recently spoke with KGW about the ongoing unrest in Portland.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Are the violent protests, involving fires and vandalism, different than what weve seen before?

Stephen Peifer, former assistant U.S. Attorney:

Oh, I think theyre definitely different. Theyre much more violent and destructive. The type of weapons and other things being used are different than days past. You never saw the green lasers being used before, which are very dangerous. You never saw slingshots flinging ball bearings. You didnt see commercial grade fireworks- some, maybe but those are all very common and very dangerous.

As someone who spent years as a federal prosecutor, do you think police and prosecutors are handling this unrest correctly?

I think the U.S. Attorneys Office is handling it correctly under Billy Williams leadership but the district attorney now has written off a whole laundry list of crimes that he says wont be prosecuted and it is basically like throwing in the towel to these people. When you basically kiss off 400 cases as he did, that sends a message that youre not serious about prosecuting. You should be able to prosecute as many crimes as you can prove and once you decide not to do that, then youve basically told the organizers of this activity they can have carte blanche.

The arrests that we have seen so far; do they paint an accurate picture of whos behind the violence, the fires, the criminal behavior?

The anarchist organization antifa, and the wannabes that go along with it, theyre very loosely organized but very well-trained and they know how to avoid arrest. The ones who get arrested tend to be the very young ones, the 18-year-olds and even younger. Theyre the ones cutting their teeth so to speak and get caught up with it and get themselves arrested. There will be more arrests, I think, as more and more information is gleaned on who is operating and how theyre operating. There are ongoing investigations. The FBI has already said they have ongoing investigations of a number of federal crimes, including crossing state lines to commit crimes, and that may very well pan out in the future.

Whats it going to take to stop the violence?

Well, it is going to take very strong and effective law enforcement at all levels. And it should be coordinated. The state and federal and city people should all be talking to each other -- coordinating their response. Instead, you have a situation where thats not happening and it handicaps law enforcement. At the prosecution level, they should pick their cases carefully. Make sure they are provable because you dont want to bring any charges that will be thrown out unnecessarily. Orchestrate a concentrated effort to go after as many people as you can because deterrence is the only answer here, when it comes to the violence. Im not talking about deterrence of ordinary street demonstrations and the First Amendment, thats a different, totally different, subject. But we learned in prosecuting the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, in what was known as Operation Backfire, which sort of came to a head in 2005, we learned in that case that once the heat is on people begin to talk, they begin to give you more and more information about the organization.

Go here to read the rest:

What will it take to stop violent protests in Portland? - KGW.com

Fred Gray kept his personal promise, took the protests to the courtroom and won again and again – Montgomery Advertiser

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

In July 1963, Wendell Gunn appeared in the registrars office of Florence State College requesting an application from a bewildered secretary.

He was confused, too.

Gunn had seen James Hood and Vivian Malone admitted to University of Alabama the previous month. Autherine Lucy had been admitted in 1956. He thought the matter of Black folks attending white schools had been formally settled.

It had not.Gunn was taken to an office where the colleges president and dean awaited him.

The dean stared at me with those steely eyes and said, Who sent you here?

Gunn received his application with a warning from the president. He could not admit him without a federal court order. His mother phoned civil rights attorney Fred Gray.

He asked me if I really wanted to go. After saying we couldn't afford [litigation], he said, That's not what I asked you, Gunn recalled with a laugh. Gray sued and Gunn enrolled.

Civil Rights Attorney Fred Gray talks about representing Alabama State University students that were expelled for taking part in the 1960 lunch counter sit-in in Montgomery, during a press conference at the ASU campus in Montgomery, Ala., on Monday February 25, 2019. (Photo: Mickey Welsh / Advertiser)

The case was one of many for Gray. Throughout his career Gray filed suits that desegregated 105 of the 119 school systems in the state including everything under the control of the State Board of Education, which followed from Lee v. Macon. The students who had gained admission to UA in 56 and 63? Gray represented them, too.

After Gov. John Patterson ordered the president of the historically Black university, then Alabama State College, to expel students who led a sit-in demonstration in 1960, Gray won their reinstatement in St. John v. Dixon. The case enshrined all higher education students right to due process.

More: 'Unwilling to just wait': Alabama State sit-in brought change, cost protesting students dearly

As the civil rights attorney approaches 90 this December, Gunn is leading a renewed effort to honor Graywith the Presidential Medal of Freedom, among the highest awards granted civilians.

If anybody deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Fred does, said Gunn.

For Gray, it began with a simple declaration: destroy everything segregated.

But he couldnt let it slip.

Black lawyers were hard to find when he graduated from Alabama State in 1951. It was why he had changed course, decided against a career as a preacher and instead enrolled at a law school in Cleveland. He had no choice but to leave the South.

African Americans were barred from white Southern schools. But he would return to Montgomery to complete his secret pledge in a place some proudly called the cradle of the Confederacy, no less by using the law to reclaim the rights denied to Black people through its unjust application.

Now, for a black boy in his upper teens to even think about that in Alabama was almost unheard of in the 1940s and 1950s. Nevertheless, that's the commitment I made to myself, Gray said in a 2014 interview at his alma mater Case Western Reserve University.

Civil Rights Attorney Fred Gray discusses his work in the civil rights movement at his offices in Tuskegee, Ala. on Tuesday February 7, 2017. (Photo: Mickey Welsh / Advertiser)

What proceeded was a legal career that has spanned more than half a century and yielded countless civil rights suits that have profoundly impacted American democracy. He played a significant role in four landmark Supreme Court cases in his first 10 years of practice, an outrageous feat rulings university students now study as case law.

How wide is the scope of litigation that Gray touched? If it had to do with segregation or civil rights in Alabama between the mid-1950s and today, Gray likely had a hand in it.

It's just astounding, said Jonathan Entin, a constitutional expert and professor emeritus of law at Case Reserve Western. He was involved in virtually every important civil rights case in Alabama for decades.

Gray took on these high-profile cases at a time when overt racial animus drove public policy and clotted even cordial attempts at race relations. There were signals that communicated the nature of this work: disturbing late-night calls; bomb threats; a draft letter.

He was there with his life, his body and his family on the line. He showed an extraordinary amount of courage that even today I have trouble getting my head around, said Entin.

Fresh out of law school in 1954, Grays first major client was Rosa Parks after her arrest off a city bus on Dec. 1, 1955. He became her lawyer at the age of 24. He would go on to represent the Montgomery Improvement Association, which launched the bus boycott that kicked off a national movement. Soon after, he became the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.s private counsel.

When the New York Times refused to retract a 1960s advertisement soliciting donations for Kings defense in a perjury trial brought by the state, Montgomerys public safety commissioner, citing some minor factual inaccuracies, sued them for libel. He sued the local Black ministers who were mentioned in the ad, too. Gray represented the clergymen.

Fred Gray(Photo: Advertiser file)

I think that New York Times against Sullivan is probably the greatest of all First Amendment cases in American history. That case made clear that ordinary citizens, we have a right to criticize the government without being harassed by the government. The nation would look very different today if it had come out the other way, said Entin.

After John Lewis and civil rights foot soldiers were beaten in Selma on Bloody Sunday in 1965, it was Gray who filed the federal lawsuit that allowed the march to Montgomery to take place, and required the state to protect the marchers from attacks by hostile white spectators.

It's extraordinary, said Entin. You couldnt make up a story like this.

In NAACP v. Alabama, he blocked the states attempt to compel the organization to furnish its membership lists, a move that wouldve undoubtedly put its associates in grave danger; it became a landmark freedom of association case that enshrined the right of assembly as essential to first amendment free speech.

Gray worked with distinguished lawyers such as Constance Baker Motley, Robert Carter, Arthur Shores and Clifford Durr. Together, they argued cases before jurists and juries who were disinclined to agree with them.

They believed at some point these jurors would be more faithful to the Constitution of the United States than the segregation laws of the South. That was a big leap of faith, said Derryn Moten, chair of history and political science at Alabama State University.

The effort to secure Grays Medal of Freedom nomination has been in progress since President Obamas first term in 2008. Why it hasnt yet been successful is as unclear as the process itself, which requires a combination of persistence, political savvy and sheer luck.

So far letters of recommendation have come from Secretary of State John Merrill and Bryan Fair, an Alabama law professor who sits on the board of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Fred Gray, left, and U. S. Rep. John Lewis talk after the 2011 Alabama Academy of Honor ceremonies in the old House chamber of the Alabama Capitol on Monday, Oct. 17, 2011, in downtown Montgomery, Ala.. (Montgomery Advertiser, Lloyd Gallman)(Photo: MONTGOMERY ADVERTISER, Advertiser file)

Gunn, the former student Gray secured admission to Florence State, has been working to seek national recognition of his legacy since late 2016. He said he intends do the impossible, secure a nomination for the medal from the Alabama Republican Congressional delegation. And after that, a resolution recommending Grays nomination from the state Legislature.

Grays mission has had personal effects. His son, Stanley Gray, attended UA Law School, the college his father was barred from. Alabama preferred to share the costs of Fred Grays out-of-state tuition rather than admit him to any of its white schools. It was an abundant investment.

Stanley Gray remembers examining the actual maps his father used as a lawyer in the Gomillion v. Lightfoot case to illustrate how officials had attempted to gerrymander Tuskegees majority-Black electoral district to suppress its political power. One justice called the shape an uncouth twenty-eight-sided figure.

One of the things that really impressed me about the work of my father, said Stanley Gray, is that he worked on cases that affected the everyday lives of individuals. Where someone goes to school, whether someone is able to vote, whether or not they're able to take public transportation in an equal way.

The man who set out on a secret mission almost 70 years ago is still at it. He takes cases out of his second office in Tuskegee.

Contact Montgomery Advertiser reporter Safiya Charlesat (334) 240-0121or SCharles@gannett.com

Read or Share this story: https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2020/08/19/civil-rights-lawyer-fred-gray-presidential-medal-freedom/5528302002/

See the original post here:

Fred Gray kept his personal promise, took the protests to the courtroom and won again and again - Montgomery Advertiser

Trump calls for boycott of Goodyear, claiming company banned MAGA hats – CBS News

President Donald Trump on Wednesday urged consumers to snub Goodyear tires, claiming that the company has banned hats bearing his campaign phrase "Make America Great Again," or MAGA.

"Get better tires for far less!" Mr. Trump tweeted, saying that he was taking a page from "Radical Left Democrats." He added, "Two can play the same game, and we have to start playing it now!"

Mr. Trump's tweet comes after a report by WIBW-TV in Topeka, Kansas, that some employees at a Goodyear plant in the city were told that that the company had "zero tolerance" for wearing clothing with political messaging. Those messages reportedly include MAGA attire, as well as all other clothing with political themes, as well as phrases like "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter."

According to a training slide shown by the station, the company said some slogans are acceptable, including "Black Lives Matter" and LGBT pride-related messages.

Goodyear on Wednesday issued a statement stating that the company "has always wholeheartedly supported both equality and law enforcement and will continue to do so." The statement noted that the image in question did not come from Goodyear's corporate headquarters and "was not part of a diversity training class," while reiterating its ban on political content in the workplace.

Although Americans tend to be focused on their First Amendment rights to exercise free speech, corporations are generally more intent on enforcing workplace rules and protecting their brand image, said Cheryl Sabnis, a partner at law firm King & Spalding.

"When things like political speech come into the workplace, it can be distracting, however well intended," Sabnis said. At the same time, she added, employees should be aware their behavior outside the workplace can impact their jobs, given that mobile phones with cameras make it possible for a comment or behavior to go viral and get back to one's employer.

"At the end of the day, individuals get to decide how they want to present themselves," she said. "At the same time, employers get to decide what they believe may be inconsistent with a collaborative workplace culture and what might be inconsistent with their brand."

Sabnis added, "It's about distracting from the work of the day it's not about what side you are on."

It's not the first time Mr. Trump has called out businesses for what he has cast as their bias against him. He has threatened and complained about a number companies, including Twitter, Toyota and Amazon.

At the same time, experts say consumers have grown increasingly motivated to buy from companies that align with their personal beliefs. The consulting firm Accenture recently found that almost two-thirds of Americans say their purchasing behaviors are swayed by such issues.

Here is the original post:

Trump calls for boycott of Goodyear, claiming company banned MAGA hats - CBS News

Trump: ‘A lot of people’ think Edward Snowden ‘not being treated fairly’ – New York Post

President Trump polled his aides on Thursday about whether he should let anti-surveillance whistleblower and leaker Edward Snowden return to the US from Russia without going to prison, saying he was open to it.

There are a lot of people that think that he is not being treated fairly. I mean, I hear that, Trump told The Post in an exclusive interview in the Oval Office, before soliciting views from his staff.

Trump commented on Snowden for the first time as president after accusing former President Barack Obama of spying on his 2016 campaign.

When you look at [former FBI Director James] Comey and [former FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe, and [former CIA Director John] Brennan and, excuse me, the man that sat at this desk, President Obama, got caught spying on my campaign with [former Vice President Joe] Biden. Biden and Obama, and they got caught spying on the campaign, Trump said.

Trumps comments reflect a remarkable softening in his views about the man he once deemed a traitor worthy of execution. Republican lawmakers and the Justice Departments inspector general recently highlighted misuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the secret FISA court to surveil former Trump adviser Carter Page.

Snowden is one of the people they talk about. They talk about numerous people, but he is certainly one of the people that they do talk about, Trump said on Thursday, before turning to his aides. I guess the DOJ is looking to extradite him right now? Its certainly something I could look at. Many people are on his side, I will say that. I dont know him, never met him. But many people are on his side.

The president then asked his staff: How do you feel about that, Snowden? Havent heard the name in a long time.

After polling the room, Trump added: Ive heard it both ways. From traitor to hes being, you know, persecuted. Ive heard it both ways.

Snowdens legal team has tried in vain to negotiate a prison-free return to the US for the former National Security Agency contractor, who in 2013 exposed the fact that the FISA court was secretly approving the dragnet collection of domestic call records.

Before taking office, Trump tweeted at least 45 times denouncing Snowden as a traitor and calling for his execution.

In a 2013 tweet, Trump wrote: Snowden is a spy who should be executed-but if it and he could reveal Obamas records, I might become a major fan.

Originally posted here:
Trump: 'A lot of people' think Edward Snowden 'not being treated fairly' - New York Post

A Murder, a Conspiracy Theory, and the Lies of Fox News – Rolling Stone

He was almost home. In the early-morning hours of July 10th, 2016, Seth Rich walked alone across northwest Washington, D.C., making calls to his friends and family, thinking about his future.

Like so many idealistic twentysomethings, he had moved to the nations capital after college to work in politics. It was the first place hed lived outside of Omaha, and hed gradually found his way, falling in with a group of fellow strivers, biking everywhere, cooking out, and playing soccer on the weekends. A glorified internship at a polling firm led to a job at the Democratic National Committee registering new voters and protecting against voter suppression. Days earlier, hed gotten an offer to join Hillary Clintons presidential campaign in Brooklyn. Sitting in his drafts folder was the start of an acceptance email: All my life I wanted to be in a position that I can make a difference.

Yet he felt conflicted. Taking the Clinton job would mean months away from the people he loved, the life hed built. Earlier that night, he had called his father, Joel, who had already gone to bed. He tried his older brother, Aaron, in Colorado, but they missed each others calls.

It was past two in the morning on the walk home when his girlfriend picked up. She stayed on the phone with him for more than two hours, until he was a block from his front door. She heard voices in the background. I gotta go, Seth calmly said, then hung up.

A neighbor heard gunshots and looked at the clock: 4:19 a.m. The police raced to the scene and found Seth in the street, shot but still breathing, and the paramedics rushed him to the hospital. A few hours later, Seths parents, Joel and Mary, received another call: Their youngest son, Seth Conrad Rich, age 27, was dead.

He was the 67th homicide victim of the year in Washington, D.C. Seths neighborhood had suffered a rash of armed muggings, and there were clues to suggest a physical altercation a rip on his watch wristband, bruising on his hands and face but nothing was taken from him, leading the police to call the crime an attempted robbery gone wrong.

The local news ran a photo of Seth from after he had moved to Washington: Sandy-haired and clean-shaven, dressed in a starter suit and candy-striped tie, he stands with his arms folded and a wry look on his face, the Washington Monument off in the distance. On July 13th, his body was buried at Beth El Cemetery in Omaha. There are no answers for a young man gunned down in the prime of his life, his familys rabbi eulogized. All we have is questions of what could have been, what should have been, and talk of potential greatness for which we will never bear witness.

Ten months later, the cameras went live for the latest episode of Hannity, one of the most-watched cable-news shows in America. As the words Murder Mystery flashed onscreen, Fox News host Sean Hannity, gazing straight into the camera, began his show by informing his audience of explosive developments in a massive breaking news story. The bombshells that he was going to deliver, Hannity told the 2.4 million viewers of his May 16th, 2017, show, could lead to one of the biggest scandals in American history.

That morning, FoxNews.com had published a story claiming the existence of an FBI report that named murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the source for thousands of stolen DNC emails published by WikiLeaks in the summer of 2016. U.S. intelligence agencies, members of Congress, and cybersecurity experts had said hackers working for the Russian government carried out the election-year cyberattack on the DNC. But according to Fox, the DNC hack was an inside job and the FBI knew it. The story even quoted a private investigator hired by Richs family who asserted that Rich had sent the emails to WikiLeaks.

Now, let me connect the dots, Hannity told his audience. Hannity was arguably the most influential TV host in America, a friend and confidant to the president of the United States, with whom he spoke regularly. If a disgruntled Democrat had leaked the emails, Hannity said, it could completely shatter the narrative that, in fact, WikiLeaks was working with the Russians, and, further, could mean that Rich was murdered under very suspicious circumstances. Maybe Rich was upset, he went on, that the DNC was conspiring to hurt Bernie Sanders and help Hillary Clinton win the nomination. Later in the show, Hannity interviewed Rod Wheeler, the investigator hired by the Riches and quoted in the Fox News story, who said it sure appears that Rich communicated with WikiLeaks.

Sean McCabe for Rolling Stone

This is the true story of an untrue story. Its the story of how Fox News took a conspiracy theory from the online fringes and mainstreamed it into global news. Its the story of how a Fox News staff writer, a Fox News paid contributor, and a Fox News unpaid commentator worked together to win the trust of a family wracked by grief and then used their imprimatur to publish a sham story that would become an article of faith in MAGA culture. Its the story of how Fox News and some of its biggest stars have so far escaped any accountability for actions whose consequences continue to haunt the Rich family.

This story draws on tens of thousands of pages of court documents and interviews with dozens of key figures, including people close to the Rich family. (The family declined to be interviewed for this story.) The court records include newly revealed text messages, emails, voicemails, and sworn testimony that show how Fox ignored journalistic norms and basic human decency to publish and promote a fiction that could solve the problem of Russias interference in the 2016 election and Trumps welcoming of Russias help. The most generous way to look at it is Fox News didnt do their job, says Kelly McBride, a senior vice president and journalism ethics expert at the Poynter Institute. The less generous way to look at it would be they didnt even try to do their job. And if they didnt even try, the obvious question is Why?

Mary Rich, Seths mother, has described seeing Seths life and death exploited by Fox News as akin to her son being murdered again: We lost his body the first time, and the second time we lost his soul. But instead of grieving, the Rich family has spent the past four years trapped in a never-ending struggle they never wanted to be a part of, a fight to prove a negative: that Seth, a junior-level DNC employee, wasnt actually a secret player in a high-stakes game of geopolitical intrigue. Theyve watched as Seths story has taken on a hideous new life of its own online, where no ones grief is off limits and no amount of evidence can overcome the power of dogma and suspicion. Their fight began in the court of public opinion but has moved to the court of law, a test of whether the victims of viral conspiracy theories and online disinformation can find justice in the social media era.

Aaron Rich saw the rumors first. Within 36 hours of his brothers murder, online commenters were spinning wild theories. It gives me no joy to post this, a Reddit user named kurtchella wrote, but given his position & timing in politics, I believe Seth Rich was murdered by corrupt politicians for knowing too much information on election fraud. As the theories spread, Seths rank-and-file job was incorrectly inflated and kept getting more so with each telling, from a DNC official to a top U.S. Democratic Party official to the person at the DNC in charge of preventing election fraud.

At first, Aaron would later tell an interviewer, he found a morbid humor in this nonsense. We were joking that Seth would be happy if he envisioned a parade of people, his friends and family on one side of the street and conspiracy theorists on the other, he said.

Then the parade turned into a riot. A month after the murder, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gave an interview in which he dangled Seths name in such a way that made people think Seth was the source of the stolen DNC emails published by WikiLeaks. (A lawyer for Assange did not respond to requests for comment.)

To those who knew Seth best, this was absurd. He was no technical mastermind. He was far more likely to get locked out of his own email account than hack into someone elses, a former colleague tells Rolling Stone.

Still, Assanges comments, and a $20,000 reward offered by WikiLeaks for information about Seths murder, inflamed the conspiracy theories. Joel, Mary, and Aaron were unsure how to respond to the flood of media requests. The Riches were the furthest thing from political insiders, with almost no experience talking to journalists or managing through a crisis. When friends of Seths connected them with a PR consultant named Brad Bauman who offered to help, they readily accepted. Bauman, who tells Rolling Stone he thought he was signing up for a few weeks worth of pro bono work, issued a statement that asked the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seths murder.

The still-grieving Riches tried to keep their focus on finding the killer. But as the police investigation dragged on month after month, they began to confront the possibility they might never know who killed Seth.

On December 16th, 2016, Joel received a call from a man named Ed Butowsky. A financial adviser who lived in Texas, Butowsky had secured an introduction to Joel from someone who attended the same synagogue as the Riches. He had never met Joel, Mary, or Aaron, but in multiple calls and emails over a span of several months, he said he sympathized with their plight and wanted to help. He eventually offered to pay for a private investigator on behalf of the family to help solve the murder.

From his website, the Riches saw that Butowsky was a successful businessman who appeared on TV and guest-lectured at prominent universities. While they were skeptical of this complete strangers eagerness to assist them, according to people close to the Riches, Butowsky was willing to pay for something Joel and Mary themselves couldnt afford. I couldnt bring myself to tell them not to accept it, Bauman, the familys PR rep at the time, tells Rolling Stone. I honestly feel like this might be one of my greatest failures as a human being ever, because I was in a position where I could have stopped something fucking horrible from happening.

There was more to Butowsky than he let on. Inside Fox, he was seen as a green-room creature, in the words of a former Fox host, a glad-handing backslapper who hobnobbed with the talent and the guests. Everyone knew who Ed was, a former Fox on-air personality tells Rolling Stone. He befriended Fox journalists and introduced them to sources in his network. Behind the scenes, I do a lot of work (unpaid) helping to uncover certain stories, he later told an associate. My biggest work was revealing most of what we know today about Benghazi, referring to the 2012 attack on U.S. facilities in Libya that led to the deaths of four Americans.

The way Butowsky tells it, he took an interest in Seth Rich after a conversation with Ellen Ratner, a journalist he knew from the Fox green room. Ratners late brother was Michael Ratner, a famous civil rights lawyer who had helped lead the Center for Constitutional Rights and was one of WikiLeaks U.S. lawyers. On the eve of the 2016 election, Ratner and her family met with Assange in London. During that meeting, Ratner would later say, Assange claimed the DNC email leak could have come from an internal source or an enemy of the Clintons, and that Russia got credit for something WikiLeaks should have gotten credit for.

Butowsky, however, says Ratner passed along to him another detail from her Assange meeting: that Assange named Seth Rich as his source. However, Ratner, who declined to be interviewed, has said this was false, telling Yahoo News that Richs name never came up in her meeting with Assange and that Butowskys version of events did not happen. (A lawyer for Butowsky sent Rolling Stone an email and a text message between Butowsky and Ratner to corroborate his story, but neither mentions Rich.)

Butowsky says his interest in Rich was further piqued after a phone call with the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in January 2017. Unbeknownst to Hersh, Butowsky recorded part of their conversation. Hersh said he had somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me, and hed heard about an FBI report about Rich trying to sell emails to WikiLeaks. Near the end of the call, though, Hersh cautioned that because hed heard something doesnt make it true.

Hersh tells Rolling Stone the information he passed to Butowsky was all just musing that turned out not to be true. While he remains skeptical of the intelligence communitys assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, Hersh says he was trying to get information out of Butowsky, not the other way around. But what Hersh intended as gossip, Butowsky apparently took as gospel.

Butowsky sent the recording of Hersh to the Rich family and even told them to search Seths bank accounts for payments from WikiLeaks. But after the Riches responded that there was no evidence to support that theory, Butowsky offered to pay for a private investigator on their behalf and urged them to hire a man named Rod Wheeler, a former-D.C.-cop-turned-law-enforcement-analyst for Fox News. That Wheeler wasnt a licensed private investigator by day, he worked as a food-safety consultant didnt deter Butowsky. (Butowsky says he interviewed six other potential PIs who were all very expensive, and that Wheeler came recommended by a Fox News analyst he knew.)

Butowsky tells Rolling Stone his motives with the Rich family were simple: He wanted to help a grieving family find closure. But the recording of his conversation with Hersh suggests another reason. At one point, Butowsky tells Hersh he has a great history of getting things out there, where nobody knows that Im the one who did it, and that hes just trying to get something in my hands that I can get public about. If Hershs talk about Rich selling emails to WikiLeaks is true, Butowsky says, it can solve the problem about Russians [being] the ones that gave the emails, because that did not happen.

The Rich Family felt hopeful for the first time in months. Since Butowsky was willing to foot the bill for Wheelers services, they didnt have to stress about costs. Joel and Aaron spoke with Wheeler and came away encouraged.

The family didnt have access to powerful attorneys, and so Aarons wife, Molly, a lawyer, helped write a contract and negotiate the terms. A key sticking point was Wheelers proposal to serve as the familys media representative. The Riches declined and insisted that their agreement with Wheeler include strict confidentiality terms.

As the negotiations played out for more than a week, Butowsky seemed to grow anxious and discussed how to kick-start the Riches into finalizing the agreement with Wheeler, according to court documents. If you dont get the agreement back this morning, Im going to leave Joel a nice but somewhat uncomfortable message, Butowsky texted Wheeler on March 14th, 2017.

Later that day, Wheeler and the Riches signed the contract. The final agreement noted that Butowsky would pay for Wheelers services and forbid Wheeler from discussing his investigation with third parties without the familys permission including Butowsky.

I told you youre wasting time, Rod, Butowsky said to Wheeler over the phone one day in the spring of 2017, according to testimony by Wheeler.

Wheeler was walking the streets of Washingtons LeDroit Park neighborhood, a few blocks from where Rich was shot, talking to people and looking for tips, when Butowsky called him. But when Wheeler explained that these were the fundamentals of a murder investigation, his benefactor grew angry. Im not going to need to use you if you dont, you know, if you dont do like I told you, Wheeler testified Butowsky told him. (Butowsky denies this, telling Rolling Stone that Ive never said anything like that to Wheeler.)

A goateed man in his late fifties with a nasally Midwestern accent and a thick build, Wheeler tells Rolling Stone he wouldnt have paid any attention to Butowsky if Butowsky hadnt touted his connections to Fox News. Wheeler had worked as a paid law-enforcement analyst at Fox for more than a decade and was typically introduced on-air by Fox hosts as a former D.C. homicide detective, even though he had never earned the rank of detective, according to a spokeswoman for the D.C. police department.

Whatever his gumshoe credentials, Wheeler says he kept his focus on solving Richs murder. But text messages and emails filed in court show Wheeler had ambitions of his own. Ive got to find a way on the Trump team, he texted Butowsky on April 12th, 2017, floating the idea of working at FEMA. Butowsky responded by sending Wheeler contact information for then-White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer. In another text produced in court, Butowsky told Wheeler that once we get the story out, you will be one of the most recognize[d] names in America.

Despite his confidentiality agreement with the Rich family, Wheeler kept Butowsky updated on the status of his investigation, according to text messages and emails filed in court. Their correspondence shows a pattern in which Butowsky consistently shows more interest in absolving the Russians of the DNC hack than in helping the Riches solve Seths murder. With the familys help, Wheeler secured an interview with Joseph Della-Camera, the D.C. detective leading the investigation into Seths murder, and made sure Butowsky knew about it. The night before the interview, Butowsky sent Wheeler an email: Della-Camera is either helping us or we will go after him as being part of the coverup.

Reward money and media attention are typically the two best ways to generate leads and informants in a difficult murder investigation. The Riches were a middle-class family. Mary, the familys chief breadwinner, had lost her job shortly before Seths death. They didnt have the wealth to put up more reward money, and so they took most interview requests that came their way, whether from The Washington Post or the Daily Mail tabloid. They invited a TV crew from Crime Watch Daily into their home.

These efforts to keep Seths name in the news were sometimes turned against them. Photos of Seth provided by the family to reporters were repurposed into conspiratorial memes. A video of Joel and Mary thanking people who had donated to a GoFundMe page was twisted into evidence that the family supported the self-anointed online sleuths pushing wild theories about Seth. Their attitude in the early stages was Well talk to anybody because bringing more attention to this is the only thing that will get it solved, the former colleague of Seths tells Rolling Stone. Some people were well-intentioned and some werent.

When a FoxNews.com reporter named Malia Zimmerman emailed Joel in January in hopes of writing a feature story about Seth to bring further attention to his case, Joel agreed to cooperate. The reporter asked about Seths life and his work at the DNC, but also pressed Joel on the WikiLeaks theory, which he vehemently denied. A few days later, the story appeared: Slain DNC Staffers Father Doubts WikiLeaks Link as Cops Seek Answers.

Joel felt stung. The Riches decided they would decline to participate in future stories with Fox News, and with Zimmerman in particular.

GOP activist and greenroom creature Ed Butowsky.

AP Photo/LM Otero

There had been a third recipient on Butowskys part of the coverup email: Malia Zimmerman, who was working with Butowsky and Wheeler without the Rich familys knowledge. Before one of Wheelers first calls with Joel Rich, Butowsky urged him to [m]ake sure to play down Fox News, dont mention you know Malia. Throughout the spring of 2017, Zimmerman kept chasing the story of Seth Rich and WikiLeaks. Emails filed in court including Butowskys coverup email show that Zimmerman kept hitting dead ends. A spokeswoman for the FBIs Washington Field Office said its agents were not assisting now and have not assisted in the past on any case related to Rich. The D.C. police denied Zimmermans request for any crime-scene footage, citing the ongoing murder investigation. And Della-Camera, the detective assigned to the Rich murder case, told Wheeler hed seen no evidence to support the theories about Rich and WikiLeaks, according to Wheelers notes on the meeting later filed in court.

But with the addition of Wheeler, Zimmerman had a new way to get information. She described Wheelers final contract with the family as a win because it didnt limit his investigation to a street crime, presumably meaning he could pursue other, more politically motivated theories for the murder. She sent him a list of questions for the family and urged him to get access to Seths email and social media accounts. (Wheeler would later ask Zimmerman if he could share with a Fox News executive in New York the fact that we are working together on an investigation in an effort to secure a permanent job at Fox.)

The other conduit for Zimmerman was Butowsky himself. Cellphone records filed in court show that between December 2016 and June 2017, Zimmerman and Butowsky spoke by phone 571 times and exchanged 480 text messages. (Butowsky tells Rolling Stone he and Zimmerman spoke about many subjects unrelated to Rich.) On April 29th, Zimmerman sent a full draft of her story to Butowsky. According to an email filed in court, Zimmerman told Butowsky, I need to confirm the bold sections in the draft. The bolded sections were the most explosive ones: that unnamed investigators had discovered emails between Rich and WikiLeaks during a forensic search of his work computer, and that Rich leaked the emails possibly to expose the [DNCs] bias against Sanders. It appeared, in other words, that she had written the story she wanted to publish before having the sourcing to back it up.

Butowsky, Zimmerman, and Wheeler looked to prominent Republicans for help. But a White House meeting with Sean Spicer didnt amount to anything. Next, Butowsky and Zimmerman turned to Congressman Devin Nunes, a staunch Trump ally and then-chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Nunes had already been on their list of possible sources. In a March 31st email filed in court, Zimmerman told Butowsky and Wheeler that Nunes needs to help us. Butowsky wrote back, I will get very aggressive with Devin over the weekend. In early May, Butowsky helped arrange a meeting between Wheeler and Kash Patel, an investigator for Nunes on the Intelligence Committee. Butowsky texted Wheeler that the main goal with Patel was to get him to get the FBI record and give us a wink to go story [sic] that the emails are there.

Whatever FBI record or wink Butowsky was hoping for, Wheeler tells Rolling Stone that he didnt get it. For his part, Butowsky says Wheeler and Patel met to discuss getting whistleblower protection for Della-Camera, who, according to Butowsky, wanted to expose the coverup. However, a spokeswoman for the D.C. police says Della-Camera never sought such status. (Patel, who did not respond to requests for comment, went on to work for the Trump White Houses National Security Council and then as an adviser in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.)

Just when it seemed like Wheelers investigation was going nowhere, he got a call from Butowsky and Zimmerman on May 10th, court records show. They claimed they had found a source for their Rich-WikiLeaks allegation.

Court records dont say who this source was or if he or she even existed. But one email filed in court offers a clue about the information this supposed source might have provided. On May 11th, Zimmerman wrote to the CEO of a cybersecurity company that reliable sources had told her Rich may have been killed in a hit by Romanian hackers as revenge for selling the DNC emails to WikiLeaks. Her sources said there might be information about Rich and WikiLeaks on the dark web, Zimmerman explained, and she asked the CEO to search the dark web for her. The search turned up nothing, emails show.

Still, with one source supposedly secured, Butowsky pressured Wheeler to finish his investigation. On May 14th, Butowsky left a voicemail for Wheeler: We have the full attention of the White House on this. And tomorrow lets close this deal. He also sent a text: Not to add any more pressure but the president just read the article. He wants the article out immediately. Its now all up to you. But dont feel the pressure. (The White House has denied any involvement or knowledge of Zimmermans story. Butowsky says these comments were just bluster and that he has never spoken with President Trump.)

The following day, Zimmerman called Wheeler to tell him that her bosses at Fox want her to go with the story, Wheeler later testified. Throughout that day, Zimmerman sent Wheeler and Butowsky several drafts of her story. The only source cited besides an unnamed federal investigator was Wheeler himself, and the draft now included two on-the-record quotes from Wheeler that had not appeared in earlier versions. Wheeler also texted Zimmerman a third quote to use, court records show: I do strongly believe that the answers to who murdered [Rich] sits on his computer on a shelf at the [MPDC] or FBI headquarters!

Early on the morning of May 16th, 2017, Butowsky gave a heads-up to a group of producers and hosts at Fox about Zimmermans forthcoming story:

The story is or will be up very early tomorrow morning. Rod Wheeler is up and ready to give interviews. If you have any questions about the story or more information needed, call me. Im actually the one whos been putting this together but as you know I keep my name out of things because I have no credibility. One of the big conclusions we need to draw from this is that the Russians did not hack our computer systems and ste[a]l emails and there was no collusion like trump with the Russians.

Butowsky also sent talking points to Wheeler, according to text messages later filed in court: The narrative in the interviews you might use is that your and Malias work prove that the Russians didnt hack into the DNC and steal the emails and impact our election.

On the morning of Tuesday, May 16th, 2017, Brad Bauman, the Rich familys spokesman, began his day by checking the Drudge Report, the widely read news-aggregation site, and saw Seth Rich staring back at him on the page. It was the same photo of Rich that circulated after the murder wry grin, arms folded, Washington Monument in the distance. But now the photo appeared next to a very different headline: Dead DNC Staffer Had Contact With WikiLeaks.

Drudge linked not to Zimmermans story but to an interview Wheeler had given to the local Fox affiliate for D.C., which quoted him saying it was confirmed that Rich had exchanged emails with WikiLeaks. (Wheeler has said he intended the interview to be a teaser for Zimmermans story; instead, the local Fox affiliate used it to scoop Fox News.) By 8 a.m., FoxNews.com had published Zimmermans story. It claimed that Seth had been the source for all 44,053 emails and 17,761 documents stolen from the DNC and published by WikiLeaks. Zimmermans story cited two sources: an anonymous federal investigator who had read a purported FBI report about Richs contacts with WikiLeaks, and Wheeler, identified as a private investigator hired by Richs family to probe the case.

The two spurious stories blazed across the internet. A flurry of follow-up coverage appeared on news outlets around the world. Watching Seths name ricochet yet again across the internet in connection with a cruel conspiracy theory was like living in a nightmare you can never wake up from, Joel and Mary later said. The pain was unbearable.

The Riches also felt betrayed. Joel and Mary kept saying to themselves, How can they be saying this? Bauman, the familys PR rep, tells Rolling Stone. People we trusted how could they be going against us?

Bauman went into rapid-response mode. Any new story about Seth that the family didnt respond to right away would metastasize. But even if they refuted every new story that appeared, it wasnt clear whether anything they did could undo the damage.

As the Riches tried to fight back, Bauman found himself a target. On Twitter, he was called a hatchet man and a fixer who the DNC assigned to the family to hide the truth about Seth. Bauman says hes never worked for the DNC, his name doesnt appear in any DNC payment records, and he says the decision to help the family was his alone. Still, he says, his phone pinged with authentication alerts as people apparently tried to access his email account. Strangers called in the middle of the night and told him, We know what you did, before hanging up.

Rod Wheeler/Twitter, Fox News

Shortly after its publication, Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy read from Zimmermans story live on-air. It seems very suspicious, co-host Ainsley Earhardt chimed in. You know whats interesting that the parents arent pursuing it. Laura Ingraham, who joined the segment remotely, chimed in to blast the frothing media for its aggressive lack of curiosity in the story. By 9 a.m. on the day Zimmermans story appeared, Fox had run four different segments about the allegation that Rich was WikiLeaks source.

Yet within hours, Zimmermans story was unraveling. The D.C. police told The Washington Post that there was nothing that we can find that any of this is accurate. A former law-enforcement official with firsthand knowledge of Richs laptop told NBC News the computer never contained any emails related to WikiLeaks, and the FBI never had it. And in a bizarre twist, Wheeler tried to distance himself from his own quotes, telling CNN he had no evidence to suggest Rich had contacted WikiLeaks before his death.

By that afternoon, Fox had recast Zimmermans story to focus on the Rich familys statement that disputed the report. But the post still alleged Seth conspired with WikiLeaks. Joel wrote to Zimmerman on May 18th to ask Fox News to retract, and Zimmerman replied that Fox was reviewing our story in the interest of ensuring fairness and accuracy.

Butowsky, for his part, proposed going on the offensive to defend the story, according to court records. On a May 19th call with Wheeler, Butowsky said he had a friend who would send the journalist Seymour Hersh a clip of Hersh and Butowskys conversation from January the one Butowsky recorded without telling Hersh along with an ultimatum to give up his supposed FBI source: If you dont give us that in three hours, a full recording of everything we have will be at every news agency tonight with your name and phone number on it, Butowsky described his plan to Wheeler, according to court records. If you give it to us, you will never hear from us again. (Butowsky has affirmed in court that he suggested this plan, but it does not appear to have happened.)

As one part of Fox News was scrambling to figure out what had happened, Foxs loudest voice, Sean Hannity, continued to amplify the piece. Day after day, he built a larger and larger edifice atop a report whose foundations were crumbling. Even as the story started to fall apart, Hannity insisted that he was not backing off. He would continue asking these questions about Richs murder because the media is trying to destroy a sitting president.

Hannity was far from the only Fox pundit pushing the Rich-WikiLeaks report. Fox Business host Lou Dobbs hyped Zimmermans story. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said during an appearance on Fox & Friends that Rich apparently was assassinated at four in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 23,000 Im sorry 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Gingrich added, Nobody is investigating that. And what does that tell you about what was going on? Because it turns out, it wasnt the Russians.

At one point, the online conspiracy theories and Hannitys championing practically converged. An anonymous commenter on the 4chan message board claimed, without citing any evidence, that the Seth Rich case has scared the shit out of certain high-ranking current and former Democratic Party officials. Hours later, Hannity tweeted to his millions of followers that Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party.

And then, as if things couldnt get more bizarre, a Finnish German hacker who goes by Kim Dotcom injected himself into the controversy. Dotcom, whose real name is Kim Schmitz and who had fled to New Zealand to avoid extradition to the U.S. for racketeering charges, tweeted that he had evidence Rich worked with WikiLeaks. Hannity invited Dotcom to appear on his show. Buckle up destroy Trump media, Hannity tweeted. Sheep that u all are!!!

On May 23rd, a week after it was first published and went viral, Fox retracted Zimmermans story. A statement posted on FoxNews.com said it was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all of our reporting. A former Fox executive told the Daily Beast: Retraction. Wow. Roger [Ailes] would brag at meetings how he was proud Fox never had to print a retraction.

Hannity was unmoved. All you in the liberal media, he said on his radio show, I am not Fox.com or FoxNews.com. I retracted nothing. Porter Berry, Hannitys executive producer, received a letter from Aaron Rich urging him not to put Kim Dotcom on air. We appeal to your decency to not cause a grieving family more pain and suffering, Aaron wrote.

An audience of millions tuned in for Hannitys May 23rd show. But there would be no interview with Dotcom. Hannity said he had communicated with the Rich family. Out of respect for the familys wishes, for now, I am not discussing this matter at this time, he said at the start of the show. He did not, however, apologize to the family or retract anything he had said. And in a since-deleted tweet sent after that nights show, he left the door cracked just enough to keep the conspiracy theory alive: Ok TO BE CLEAR, I am closer to the TRUTH than ever. Not only am I not stopping. I am working harder. Updates when available. Stay tuned!

Three years later, Foxs Seth Rich story and the conspiracy theory it was based on and amplified have been widely discredited by findings of the U.S. government, including Trumps Justice Department and two Republican-led congressional investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian intelligence agents for the cyberattacks on the DNC and the Clinton campaign, and his final report accuses Assange and WikiLeaks of making statements designed to obscure the source of the DNC leaks and of having implied falsely that Rich was his source. More recently, the FBIs section chief in charge of records testified in court that the bureau had searched for any records about Seth Rich or his murder and found nothing.

Further evidence produced in court casts even more doubt on Fox News now-retracted May 16th story about Rich and WikiLeaks. The evidence suggests Zimmerman may not have spoken with the anonymous federal investigator in her report. In a voicemail message produced in court, Butowsky told Wheeler that one reason Fox pulled the story is because Malia did not actually speak to someone. She heard. In a deposition, Wheeler testified Zimmerman told him she did not physically speak to the FBI source. Someone else did.

But the people who assembled Foxs Rich-WikiLeaks story, and the network that published and broadcast it, have escaped accountability so far. After the retraction, Jay Wallace, the networks president of news, said the story was being investigated internally. (He also said it was completely erroneous that Fox published Zimmermans story to help detract from the alleged Trump collusion with Russia.) Yahoo News last year cited a source knowledgeable about the inquiry who said Zimmermans responses about the federal investigator caused some editors at the network to question whether the source was in fact who she said he was, or even whether he existed. But the findings of Foxs investigation have never been released, and a Fox spokeswoman would only say that Zimmermans story was published to the website without review by or permission from senior management.

Hannity is still on TV every weeknight and is one of the most-watched cable-news hosts. Malia Zimmerman is still employed by Fox News, but hasnt published a piece under her byline since August 2017. Her first story about Rich, published in January 2017, was also removed from FoxNews.com without explanation. (Citing ongoing litigation, Fox declined interview requests with Zimmerman, Wallace, and Hannity.)

To this day, Butowsky insists Zimmermans story is accurate. He says that Joel and Mary Rich are not innocent bystanders and are in possession of material evidence indicating that Seth Rich downloaded the DNC emails, sent them to Wikileaks, and requested payment, which Joel and Mary have denied. He did not provide evidence to support those claims. He says Zimmerman, who has described him in court filings as one of her sources, had her own source and thats who she relied on for the story. Butowsky says he was sitting next to Refet Kaplan, a top editor at FoxNews.com, when Kaplan was told to retract Zimmermans story at the request of Kathryn Murdoch, the wife of James Murdoch and daughter-in-law of Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of Fox News parent company, News Corp. (A Fox News spokeswoman denied this allegation, saying there was zero evidence to back it up. James and Kathryn Murdoch declined to comment.) Butowsky has sued journalists, news organizations, and even lawyers for the Rich family. Im going to sue the hell out of a lot of firms, he told a reporter. I want to see these people choke on their nerves and go through the same crap I had to go through.

Wheeler, after working in lockstep with Butowsky and Zimmerman for months, turned around and sued Fox News and Butowsky. He alleged that the quotes attributed to him in Zimmermans story were fabricated and that hed been defamed and suffered damage to his reputation and his livelihood. Wheelers suit which was later dismissed created a public record of text messages, emails, and other communications that revealed for the first time the months-long coordination between him, Butowsky, and Zimmerman.

Mr. Butowsky, Aaron Rich began his letter. It is a new year, and I wish that I could say I was able to enjoy the holidays but I was distracted due to you tweeting yet another lie about me. On the next line, Aaron included the image of a tweet sent by Butowsky. It accused the outgoing deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, of covering up the FBIs purported investigation into Seths murder and then added a new detail to the Seth Rich conspiracy theory: that the stolen DNC files had been downloaded by Aaron and Seth together.

Seth with his older brother, Aaron, at Aarons wedding in 2015, where Seth served as the best man.

Courtesy of the Rich family

In the aftermath of Fox News retraction, Aaron watched with growing alarm as Butowsky shifted his focus to him. Butowsky contributed to an op-ed published in The Washington Times, court records show, that said it was well-known in the intelligence circles that Seth and Aaron downloaded the DNC emails and were paid by Wikileaks for that information. (The op-ed was later retracted and the Times apologized.) Butowsky fed information to a pro-Trump blogger who alleged that Aaron had obstructed the law-enforcement investigation into Seths murder and had advance knowledge about Seths murder but did nothing to stop it. A huge thanks to Ed Butowsky, the blogger announced to his followers. Hes one of my sources, America.

Aaron, court records show, found himself sucked into the same vortex of online smears and lies that had sullied his brothers memory. He woke up every day wondering what fresh lies had been spread about him while he slept. He received death threats and vicious online harassment, installed security cameras at his home, and sought psychological treatment for anxiety. It went on like that for months, and Aaron pleaded with Butowsky to stop.

These claims are absolutely false and ridiculous, not to mention painful and harmful, Aaron wrote in his letter dated January 12th, 2018. I try to live my life as a private person, but every time you tweet out lies like this about me, it brings unwanted attention, scorn, and ridicule to my personal and professional life. Aaron asked Butowsky to retract all of the lies you have told about me and my family and to publicly apologize. No apology was given.

On March 13th, 2018, Joel and Mary Rich sued Fox News, Butowsky, and Zimmerman. Their lawsuit alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress, asserting Fox, Butowsky, and Zimmerman intentionally exploited the tragedy of Seths murder, including through lies, misrepresentations, and half-truths with disregard for the obvious harm that their actions would cause Joel and Mary.

Two weeks later, Aaron sued Butowsky and a pro-Trump blogger for defamation and conspiracy in a Washington, D.C., court. A district court judge dismissed Joel and Marys suit only for an appeals court to reverse that decision, writing in part: We have no trouble concluding that taking their allegations as true the Riches plausibly alleged what amounted to a campaign of emotional torture. To defend itself, Fox News argues in court that Zimmermans story was not a sham and that Fox did not engage in outrageous behavior because it was pursuing a story that was substantially true.

The lawsuits filed by Joel, Mary, and Aaron Rich which could go to trial as early as 2021 pose a larger question: Is justice possible for the victims of online abuse and harmful lies? In a time when the president of the United States tosses off conspiracy theories on Twitter about public and private people, and when disinformation can reach millions of people online in an instant, its a question that has implications for all of us.

The Riches believe their suits also represent their best hope for closure and for restoring Seths reputation. The conspiracy theories about Seth and Aaron will live on at the fringes of the internet. But accountability in court could give the family the space to return to that brief moment after Seths murder when their grief belonged to them and them alone, and when they could mourn Seth in peace.

Follow this link:

A Murder, a Conspiracy Theory, and the Lies of Fox News - Rolling Stone