ASHBURN, VA - JUNE 08: Head coach Ron Rivera of the Washington Commanders looks on during the organized team activity at INOVA Sports Performance Center on June 8, 2022 in Ashburn, Virginia. (Photo by Scott Taetsch/Getty Images)

Scott Taetsch/Getty Images

Washington Commanders head coach Ron Rivera started off his Tuesday morning by delivering a statement on Jack Del Rio and the First Amendment.

Last week, the Commanders fined Del Rio $100,000 for his comments about the riots that took place at the U.S. Capitol in 2021. He referred to these riots as a "dustup."

Rivera opened up his statement on Tuesday by saying the team's decision to fine Del Rio has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

"This not about the fact that he exercises his right to free speech," Rivera said. "This is about him impacting the football team. I believe in the first Amendment very strongly. But the thing we all have to understand with these rights, these freedoms come with tremendous responsibility, and we have to understand that as well. This is about the impact that was made on our football team, the distraction it has become."

Rivera then went on to say that he takes the First Amendment very seriously and has a copy of it on his desk.

As you'd expect, the NFL world had plenty of things to say about that admission.

Honestly, statements like this might make this situation linger even longer.

Hopefully for the Commanders' sake, they can all move on from this dilemma fairly soon and get back on the same page.

Continue reading here:

NFL World Reacts To What Ron Rivera Said About First Amendment - The Spun

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

When James Madison authored the language that would become the First Amendment, he and his colleagues feared that the new federal government might enact legislation that would interfere with personal liberty. That fear was shared by many in the 13 states that had just ratified the Constitution. Indeed, five of the states conditioned their ratification on the addition of a Bill of Rights.

Madison who had been the scrivener of the Constitution in 1787, was, by 1791, a member of the House of Representatives and the Houses resident expert on the Constitution was designated by his colleagues as the drafter of the Bill of Rights.

Madisons language in the First Amendments is clear; it only restrains Congress. Yet, recognizing the natural origins of the freedom of speech and aware of the universal governmental animosity to free speech, and taking account of the 14th Amendments imposition of due process upon the states, the courts expanded the scope of the First Amendment so as to impose its restraints upon all government including the president, the judiciary, the states and their subdivisions.

During the Civil War and World War I, Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson incarcerated folks for their speech and argued that the First Amendment only restrained Congress, not the president. Today, such an argument would be dismissed out of hand in any court.

Today, the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech from all government.

But the First Amendment only restrains the government. It does not restrain private persons, whom lawyers call nongovernmental actors.

The old counterpoint that the First Amendment does not permit shouting fire in a crowded theater is inaccurate. If the theater is owned by nongovernmental actors, the First Amendment plays no role whatsoever in regulating or permitting the shouting; the property owner does. There are sound reasons why shouting fire in a crowded theater is actionable under the law, but the First Amendment is not among them unless the government owns the theater.

I offer this brief background as a prelude to addressing the latest turn of events concerning social media platforms that suppress speech of which they dont approve. Because the social media companies are nongovernmental actors, they are free to infringe upon the speech of their clients and customers for any reason they choose that does not violate public policy, such as infringement based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or place of origin.

Yet, a nongovernmental actor that enters into a symbiotic relationship with the government may lose its freedom to suppress speech and be subjected to the same restraints as the government.

Thus, Twitter, for example, is free to suppress any speech and any speaker because of the content of the speech, unless it is doing the governments bidding. If it is, if Twitter is doing for the government what the government cannot do on its own suppress speech because of its content and if sufficient evidence of this is properly before a court, the court may very well invoke the state action doctrine, which will impose the restraints of the First Amendment upon Twitter.

I use Twitter as an example because last week two U.S. senators obtained and revealed emails between officials of the Department of Homeland Security and Twitter executives contemplating how Twitter can suppress speech that the DHS believes constitutes mis- or dis- or mal-information. This is dangerous for personal liberty and, frankly, dangerous for Twitter.

The courts have ruled that when a governmental actor here the DHS and a nongovernmental actor here Twitter are so intertwined for their mutual benefit, and someone here those whose speech Twitter has suppressed because of its content is harmed thereby, the courts will impose First Amendment restraints upon the nongovernmental actor.

Lets say you are in Yankee Stadium at a Yankees/Boston Red Sox game and you go to buy a hot dog from a vendor in the stadium and he refuses to sell to you because you are wearing a Red Sox baseball cap. (In New York, this happens!) Who has punished you for your speech, the private vendor, which is not restrained by the First Amendment, or New York City, which owns the stadium and hired the vendor and which clearly is restrained by the First Amendment?

Since the city provides customers for the vendor and the vendor provides products for the customers and your presence at the game benefits both, and because you dont know whose rule no Red Sox caps allowed is being enforced, there is obviously a symbiotic relationship between the vendor and the city, and thus the First Amendment will restrain the vendor from punishing your speech as if it were the city.

The same may very well be the case for Twitter. The emails released last week revealed the contemplation of a symbiotic DHS/Twitter relationship that, if proven, will harm Twitter severely and expose the government for its attacks on the freedom of speech.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to keep the government entirely out of the business of interfering with speech directly or indirectly. Moreover, if Twitter does the governments bidding, and the First Amendment is applied to Twitter, it will lose its private property-generated ability to suppress speech.

The interesting question is not what does the government gain; governments always want to suppress the speech they hate and fear. The real question is why a social media entity would do the governments dirty work for it. The probable answer is to retain its statutory immunity from liability for what its clients post.

This is what happens when you get in bed with the feds. You wake up with a constitutional headache as well as fleas.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read more here:

Twitter and the freedom of speech | News, Sports, Jobs - Minot Daily News

Guest reader Luna, left, acts out a line from the book The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish, Swish, Swish alongside Amie Toepfer, the Ketchikan Public Librarys head of childrens services, on June 17, 2022. (Eric Stone/KRBD)

Children of all ages turned out for the Ketchikan Public Librarys first-ever drag queen storytime after city leaders declined to cancel the controversial event.

After weeks of heated debate, a drag queen named Luna sat down and read a book to children at Ketchikans public library on Friday.

When shes not in drag, Luna goes by Tommy Varela-Kossak.

Im a public school teacher. I think education is so important. And to come down here and be able to do this accomplishes two things, she said.

One, she says, is simply to entertain kids.

Kids get to come in and have a great time and celebrate Pride, people kids who maybe have same-sex parents or gay uncles and aunts, etc., she said. But at the same time, I think it was an opportunity to prove what we were doing is more than okay to all those people who thought it wasnt.

Children and parents turned out by the dozens for the event celebrating Pride Month. Library Director Pat Tully says the library had to add two more readings to accommodate everyone who wanted to come.

This, I think, is probably the biggest storytime weve ever had, Tully said.

It almost didnt happen. A firestorm erupted on social media when the library announced the reading. And twice, members of the City Council tried to cancel the storytime including a day before the event.

The city should not be promoting or advocating for events where the goal is to normalize gender fluidity in young children, said City Council Member Riley Gass at a meeting on Thursday, the day before the storytime event was scheduled. He asked the council to prevent the reading from going forward.

Residents crowded the council chambers to deliver almost two hours of testimony on the issue. It was split almost evenly between supporters and opponents.

But the council ultimately rejected the request to cancel the event in a 5-2 vote. City Council Member Judy Zenge said she didnt buy Gasss argument.

If youre that worried that seeing a bit of glitters going to change your child sexually, then yes, you should probably stay home, she said. Im not going to support this because I think its very discriminatory. And I really am embarrassed to be sitting here, knowing that we have to deal with this.

Other council members, including Janalee Gage and Mark Flora, said they werent sure the city could legally prevent the event from going forward. In a 10-page memo, the citys attorney said canceling the event could violate a local nondiscrimination ordinance, state civil rights law and the First Amendment.

Back at the library, four police officers, including the police chief joined storytime supporters standing guard as attendees filed in.

Kindergarten teacher Rebecca King stood outside the front door with an umbrella at the ready.

Were just here in case theres yelling and shouting to use our umbrellas to help shield kids from the protestors, she said. But so far, its been lovely and peaceful.

And it stayed that way. The most visible opposition was a lone protester, Sam Ryan, who stood by himself with a sign bearing a handwritten Bible verse.

I am expressing my displeasure with the City Councils decision last night, he said.

Kids and parents who showed up for the event gave rave reviews. Fourteen-year-old Inessa Kapralova says Luna looked beautiful in her purple rhinestone-studded dress and platinum-blonde wig.

Im jealous of her makeup it was, like, 10 times better than I could ever do, she said.

Twelve-year-old Kailani Clevenger says it was her first time ever seeing a drag queen.

I loved how open they were in how you could be anything you want to be, she said.

Kailanis younger brother, 10-year-old Kinyon Clevenger, was also a fan.

My favorite part was how everyone was saying they dont want people going there, and then she ends up having to do the storytime three times, he said. That was my favorite part.

Though storytime is over, the backlash continues: theres a brewing campaign to get a proposal to cut the librarys funding on the municipal ballot this fall. Ketchikans assembly will consider the issue on Monday, but supporters of the funding cut have vowed to pursue a citizen initiative if the assembly fails to act.

Originally posted here:

After weeks of heated debate, a drag queen read a book to children at Ketchikan's public library for the first time - KTOO

LONDON (AP) The British government on Friday ordered the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States to face spying charges, a milestone but not the end of a decade-long legal saga sparked by his websites publication of classified U.S. documents.

WikiLeaks said it would challenge the order, and Assanges lawyers have 14 days to lodge an appeal.

Were not at the end of the road here, said Assanges wife, Stella Assange. Were going to fight this.

Julian Assange has battled in British courts for years to avoid being sent to the U.S., where he faces 17 charges of espionage and one charge of computer misuse.

American prosecutors say the Australian citizen helped U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning steal classified diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks later published, putting lives at risk.

To his supporters, Assange, 50, is a secrecy-busting journalist who exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A British court ruled in April that Assange could be sent to face trial in the U.S., sending the case to the U.K. government for a decision. Britains interior minister, Home Secretary Priti Patel, signed an order on Friday authorizing Assanges extradition.

The Home Office said in a statement that the government had to approve his move to the U.S. because the U.K. courts have not found that it would be oppressive, unjust or an abuse of process to extradite Mr. Assange.

Barry Pollack, Assanges U.S. lawyer, said it was disappointing news that should concern anyone who cares about the First Amendment and the right to publish.

Assanges lawyers said they would mount a new legal challenge, and legal experts say the case could take months or even years more to conclude.

READ MORE: U.S. lays out case for extraditing WikiLeaks Assange

We will appeal this all the way, if necessary to the European Court of Human Rights, Assange attorney Jennifer Robinson said.

Robinson asked U.S. President Joe Biden to drop the charges brought against Assange during Donald Trumps presidency, arguing they posed a grave threat to free speech.

During a press conference outside the British Consulate in New York City, Assanges father, John Shipton, also urged the U.S. to drop the prosecution.

All it will take is a simple telephone call from Attorney General Merrick Garland to the home secretary in the United Kingdom to drop these charges. Thats all it will take. Its not complex, he said.

Assanges supporters and lawyers maintain he was acting as a journalist and is entitled to First Amendment protections of freedom of speech. They argue that the case is politically motivated, that he would face inhumane treatment and be unable to get a fair trial in the U.S.

Silkie Carlo, director of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, said the British governments complicity in the political persecution of a journalist simply for revealing uncomfortable truths to the public is appalling, wrong and shames our country.

Stella Assange, a lawyer who married her husband in a prison ceremony in March, said the U.K. decision marked a dark day for press freedom and for British democracy.

Julian did nothing wrong, she said. He has committed no crime and is not a criminal. He is a journalist and a publisher, and he is being punished for doing his job.

Fridays decision came after a legal battle that went all the way to the U.K. Supreme Court.

A British district court judge initially rejected the extradition request on the grounds that Assange was likely to kill himself if held under harsh U.S. prison conditions. U.S. authorities later provided assurances that the WikiLeaks founder wouldnt face the severe treatment that his lawyers said would put his physical and mental health at risk.

Those assurances led Britains High Court and Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts ruling.

Journalism organizations and human rights groups had called on Britain to refuse the extradition request. Assanges lawyers say he could face up to 175 years in jail if he is convicted in the U.S., though American authorities have said any sentence is likely to be much lower than that.

Amnesty International Secretary General Agnes Callamard said Friday that extraditing Assange would put him at great risk and sends a chilling message to journalists the world over.

Assange remains in Londons high-security Belmarsh Prison, where he has been since he was arrested in 2019 for skipping bail during a separate legal battle. Before that, he spent seven years inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.

Sweden dropped the sex crimes investigations in November 2019 because so much time had elapsed, but British judges have kept Assange in prison pending the outcome of the extradition case.

Assanges supporters say his physical and mental health are both under strain. Stella Assange told a news conference that her husbands condition was deteriorating by the day.

I spoke to him last night as well and he had a lot of anxiety. He couldnt sleep, she said. But Julian is a fighter.

Associated Press writers Eric Tucker in Washington and Bobby Caina Calvan in New York contributed.

Follow this link:

UK government approves Julian Assanges extradition to the U.S. - PBS NewsHour

Via Teleconference

5:05 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR: Okay. Hello, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us this evening. Really appreciate you tuning in.

I just want to start this call with a quick reminder that this call is on background, embargoed until tomorrow morning at 5:00 a.m. Eastern. You may attribute the context of the call to a senior administration official. Today, you will hear from [senior administration officials].

And with that, Ill kick it over to [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, I was muted. Am I unmuted?

MODERATOR: Yes, youre back.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So sorry. Did you hear anything, because it seemed to do that and

MODERATOR: Nope.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay.

MODERATOR: Nope, were just starting.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, Im going to start again then, with apologies. And good evening.

The President made a campaign promise to convene a national task force to prevent and address online harassment and abuse. And this task force is charged with developing recommendations for federal and state governments, for technology platforms, schools, and other public and private entities.

Tomorrow, the Vice President is going to host an event launching the task force, and she will be joined by Cabinet officials, advocates, and, most importantly, survivors.

The task force is aims to address the growing problem of online harassment and abuse, which disproportionately targets women, girls, and LGBTQI+ people.

It will be co-chaired the task force will be co-chaired by the Gender Policy Council and the National Security Council. And it includes the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and other heads of federal agencies and White House policy councils.

You know, just to take a step back about the why here, the President made this commitment because in the United States, one in three women under the age of 35 report being sexually harassed online, and over half of LGBTQI+ individuals report being the target of severe online abuse.

So what are we going to do? Within 180 days of launching, the task force is going to provide a blueprint for recommended steps the federal government can take to counter this issue, as well as suggestions for actions in partnership with the private sector and with civil society. And these recommendations will focus on increasing support for survivors of online harassment and abuse, as well as expanding research to better understand the impact and the scope of the problem, improve prevention efforts, and strengthen accountability for offenders and for platforms.

As you all well know, its imperative that we commit to better understanding and addressing the nexus between online misogyny and radicalization to violence.

You know, sadly, the the recent mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde highlight these links between online harassment and abuse, hate, and extremist acts. The Buffalo shooter, for example, was very explicitly radicalized online. And his manifesto espoused the great replacement theory, which is, of course, rooted in racism, misogyny, and xenophobia.

And thats just one example. We see this over and over again when we see issues of extremism and how they turn into violence.

The task force is just one element of the President and Vice Presidents strong commitment to unify communities and to tackle hate and violent extremism in all its forms.

Im going to turn this over now to [senior administration official]. [Senior administration official], over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, [senior administration official].

So, as [senior administration official] just said, tomorrow, Vice President Harris will launch the White House Task Force to Address Online Harassment and Abuse, which the Gender Policy Council and the National Security Council will co-chair. We also note that the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, will be present, along with Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Sloane Stephens, the U.S. Open Tennis Champion survivor and mental health advocate.

As [senior administration official] had noted, the task force, within 180 days, will provide a series of recommendations for how the federal government, in partnership with the private sector and civil society, can better combat online harassment and abuse.

And just to take a step back, the Vice President has had a long record, as many of you know, of standing up to hate and exploitation. From her days as Attorney General of California to her tenure in the U.S. Senate, and even starting out her career as a district attorney focused on sexual assault and child exploitation cases, shes led the fight against bad actors and has pioneered innovative ways to secure safety and privacy rights in the digital world.

Ill just focus on her attorney general record for a second. She successfully prosecuted one of the first-ever cases against tan operator of a cyber exploitation website. She also launched the Privacy Enforcement and Protection Unit to prosecute individuals who infringe on the privacy rights of others. This unit was the first of its kind for the California Department of Justice at the time.

Furthermore, as Attorney General, she secured an agreement with the leading operators of tech companies that have mobile application platforms to enhance privacy protections basically, privacy agreements for millions of users on their smartphones, tablets, and other devices.

Her longstanding work in this area takes on an additional significance as the potential overruling of Roe may jeopardize data privacy.

As a senator, she introduced legislation that would have made these acts that we were just talking about a federal crime. So, she has led and will continue to lead the effort, along with the President, to dismantle cruelty, bullying, violence, and hate wherever it exists.

Back to you.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much, [senior administration officials]. With that, we will take your questions.

Great. First question, well turn it over to Chris with The AP.

Q Hi, everybody. I just want to make sure I understand whats happening tomorrow, specifically. It seems like whats going to be happening tomorrow is the announcement of a task force that will eventually issue recommendations, not were not going to get the recommendations tomorrow, if I understand that correctly.

And lastly, I just want to make sure I understand: What is the role of the National Security Council in this effort? And will we see Xavier Becerra there tomorrow, given HHSs role?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, Chris. So the answer your first question is: Yes, this is the launch of a task force. Its actually its also its first meeting. So what we will be doing is also hearing testimony from experts and survivors. And the meeting will be attended by a number of the different agencies and White House offices that are part of the task force.

We will not see Secretary Becerra because hes not able to be there. But Surgeon General Murthy will attend in his place, as will Attorney General Garland.

The other question about the role of the National Security Council is: Yes, they will be co-chairing the council with us. And you know, the the reason for that is the obvious connections. Two things one is the obvious connection between online harassment and abuse and extremism, hate, and violent acts, and the threat that has caused.

One of the things that actually we will also be touching on tomorrow and announcing tomorrow is some research from the U.S. Secret Services National Threat Assessment Center under the Department of Homeland Security, which shows the nexus between online misogyny and domestic terrorism. So that just is one example of some additional things we will be announcing tomorrow.

And I feel like there was one more part of your question.

Q No, you got it. Just beyond that misogyny is connected to the Uvalde shooter that thats the connection there, right?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Yes.

Q Okay. Thats it. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Chris and [senior administration official].

Next, well turn it over to Kellen with the New York Times.

Q Hi, thanks very much. I was just wondering, and I know this is going to be the first meeting, but is there any sense of whether there are particular online platforms or social media sites, anything like that, that you expect to be the focus of this task force? Is there any any area in particular that youre going to be focusing on?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We are not focused on particular platforms. We are absolutely focused on the role of platforms and social media more generally, and the connections and their role. And as I said at the at the outset, there will be recommendations for the private sector and for civil society, but were not focused on any particular platform.

Q Got it. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Next, well go over to Cat with the Washington Post.

Q Hey, thanks so much for taking the time to do this. I had two questions. Kind of following up on that, what role will major social media companies play in the task force and in the development of these recommendations?

And I also just wanted to ask you if you see any connection between the work the task force is doing and the work of the January 6th Committee on social media and extremism.

Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sorry. So, you know, as I noted, preventing and addressing all forms of GBV gender-based violence including online requires engagement and, really, partnership between the public and the private sectors. And, you know, many technology companies have expressed a commitment to improving user safety and addressing abuse on their platforms.

And so, we will be looking for opportunities to engage with industry experts and leaders who share that commitment to supporting survivors and preventing abuse, including by improving the safety and the design of their products and platforms.

And I hadnt, quite frankly, thought about the connection to January 6th. This was really has been pretty laser-focused on online harassment and abuse and the connection to gender-based violence.

MODERATOR: Thanks, [senior administration official].

Next, well turn it over to Alexandra with Reuters.

Alexandra, I dont know if we cant hear you.

Okay, in the meantime, well turn it over to Ashley with Axios.

Q Hi, there. Thanks for having the call. You talked about ultimately developing best practices with civil society and the private sector, but will you will the task force be making any policy recommendations for Congress with the federal agencies?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We do anticipate making policy recommendations, as well as recommendations on additional research on the role of, as I said, private sector and civil society and programs.

And again, there will be a couple of additional announcements tomorrow. And so, that sort of forecasts, because, honestly, weve already started this work. And this task force is really the next thing in the line of working on all facets of this of this problem and the solutions to it. So, yes, I would say, in all of those categories.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Next question, well turn it over to Brendan at Politico.

Q Yeah. Hi, guys. Thanks so much for doing the call. You know, I think particularly given, you know, it sounds like the involvement of the DOJ and the National Security Council and folks like that, I wanted to ask whether the White House has given any thought to privacy or, you know, like free speech concerns around this?

You know, Im thinking specifically of sort of the backlash that occurred around DHSs disinformation board, and I can imagine some of the same voices might raise concerns with this effort, you know, regarding the White House or the governments attempt to sort of, like, control speech online that some people might see as obviously hate speech or harassment or threatening violence and others might not see that way.

Are you guys thinking about those issues at all? And is that something that has crossed the White Houses radar so far? And do you guys plan to sort of dig into those issues at all, as you as you weigh a lot of these other questions?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, we are particularly focused on online activities that are illegal conduct, such as cyber stalking or non-consensual distribution of intimate images or targeted harassment, as well as, you know, the overlap with intimate partner and sexual violence online, and online abuse linked to the distribution of child sex abuse material and trafficking.

And these are obviously harmful and illegal acts that occur online. And there has been a strong bipartisan consensus that more has to be done to hold perpetrators and platforms accountable to prevent these harms.

We are very mindful of the of the First Amendment issues. But, you know, violent and threatening speech is not protected by the First Amendment. So, while we are going to carefully navigate those issues, were also going to remain laser-focused on the non-speech aspects. So, yes, that will be part of our work.

And I realized I actually forgot to mention you raised the National Security Council again, and I did realize there was one other piece I wanted to respond to in Chriss question, which is: Why is the National Security Council involved? For all the reasons weve already discussed. And also, I should just note that another thing we are doing is that the the National Security Council and we launched a Global Partnership for Action on Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse at the Summit for Democracy back in December, and sort of officially asked for partners at the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women in March.

And so, the State Department is continuing to expand that global partnership because, obviously, this work is important in a number of different countries around the world. So, that partnership the Global Partnership brings together countries and international organizations and civil society and the private sector to understand technology-facilitated gender-based violence around the world and to prevent and address it.

MODERATOR: Thank you, [senior administration official].

And our last question, well go to Tal at the SF Chronicle.

Q Hi, I have a quick procedural question and then an actual question. The procedural question is: Will you all be distributing a copy of the report you mentioned, tying misogyny to violence?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes. Our goal is to have a factsheet under a 5:00 a.m. embargo tonight. So well make sure everyone on this call gets that.

Q Okay, great. Thanks. And then my question you know, and I mean this with all due respect, but if this is a campaign promise, you know, were 18 months into the administration, I believe, you know, its youre announcing a task force that in six months will give recommendations that, of course, will then need to be enacted.

Im just wondering, you know: What took so long to stand up the task force? And, you know, should we take away a sense of urgency from, you know, this coming together, kind of, over such a long time?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: What I would say about that is that this is, you know, sort of a midpoint in the work on online harassment and abuse. And I think, you know, [senior administration official] laid out the Vice Presidents long commitment to this.

You know, Im sure you know the Presidents long commitment to gender-based violence wherever it occurs. And, you know, between passing the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and taking on military sexual assault and, you know, other issues that are related, this is just part of our overall work to combat gender-based violence wherever it occurs.

And, you know, what has the way that this task force has developed and Im sort of quite proud of the fact that its, I think, a very thoughtful group of people who are involved and the issues are sort of well-defined at this point is because it grows out of interagency work, which has been ongoing.

So, as I said, this is a public acknowledgement of the work that we are doing and, sort of, you know, the moment to say, Okay, weve been doing all of this interagency work. This brings it together, and that were asking for this report back within 180 days.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much. And thanks, everyone, for joining.

Just a friendly reminder that this is under embargo until 5:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. Well be sure to share the factsheet, hopefully in the next few hours here. And please reach out with any questions.

5:25 P.M. EDT

View original post here:

Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on Presidential Action to Establish the Task Force to Address Online Harassment and Abuse -...

Letter to Editor,

I have one simple question to ask the anti-gun folks protesting in Culver City. How would you defend yourself if an armed criminal broke into your house and threatened your life?

I have posed that question to our local Culver City social network groups, and I never got a coherent answer. Infact, one person whined to me and asked me what I would do. I simply answered that I would shoot the intruder and the person who was anti-gun would be dead.

As a consequence, to my answer, the whining anti-gun person complained to Facebook that I was violating community standards and that I should be suspended from Facebook.

Since fascist book, I mean Facebook, is biased against guns and the 2nd amendment, my Facebook account has been suspended for 30 days for supposedly violating the community standards of a whiner.

Not only are our 2nd amendment rights being attacked but our first amendment rights are being suppressed by big tech companies.

This all happened because I asked a simple question that has not been satisfactorily been answered by the anti-gun fanatics.

Robert Zirgulis

Culver City

More here:

Defends Second Amendment Gun Rights - Culver City Observer

'; oEngagementContainer_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec.append(sHTML_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec); } }); } // Build engagement set $.each(oResponse.assets, function(index) { if (index == 1 && sOriginID_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec == null) { sOriginID_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec = oResponse.assets[0].id; } // Display assets once origin is found // Find origin then begin displaying assets if (bFoundOrigin_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec == true) { if (this.id == sOriginID_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec) { // Found orgin a second time. Stop gathering assets and kill next_url bStop_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec = true; sNextUrl_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec = null; oEngagementMore_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec.remove(); } else if (bStop_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec == false && this.id != 'ccfae8f0-ef58-11ec-b36e-5f4fc6fff4ec') { // Display asset var sHTML_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec = ''; if (this.content.includes('engagement-asset') && iDisplayCount_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec ' + this.content + ''; } } } else { if (this.id == sOriginID_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec) { // Origin found. Begin displaying assets bFoundOrigin_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec = true; } else { // Origin found is false. Skip asset // Fail-safe in case origin is not present in set. This can be removed when origin is fixed. if (bFirstRun_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec == true) { // Stored first id sFirstID_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec = this.id; bFirstRun_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec = false; } else if (this.id == sFirstID_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec) { // We've started again. Force origin sOriginID_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec = sFirstID_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec; bFoundOrigin_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec = true; } // end Fail-safe } } // Append engagement assets to container oEngagementContainer_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec.append(sHTML_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec); // Stop traversing asset array if (iDisplayCount_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec >= iMaxDisplay_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec) { bStop_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec = true; return false; } }); // Include block_id on newly added list items oEngagementContainer_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec.find('.engagement-item.original').each(function() { var sHref_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec = scrubURL($(this).find("a.centered-content-link").attr("href")); if(sHref_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec!="javascript:void(0)"){ // Add content discovery tracking sHref_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec += '#tncms-source=endcard-gallery'; // Add to image and headlines links $(this).removeClass('original').find("a.centered-content-link").attr("href", sHref_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec); } }); // Check next URL if (sNextUrl_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec && bStop_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec == false) { // if origin hasn't been found yet and we hit next_url. Trigger the set to pull in again. if (bFoundOrigin_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec == false) { // No origin yet. Call the populate function __tnt.engagement.assets["ccfae8f0-ef58-11ec-b36e-5f4fc6fff4ec"].populate(sNextUrl_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec); } else { // Append sNextUrl_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec to engagement set oEngagementContainer_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec.append(''); if (iDisplayCount_ccfae8f0_ef58_11ec_b36e_5f4fc6fff4ec

Read more:

PHOTOS: People attend first Squeal on the Eel fest - pharostribune.com

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

If your misbegotten plan to overturn an election had just been the subject of a three-hour congressional hearing and was being investigated by a grand jury, would you:

A. SHUT THE HELL UP; orB. Race on over to Substack to whine about the meanies at the Washington Post allowing themselves to be played by false innuendo based on selective leaks from the January 6 Committee?

Lets assume for the sake of argument that you are a marginally competent adult, so you said A.

But Donald Trumps coup-curious lawyer John Eastman is really not a shut the hell up kind of guy. Were talking about the brain genius who used his work email to plot a coup, even going so far as to send an unencrypted email to Rudy Giuliani after January 6 saying, Ive decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works.

Bless his little heart!

Literally the only time the former law professor remembers to put a sock in it is when hes under oath, and then he knows how to plead the Fifth like a champ.

But last night he was not under oath, so when his email correspondence with Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, was reported by the Post and the New York Times, he couldnt help himself.

OMG, indeed.

Last week, US District Judge David Carter ordered Eastman to release the last tranche of disputed emails from his Chapman University account, including several with Ginni Thomas.

[T]wo emails are the groups high-profile leader inviting Dr. Eastman to speak at the meeting, and two contain the meetings agenda, Judge Carter wrote, adding later that Five documents include the agenda for a meeting on December 9, 2020. The agenda included a section entitled GROUND GAME following Nov 4 Election Results, during which a sitting Member of Congress discussed a [p]lan to challenge the electors in the House of Representatives.

The court found that the January 6 Select Committee had a substantial interest in the communications because the presentations furthered a critical objective of the January 6 plan: to have contested states certify alternate slates of electors for President Trump. And Judge Carter has already ruled that attorney-client privilege for some communications with Trump himself did not apply thanks to the crime-fraud exception. So the court certainly wasnt going to shield them based on Eastmans incoherent bleating about his correspondents First Amendment right of association.

The group is described as small off the record cone of silence. 021120. Members were required to provide a phone number in advance [f]or the security of the Zoom meeting. 021242. Several emails contained a footer stating [t]his invitation is Not Transferable. Other emails stated [w]e are careful about who is on the phone and who is in the room and we do not leak what happens, what is said or who is in the meeting ever! See, e.g. 21430 (emphasis in original). Allowing disclosure of the groups communications to a politically misaligned congressional committee would manifestly discourage membership and chill any discussion among the members who remained.

But Eastman was right about one thing: once he handed those emails over to the committee, the fact that Ginni Thomas was the high-profile leader immediately leaked.

Naturally this sparked outrage over the wild impropriety of Justice Thomas adjudicating election cases as his wife was advocating for one of the litigants. Mrs. Thomas was already in the spotlight after the revelation of her texts with Trumps chief of staff Mark Meadows, in which she wondered whether it was true that the Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators were being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition.

But taken with some of Eastmans other Chapman emails, it also sparked other, more immediate questions. Such as what exactly was the basis of his email to Wisconsin election lawyer Kenneth Chesebro on December 24, 2020, saying that the odds are not based on the legal merits but an assessment of the justices spines, and I understand that there is a heated fight underway, at the Supreme Court.

Did John Eastman have some insight into internal court deliberations? And, if so, did he get it from his buddy Ginni T, whose discretion, not to say her grip on reality, seems to be somewhat lacking?

Which brings us to last night, when Eastman tapped out this furious Substack post, insisting that his reference to the heated fight underway at the Supreme Court was the subject of news accounts at the time. And by news accounts he means one podcast featuring an anonymous account from someone purporting to be a clerk for one of the Justices on SCOTUS. It featured Chief Justice Roberts cowering in fear of Antifa, and shouting You are forgetting what your role here is Neil,and I dontwant to hear from the two junior justices anymore. I willtell you how you will vote.

And if that sounds ever so slightly less than credible, we might add that the podcaster has been deplatformed by Taboola, the company that populates every website with an infinite scroll of spam ads. How shady do you have to be when the One weird trick to get rid of toenail fungus dudes wont work with you?

Anyway, Eastman is setting the record straight:

Whether or not those news accounts were true, I can categorically confirm that at no time did I discuss with Mrs. Thomas or Justice Thomas any matters pending or likely to come before the Court. We have never engaged in such discussions, would not engage in such discussions, and did not do so in December 2020 or anytime else. As for the email communications I had with Mrs. Thomas? As you can see for yourselves, she invited me to give an update about election litigation to a group she met with periodically. Those from the January 6 committee who leaked a false impression about that email should be ashamed of themselves, but the Post should be embarrassed for running a story based on their false innuendo.

He attaches exactly one email, of the several that he was forced to disclose, in which Mrs. T invites him to address her Frontliners group and misquotes George Orwell. He fails to mention that he fought tooth and nail to keep those very communications under wraps, or at least to redact the correspondents identities, even going so far as to suggest that [t]he meetings also seem to have a religious aspect, as the agendas indicate each meeting closed with a prayer.

But dont worry! Were about to get to the bottom of all of this, since Ginni Thomas says she cant wait to accept Committee Chair Bennie Thompsons invitation to set the record straight.

I cant wait to clear up misconceptions. I look forward to talking to them, she told the Daily Caller, her former employer.

What are the odds that Mrs. Justice Clarence Thomas actually sits down and lets herself be interviewed on camera by Liz Cheney et al?

LOL.

OMG, Mrs. Thomas asked me to give an update about election litigation to her group. Stop the Presses! [John Eastman Substack]

Eastman v. Thompson [Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dyelives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

See original here:

John Eastman Spills The Deets On His Pal Ginni - Above the Law

The Park Record Sports Editor Brendan Farrell is one of the 2022 Utah Headliners Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists first-place winners.

Farrells Hurts Like a Bullet article that documented the Park City High School Miners football teams season-ending loss to the Bountiful Redhawks took top honors in the Sports Deadline Reporting category.

The award was announced during a ceremony held Thursday, at the Gallivan Utah Center in Salt Lake City.

Taking first place is an incredible honor, and Im very proud of what myself and everyone else at The Park Record has achieved in the last year, said Farrell, who climbed aboard as the newspapers sports editor in 2021. Working in Park City and having the opportunity to tell the stories of the athletes who live here has been amazing.

Andy Bernhard, publisher of The Park Record, praised Farrell for reviving the sports editor position which was put on hold during the first year of the coronavirus pandemic.

Im really excited for Brendan, Bernhard said. Hes worked so hard, and earning a first place SPJ award certainly validates his efforts. Were proud to have him on board.

The Park Records city editor, Jay Hamburger, and columnist Teri Orr were also recognized during the ceremony.

Hamburger received a second place honor in the general news category and an honorable mention in the general feature group.

Orr took home second place in the opinion column set.

The Utah Headliners Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists is dedicated to sharing the latest best practices at regular events, recognizing the best work with annual awards, and upholding the First Amendment in Utah.

The organization not only awards scholarships to student journalists, but also coordinates training sessions, provides networking opportunities and hosts annual contests that recognize outstanding work and contributions to journalism in Utah.

See original here:

Park Record sports editor scores a first-place win at the Society of Professional Journalists awards - The Park Record

Join the ALA Intellectual Freedom Round Table (IFRT) and the Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF) along with banned author David Levithan, library professionals, authors, and friends for this 2022 Freedom to Read Celebration, Merritt Fund fundraiser, and reception. The organizations will honor the recipients of the FTRF Roll of Honor Award, John Phillip Immroth Memorial Award, Gerald Hodges Intellectual Freedom Chapter Relations Award, and Eli M. Oboler Memorial Award.

Were excited to have author David Levithan launch the evening by sharing his remarks, and experience, with intellectual freedom and censorship. David is a childrens book editor and the author of several books for young adults, including Lambda Literary Award winner Two Boys Kissing; Nick & Norahs Infinite Playlist, Naomi and Elys No Kiss List, and Dash & Lilys Book of Dares (co-authored with Rachel Cohn); Will Grayson, Will Grayson (co-authored with John Green); and Every You, Every Me (with photographs from Jonathan Farmer). David was named the recipient of the Margaret A. Edwards Award for his contribution to YA literature. His newest book, Answers in the Pages, was released through Penguin Random House in May. This title has a timely topic as it addresses speaking up and coming out as parents lobby to ban a beloved book from the school curriculum.

The following 2022 intellectual freedom award recipients will be honored at the event.

Add the celebration to your Conference Scheduler.RSVP to attendEvent Date: Friday, June 24th at 7pm - 8:30pm ET.Location: Marriott Marquis, Univ of DC & Catholic UnivCost: Suggested Donation: $20.00 (checks and cash preferred) to benefit the Leroy C. Merritt Humanitarian Fund (one free drink ticket included)

FTRF and IFRT wish to thank Penguin Random House for their generous sponsorship of the Freedom to Read Celebration.

About the Freedom to Read FoundationThe Freedom to Read Foundation has been working on behalf of librarians and others to protect the First Amendment for over 50 years. Because FTRF is a non-profit, the staff and trustees may also litigate on behalf of First Amendment issues, as well as educate and advocate. The FTRF board of trustees includes representatives from each of ALAs roundtables. This ensures that librarians representing all forms of library work can bring their voices and concerns to FTRF and carry back valuable information.

About the Intellectual Freedom Round TableThe Intellectual Freedom Round Table of the American Library Association provides a forum for the discussion of activities, programs and problems in intellectual freedom of libraries and librarians; serves as a channel of communications on intellectual freedom matters; promotes a greater opportunity for involvement among the members of the ALA in defense of intellectual freedom; and promotes a greater feeling of responsibility in the implementation of ALA policies on intellectual freedom.

About the Office for Intellectual FreedomEstablished December 1, 1967, the Office for Intellectual Freedom is charged with implementing ALA policies concerning the concept of intellectual freedom as embodied in the Library Bill of Rights, the Associations basic policy on free access to libraries and library materials. The goal of the office is to educate librarians and the general public about the nature and importance of intellectual freedom in libraries.

About the Merritt FundThe LeRoy C. Merritt Humanitarian Fund was established in 1970 as a special trust in memory of Dr. LeRoy C. Merritt. It is devoted to the support, maintenance, medical care, and welfare of librarians who, in the Trustees opinion, are: Denied employment rights or discriminated against on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, race, color, creed, religion, age, disability, or place of national origin; or Denied employment rights because of defense of intellectual freedom; that is, threatened with loss of employment or discharged because of their stand for the cause of intellectual freedom, including promotion of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the freedom of librarians to select items for their collections from all the worlds written and recorded information, and defense of privacy rights.

See the original post here:

Freedom to Read Celebration, Supporting the Merritt Fund, and Featuring Banned Author David Levithan - ala.org