On official U.S. Army and Navy esports Twitch channels, members of the military livestream themselves playing video games such as Call of Duty, Fortnite and League of Legends for an audience of thousands. Its an outreach and recruitment effort and the military service members also chat with viewers about life in the armed forces.

Not everyone is looking to sign up. whats your favorite u.s. w4r cr1me? Jordan Uhl asked in a chat on the Army Twitch channel on July 8, substituting numbers for letters to get around the channels moderation settings.

Mr. Uhl, a 32-year-old activist, then posted a Wikipedia link to a list of war crimes committed by the U.S. military. A video showed him being banned from the chat, and one of the streamers said, have a nice time getting banned, my dude.

Now, facing criticism from First Amendment advocacy groups who say the ban is unconstitutional, the Army said Wednesday it would pause streaming on Twitch to review internal policies and procedures, as well as all platform-specific policies.

In a letter sent to Army and Navy recruiting officers Wednesday, the Knight First Amendment Institute demanded that the military branches channels change their moderation policies and restore access for Mr. Uhl and 300 others who have made similar comments in the past few weeks.

When the government intentionally opens a space to the public at large for expressive activity, it has created a public forum under the First Amendment, and it cannot constitutionally bar speakers from that forum based on viewpoint, the institute wrote in a letter Wednesday to Army and Navy recruiting officers on behalf of Mr. Uhl.

An Army spokeswoman, Kelli Bland, said users were banned because their comments constituted harassment, which would violate the terms of service of Twitch, which is owned by Amazon.

The eSports Team blocked the term war crimes in its Twitch channel after discovering the trend was meant to troll and harass the team, Ms. Bland told The New York Times. Twitch members used creative spelling to continue related posts. Following the guidelines and policies set by Twitch, the U.S. Army eSports Team banned a user from its account due to concern over posted content and website links that were considered harassing and degrading in nature.

The First Amendment Institute disputed that Mr. Uhl and other users remarks were harassment, which Twitch, defines as content that attempts to intimidate, degrade, abuse, or bully others, or creates a hostile environment for others.

Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the First Amendment Institute, said he had not yet received a reply from the Army or Navy, and he was prepared to sue them if they did not change their policies.

A Twitch spokeswoman did not respond to questions about the conflict, but pointed out that Twitchs policy states that channel owners and moderators are free to ban anyone from their channel, regardless of the reason.

The Navy did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday. News of the ban and the letter were first reported by Vice.

The governments actions here are plainly unconstitutional, said Naomi Gilens, a legal fellow at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. When a government official or agency creates a forum for speech online and invites the public to participate, it cant censor speech just because it doesnt like the message or viewpoints being expressed.

Because the Army and Navy are using these Twitch channels to recruit young people, this issue is about much more than just esports, Meenakshi Krishnan, a legal fellow at the First Amendment Institute, said in a statement. Participants in these forums have a constitutional right to engage in speech critical of the military. The Army and Navy certainly have no legitimate interest in suppressing speech relating to war crimes.

Courts have previously ruled that government-run social media accounts constitute public forums and that the government cannot block or exclude people based on their comments or views. Last July, a federal appeals court ruled that President Trump could not block people from his @realDonaldTrump Twitter account.

The Army most recently streamed 13 days ago; the Navy has continued streaming through Tuesday.

Mr. Uhl said that the issue was not simply about him as an individual getting banned. Everyone should be able to criticize the military on their social media channels, he said. Its at the core of free-speech protection.

Mr. Uhl was banned from the Navy Twitch stream on Saturday along with others discussing war crimes and the former Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher.

I hope this helps people understand that youre allowed to criticize the government online, Mr. Uhl said. As we become an increasingly digital society, the laws need updating and we need protections for political speech online. We cant have a system where the government can delete or ban negative comments on a social platform.

On Wednesday afternoon, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, announced plans to file a measure to block the military from using video games and esports as recruitment methods.

The bans have renewed criticism of military recruiting tactics. Last week, Twitch also told the Armys esports channel to stop advertising a fake video game controller giveaway that instead directed people to a recruitment form, The Verge reported.

Though the military has a long history of leveraging video games and the gaming community for recruitment, and its esports teams have been around since 2018, it drew increased attention online on June 30 after the official Army Twitter account responded to a tweet from the chat application Discord with UwU, an emoticon that conveys happiness or smugness. For that, the Army was accused of using social media to prey on vulnerable teenagers.

Some branches of the military, like the Marines, have abstained from relying on esports and gaming to recruit. A statement from the Marine Corps Recruiting Command obtained by Military.com reiterates that the militarys national marketing brand strategy does not include future plans to establish esports teams or create branded games.

With the Marine Corps brand, we are very strategic in how we activate that brand and how people interact with it, Capt. Michael Maggitti, a spokesman for the 8th Marine Corps District, told Military.com in May. It could be some peoples first time engaging with the brand, and its a very serious decision to serve, and theres concerns over gamifying what we do and the translation between video games and actual military service.

Read this article:

Army Pauses Twitch Game Streaming After First Amendment Claim - The New York Times

By John E. Finn Wesleyan University

Many public health professionals and politicians are urging or requiring citizens to wear face masks to help slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

Some Americans have refused, wrongly claiming mask decrees violate the Constitution. An internet search turns up dozens of examples.

"Costco Karen," for instance, staged a sit-in in a Costco entrance in Hillsboro, Oregon, after she refused to wear a mask, yelling, "I am an American I have rights."

A group called Health Freedom Idaho organized a protest against a Boise, Idaho, mask mandate. One protester said, "I'm afraid where this country is headed if we just all roll over and abide by control that goes against our constitutional rights."

As one protester said, "The coronavirus doesn't override the Constitution."

Speaking as a constitutional law scholar, these objections are nonsense.

The objections

It is not always clear why anti-maskers think government orders requiring face coverings in public spaces or those put in place by private businesses violate their constitutional rights, much less what they think those rights are. But most of the mistaken objections fall into two categories:

Mandatory masks violate the First Amendment right to speech, assembly and especially association, and mandatory masks violate a person's constitutional right to liberty and to make decisions about his or her own health and bodily integrity.

They're not mutually exclusive claims: A lawsuit filed by four Florida residents against Palm Beach County, for example, argues that mask mandates "interfere with personal liberty and constitutional rights," such as freedom of speech, right to privacy, due process and the "constitutionally protected right to enjoy and defend life and liberty." The lawsuit asks the court to issue a permanent injunction against the county's mask mandate.

Responding to a reporter who asked why President Donald Trump appeared unconcerned about the absence of masks and social distancing at a campaign rally in Tulsa, Vice President Mike Pence said: "I want to remind you again freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble is in the Constitution of the U.S. Even in a health crisis, the American people don't forfeit our constitutional rights."

What the First Amendment

does - and doesn't - do

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, petition, assembly and religion.

There are two reasons why mask mandates don't violate the First Amendment.

First, a mask doesn't keep you from expressing yourself. At most, it limits where and how you can speak. Constitutional law scholars and judges call these "time, place and manner" restrictions. If they do not discriminate on the basis of the content of the speech, such restrictions do not violate the First Amendment. An example of a valid time, place and manner restriction would be a law that limits political campaigning within a certain distance of a voting booth.

Additionally, the First Amendment, like all liberties ensured by the Constitution, is not absolute.

All constitutional rights are subject to the goverment's authority to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. This authority is called the "police power." The Supreme Court has long held that protecting public health is sufficient reason to institute measures that might otherwise violate the First Amendment or other provisions in the Bill of Rights. In 1944, in the case of Prince v. Massachusetts, for example, the Supreme Court upheld a law that prohibited parents from using their children to distribute religious pamphlets on public streets.

The right to liberty

Some anti-maskers object that masks violate the right to liberty.

The right to liberty, including the right to make choices about one's health and body, is essentially a constitutional principle of individual autonomy, neatly summarized as "My body, my choice."

The 1905 case of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts shows why mask mandates don't violate any constitutional right to privacy or health or bodily integrity. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld a smallpox vaccination requirement in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The court said that the vaccination requirement did not violate Jacobsen's right to liberty or "the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best."

As the court wrote, "There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members." In a 1995 New York case, a state court held that an individual with active tuberculosis could be forcibly detained in a hospital for appropriate medical treatment.

Even if you assume that mask mandates infringe upon what the Supreme Court calls "fundamental rights," or rights that the court has called the "very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty," it has consistently ruled states can act if the restrictions advance a compelling state interest and do so in the least restrictive manner.

Rights are conditional

As the Jacobsen ruling and the doctrine of time, place and manner make clear, the protection of all constitutional liberties rides upon certain necessary - but rarely examined - assumptions about communal and public life.

One is that constitutional rights - whether to liberty, speech, assembly, freedom of movement or autonomy - are held on several conditions. The most basic and important of these conditions is that our exercise of rights must not endanger others (and in so doing violate their rights) or the public welfare. This is simply another version of the police power doctrine.

Unfortunately, a global pandemic in which a serious and deadly communicable disease can be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers upsets that background and justifies a wide range of reasonable restrictions on our liberties. Believing otherwise makes the Constitution a suicide pact - and not just metaphorically.

The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.

Read more from the original source:

Constitution doesn't have a problem with mask mandates - Sumter Item

Dallas police issued new restrictions on the use of "non-lethal" weapons like tear gas and pepper balls on Wednesday. That policy on so-called "First Amendment activity" came just a few hours after the local website Central Track published a leakedinternal police document that shines a light on the departments violent clashes with protesters during May and June.

The flashpoint moment happened June 1 on the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge between downtown and West Dallas. Afterward, police faced a number of criticisms, including using smoke bombs and projectiles that were fired into crowds with children.

Activists and community members called for an investigation, which police have said is ongoing. But the document Central Track posted Wednesday indicates the department's review was completed more than a month ago, on June 12.

KERAs Hady Mawajdeh talked toCentral Tracks founder Pete Freedman to learn more about the document. Here's a lightly edited transcript:

KERA News Conversation w/ Central Track founder Pete Freedman.

Hady Mawajdeh: How did Central Track get this document? And how did you go about proving its authenticity?

Pete Freedman: We first heard about the report about 10 days ago, and we were alerted by an independent Dallas journalist named Avi Adelman who had been in his words, leaked the document by a source. He added City Hall was aware of its existence and frustrated that no one else knew about it. Upon hearing that yeah, we were interested in learning more.

Avi passed the document along to me. I looked over at myself, scanned it for inconsistencies and eventually reached out to some contacts on Dallas City Council who were able to independently verify that the document I had received was the same one that they had been sent by the city manager on June 17.

HM: For people who haven't been paying attention, why is the release of this a big deal?

PF: I think the major things that we haven't yet gotten really a sufficient statement from DPD about the conflict of the first four days of protesting here in Dallas, Texas. In fact, we've gotten a number of promises from DPD that they would have a report coming. Those promises first started coming out at a marathon city council session on June 5. It's been, you know, over a month and a half since then....

So I think just the fact that it exists and council members and higher-ups, DPD had it in their possession and hadn't yet published it or released it, or even acknowledged its existence while the public was clamoring for it. And while many of them were publicly calling for transparency in DPD, I think it speaks to an inconsistency there.

HM: There seemed to be some inconsistencies from what the public has heard in what this document says happened over those four days. An example is Chief Renee Hall has stated several times that smoke bombs were used on the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge on June 1, when 600 people were arrested, not tear gas. But that's not what the document says. Can you talk about that, and any other inconsistencies you saw?

PF: Use of tear gas on the bridge has been a point of contention since Monday, June 1. The protesters immediately claimed tear gas was used. DPD immediately claimed it hadn't been, and there's been a lot of back and forth about that in the press and in public.... That's just vital information that everyone's been focused on.

It's worth pointing out, though, that in their response to Central Track publishing this report, Chief Hall and City Manager T.C. Broadnax have both indicated that the report is only a draft. The reason that they hadn't put it out yet is because it was incomplete. So I guess it's possible that the official record might still change. Beyond that, there's mention of a road that doesn't exist, that it claims protesters were marching along on their way to the bridge.

There's also a pretty glaring note in which DPD officers say they were seeing a lot of plastic bags filled with water and baking soda, a combination that they say can explode. However, that is a solution commonly used as an anti-tear gas agent. Baking soda, as those of us who made volcanoes in middle school chemistry classes know, only explodes when combined with vinegar not water.

HM: Central Track is dedicated to covering Dallas. But your efforts have really shifted over the past 55 days-plus. You've unleashed your staff on these protests since they've started. I guess the big, and maybe the more important, question is why?

PF: I think this is a hugely important story. Our reader tends to be younger than most of the readers in Dallas. Our average reader is 27 years old. This is a story that is vital to that generation of Dallasites. Also, I'm not sure anyone else is providing the coverage that we're doing on this stuff.

I think there's a lot of value to, you know, your bird's-eye-view helicopter footage of protests for sure. But there's also a real huge amount of value in being on the ground, hearing what the protesters have to say, seeing first-hand what the police are doing in response to the protesters actions and sharing that perspective. I wish more did it. We feel really compelled to be out there every day or as often as we can, because there aren't enough people telling what we think is a hugely important story, not just in Dallas, but nationwide and even globally.

Read more:

What You Need To Know About The Unreleased Dallas Police Report After Protests - KERA News

Does the phrase 'Section 230' mean anything to you? Well, if you've ever used the internet it actually does whether you realize it or not. Here's what it is and why it matters.

Section 230 is just 26 words, passed into law in 1996, that protects internet providers and websites from legal liability if someone using their platform or service posts something illegal.

It reads, "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. It's often considered the single most-important piece of legislation that helped innovate the internet.

The legal protections offered by Sec. 230 have allowed sites like Google, Yelp, YouTube, Facebook and countless others to provide users a place to quickly and easily post their videos, reviews, photos, and other content. It also allows internet service providers to provide cheap and easily-accessible internet.

Without that law, websites and internet service providers could be liable for users actions online, meaning they might otherwise restrict the ability to create and post content without moderation.

Given the sheer size of user-generated websites, the Electronic Frontier Foundation writes, it would be infeasible for online intermediaries to prevent objectionable content from cropping up on their site. Rather than face potential liability for their users' actions, most would likely not host any user content at all or would need to protect themselves by being actively engaged in censoring what we say, what we see, and what we do online.

After Twitter flagged several of his tweets for violating company policies, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship that directed his administration to consider reforms to Sec. 230. He specifically mentioned Twitter, selective censorship, and the goal of eliminating political bias.

Tech companies warned the narrowing the Sec. 230s legal protections would stifle innovation online and could permanently alter the way we use the internet.

If the websites were legally responsible for every word, every image, (and) every video their users posted...they might not allow your content, altogether, said Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity professor at the Naval Academy and author of The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet. The other possibility...would be that platforms want to incur less liability, so they'll just take a hands off approach and allow everything."

Former Vice President and presumptive democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has also suggested revoking the law because he doesnt think sites like Facebook are doing enough to censor false and hateful content.

Yes. Because of Section 230, a judge ruled the Congressman could not sue Twitter over a parody account, Devin Nunes Cow, which now has more than 750,000 followers.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws that limit free speech. However, the First Amendment does not pertain to rules created by private businesses.

You can reach out to your member of Congress to voice your opinion. And, your votes in November will help determine the future of Section 230 too.

Jeff Kosseffs book details the origins and impact of Section 230, and the EFF provides Section 230 resources and news on its website.

Sometimes, adults make things more complicated than necessary. NBCLX told this story using children on-camera because its a simple law that needed a simple explanation.

Read the original:

Why Reforms to Section 230 Could Radically Change How You Use the Internet - NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

ST. PETERSBURG Any social-justice statement made by the Rays during Fridays season-opening national anthem wont be a completely collaborative demonstration.

The longest-tenured current Ray said Wednesday he plans to stand, though he supports any teammate who chooses to do otherwise.

I love this great country we live in, and obviously theres a lot of crazy stuff going on right now, but I will be standing, centerfielder Kevin Kiermaier said. I cant speak for everyone else, but I will be standing.

Kiermaier, who begins his seventh full season with the club Friday, said the team has had conversations about what to do or not do during the anthem as protests for racial justice continue throughout the country. The general sentiment, he indicated, is to allow each player to express himself as he sees fit, with the support of his peers.

Were not gonna make it a group thing like, Hey, we all have to do this or that, Kiermaier said.

Each individual has a preference on what they want to do, and thats all Ill say on that matter, because we understand where everyones coming from in many different ways. But at the same time, everyone has the right to do what they choose, and we have to respect that.

Right-handed reliever Pete Fairbanks concurred.

I havent made up my mind on what I plan to do for the anthem, he said. If people want to kneel, if they dont want to kneel, that is their right to do that through the First Amendment and ... the people who fought to uphold that freedom. So whatever stance people take, Im all for.

Manager Kevin Cash brandished his coveted bullpen during Wednesdays four-inning simulated scrimmage, letting eight different relievers face at least two batters each.

No one gave up an extra-base hit. The most impressive: right-hander Oliver Drake, who took the mound first and struck out Jose Martinez (swinging at a high fastball) and Joey Wendle before exiting. Nine of his 10 pitches were for strikes.

The thought and the idea of managing games is certainly back in the fold, Cash said.

It was not for a while there; it wasnt even probably that first week of spring (2.0). But when you see those guys bouncing from the bullpen on to the mound, and the potential of the mixing and matching that we can do to put ourselves in a position to win, it gets really exciting.

The Rays decision to open the season with three catchers on the active roster obviously delighted Kevan Smith, who secured the final spot. A former Angel and nonroster invitee to the original spring training, Smith said he believes hell have ample playing opportunities based on the Rays in-game creativity.

Ive got to be ready to step in and catch a game, Ive got to be ready to pinch hit, catch late in the games, obviously that (designated hitter) spot against lefties, he said.

I think what weve got to think about here is where is this (COVID-19) virus gonna go, where are these injuries gonna take us, so I think theres gonna be a lot of ways to get at-bats and get some playing time.

Fergs Sports Bar & Grill will hold a watch party with some restrictions in place Friday starting at 5 p.m. at its Central Avenue site. A large-screen TV truck will be positioned in the restaurants east parking lot, while all other TVs also will be tuned in to the game. All indoor and outdoor seating will be socially distanced, and service will be provided only to those who are seated. Standing or sitting at the bars will be prohibited. ... The Rays and Royals worked out a deal for right-hander Stephen Woods, a Rule 5 pick last year, to stay with Kansas City. The Rays will get cash or a player to be named. ... Seiya Sano, a batting-practice pitcher and liaison to Yoshi Tsutsugo, logged some outfield action for the second consecutive scrimmage, starting in right field for the light-blue squad.

Unbelievable. Theres many words to describe them, but theres not one guy on that mound that youre not worried about. Theres not a comfortable at-bat. Smith, offering a general assessment of the Rays pitching staff

More:

Kevin Kiermaier will stand for anthem, supports Rays teammates who wont - Tampa Bay Times

The Trump administration denied on Wednesday that it had returned Michael D. Cohen to prison in retaliation for his decision to publish a jailhouse tell-all book about his former boss, the president.

The government said in newly filed court papers that the decision to send Mr. Cohen, President Trumps former fixer and lawyer, back to prison earlier this month after he had been released on furlough was made by a federal Bureau of Prisons employee. That employee had no idea that Mr. Cohen was writing a memoir, the papers said.

Instead, Mr. Cohen endangered his own freedom by becoming combative when refusing to sign an agreement outlining the terms of his release, the government said. The agreement was not devised by anyone at B.O.P. or in the executive branch let alone a high-level official with any motive to prevent the release of Mr. Cohens book, the papers said.

The new filing came in response to a lawsuit Mr. Cohen filed on Monday against Attorney General William P. Barr and the director of the Bureau of Prisons, demanding that he be released and allowed to serve the remainder of his sentence in home confinement.

In the suit, Mr. Cohen asserted that the government had violated his First Amendment rights by returning him to custody in what he said was retaliation for his book project, making it impossible for him to complete the manuscript.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court in Manhattan has set a hearing on the matter for Thursday.

Mr. Cohens lawsuit has drawn support from the American Civil Liberties Union, which joined private lawyers in helping to represent him, as well as from legal scholars.

This week, a group of constitutional law professors filed a brief in the case, saying they were deeply concerned about the blatant disregard for First Amendment rights and values displayed in the treatment of Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Cohen, 53, pleaded guilty in 2018 to campaign finance violations and other crimes, stemming from a scheme to pay hush money to two women who said they had had affairs with Mr. Trump before he was president. Mr. Trump has denied the allegations.

Mr. Cohen had been serving a three-year sentence at a minimum-security prison camp in Otisville N.Y., about 75 miles northwest of New York City.

He said in his lawsuit that he had been writing his book in plain sight in a prison library at Otisville and had discussed it with other inmates, prison officials and staff members.

The suit said the book would include Mr. Cohens firsthand experiences with Mr. Trump and graphic details about the presidents behavior behind closed doors.

The narrative describes pointedly certain anti-Semitic remarks against prominent Jewish people and virulently racist remarks against such Black leaders as President Barack Obama and Nelson Mandela, according to the suit.

The book was tentatively titled Disloyal: The True Story of Michael Cohen, Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump, the suit said.

Then, in May, Mr. Cohen, whose lawyers have said he has severe hypertension and respiratory issues, was released on furlough as a part of an effort by the Bureau of Prisons to curb the spread of coronavirus in its facilities. He continued to work on his project at home and also publicized it, announcing plans to publish the book in late September, before the election.

On July 9, Mr. Cohen was abruptly sent back to prison after he balked at signing an agreement that would have allowed him to remain home if he agreed not to publish the book for the duration of his sentence. His projected release date from prison is November 2021.

The timeline here clearly indicates retaliation, the lawsuit said.

But in its response, the government described the behavior of Mr. Cohen while meeting with probation officers to consider the agreement as defiant and unacceptable.

The government asserts that Mr. Cohen told the officers that he was going to write a book no matter what happens. He also objected to a provision that restricted his employment, asking whether he could appear as a political correspondent on television or the radio, the government filing said.

It added that Mr. Cohen also told one officer to say hello to Mr. Barr.

Since his return to prison, Mr. Cohen has been held in solitary confinement virtually around the clock, making it impossible for him to complete his book, according to the suit.

The government responded in its filing that Mr. Cohen was isolated after being returned to Otisville under a policy that says new inmates are quarantined for about two weeks before being allowed to enter the prisons general population.

He is to be tested for the coronavirus on Friday, the government said, adding, He is free to work on his book while incarcerated.

The rest is here:

Government Denies Cohen Was Imprisoned to Stop Trump Book - The New York Times

Lawyers representing activist and streamer Jordan Uhl, who was banned by U.S. Army and Navy Twitch channels for asking about American war crimes, have demanded that the Army and Navy reverse the ban on First Amendment grounds.

The banning of Mr. Uhl from these channels violates the First Amendment, lawyers from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University wrote in a letter addressed to senior military officials. We write to ask that you unban Mr. Uhl immediately and also unban all others who have been banned from the channels based on similar speech.

The lawyers also demanded in the letter that both the Army and Navys esports teams adopt and publish written policies to ensure that others are not banned from these channels in the future based on viewpoint.

As Motherboard previously reported, Uhl was banned from commenting on Twitch streams involving the Armys esports teams for posting comments such as whats your favorite us war crime? and whats your favorite u.s. w4r cr1me? Earlier this week, he was banned from commenting on the Navys Twitch stream for asking about Eddie Gallagher, a Navy SEAL convicted of war crimes. Last week, lawyers from both the Knight Institute and the ACLU said that these bans almost definitely violate the First Amendment.

I plan to take this as far as we need to, Uhl told Motherboard on the phone. This isnt just about me getting unbanned. This is about people being able to use their voice online to speak critically of the government.

His messages were quintessential political speech, which lie at the core of the First Amendment. [judges in] N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co. [found], the Knight lawyers wrote. Nor does the government have the authority, in a forum like this one, to adopt rules that effectively prohibit participants from criticizing the military.

A cached version of the Navys Twitch streaming guide tells sailors to ban trolls. Courts have previously ruled that official U.S. government social media accounts, including Donald Trumps Twitter account, cannot block people without violating the First Amendment. The lawyers demanded a response to their letter by August 5.

In 2017, Knight successfully sued Trump for blocking people on Twitter. Uhl was part of that case. Government officials dont seem to understand the First Amendment, Uhl said. Even in 2020, an immensely digital age, were still seeing government officials flabbergasted by these kinds of cases. I dont expect them, en masse, to learn anytime soon.

"U.S. Army Recruiting Command received the letter today and will review it through appropriate channels," a U.S. Army representative told Motherboard. "The esports team members banned users for behavior intended to harass, degrade and intimidate, which violates the Twitch community guidelines."

Update: This story has been updated with comment from the U.S. Army.

See more here:

Lawyers Demand the Army Stop Violating First Amendment on Twitch - VICE

Does the phrase 'Section 230' mean anything to you? Well, if you've ever used the internet it actually does whether you realize it or not. Here's what it is and why it matters.

Section 230 is just 26 words, passed into law in 1996, that protects internet providers and websites from legal liability if someone using their platform or service posts something illegal.

It reads, "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. It's often considered the single most-important piece of legislation that helped innovate the internet.

The legal protections offered by Sec. 230 have allowed sites like Google, Yelp, YouTube, Facebook and countless others to provide users a place to quickly and easily post their videos, reviews, photos, and other content. It also allows internet service providers to provide cheap and easily-accessible internet.

Without that law, websites and internet service providers could be liable for users actions online, meaning they might otherwise restrict the ability to create and post content without moderation.

Given the sheer size of user-generated websites, the Electronic Frontier Foundation writes, it would be infeasible for online intermediaries to prevent objectionable content from cropping up on their site. Rather than face potential liability for their users' actions, most would likely not host any user content at all or would need to protect themselves by being actively engaged in censoring what we say, what we see, and what we do online.

After Twitter flagged several of his tweets for violating company policies, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship that directed his administration to consider reforms to Sec. 230. He specifically mentioned Twitter, selective censorship, and the goal of eliminating political bias.

Tech companies warned the narrowing the Sec. 230s legal protections would stifle innovation online and could permanently alter the way we use the internet.

If the websites were legally responsible for every word, every image, (and) every video their users posted...they might not allow your content, altogether, said Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity professor at the Naval Academy and author of The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet. The other possibility...would be that platforms want to incur less liability, so they'll just take a hands off approach and allow everything."

Former Vice President and presumptive democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has also suggested revoking the law because he doesnt think sites like Facebook are doing enough to censor false and hateful content.

Yes. Because of Section 230, a judge ruled the Congressman could not sue Twitter over a parody account, Devin Nunes Cow, which now has more than 750,000 followers.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws that limit free speech. However, the First Amendment does not pertain to rules created by private businesses.

You can reach out to your member of Congress to voice your opinion. And, your votes in November will help determine the future of Section 230 too.

Jeff Kosseffs book details the origins and impact of Section 230, and the EFF provides Section 230 resources and news on its website.

Sometimes, adults make things more complicated than necessary. NBCLX told this story using children on-camera because its a simple law that needed a simple explanation.

More:

Why Reforms to Section 230 Could Radically Change How You Use the Internet - NBC Connecticut

How The First Amendment Can Fight BLM Messages, Rosewood City Removes Street Art After Receiving Demand

Get our free ebook on how the Soviet Union became Putin's Russia.

Q2 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more

WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 22, 2020) - Many cities have permitted supporters of Black Lives Matter [BLM] and related causes to post messages supporting their views, but those who think there should be some balance may have a new weapon.

Although Rosewood City in California had permitted a group to paint the words "BLACK LIVES MATTER" on a city street, they ordered the words removed just after receiving a request from an attorney to be able to paint the words "MAGA 2020" on the same stretch of street, or nearby.

Although the City provided another explanation for suddenly agreeing to remove the BLM message, and pledged that "no further art installation will be authorized on the City's streets," it's more likely that the City realized that it cannot constitutionally permit one group to post a message, and deny that same privilege to another group with another message, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, whose similar complaint forced radio and TV stations to balance cigarette commercials with antismoking messages, and led to the ban on cigarette commercials.

The City claimed that it ordered the removal of the BLM words because"staff is concerned about public safety issues that may arise from painting murals on its public streets, which could result in driver confusion and traffic accidents," but the timing makes it more likely that the removal was prompted by a fear of a law suit for violating the First Amendment, says Banzhaf.

Professor Banzhaf explained that streets, sidewalks, and parks have traditionally been classified as "public forums" (or "open forums") where, under the First Amendment, speech (including signs) cannot be restricted based upon their content or meaning.

So, while the government can impose content-neutral - commonly known as "time, place, and manner" - restrictions on free speech activities in public forums, it cannot constitutionally permit "Black Lives Matter" and prohibit "MAGA 2020," anymore than it could permit the words "Pro Life" and refuse "Pro Choice," or OK "Yes Israel" but nix "OK Palestine" or "No Israel," says Banzhaf. who has testified as a First Amendment expert before a congressional committee.

Thus those who oppose the message or viewpoint convened by "BLM" or simply think there should be some balance to the messages displayed on city property, can fight back by demanding the right, under the First Amendment, to pose a contrasting message, suggests Banzhaf.

In many cases the result may be, as in Redwood City, that the BLM message will be removed or, in some cases, messages expressing a different viewpoint will be posted by other groups or individuals, suggests Banzhaf.

See the original post here:

How The First Amendment Can Fight BLM Messages - ValueWalk

Civil disobedience constitutes a bargain between protesters and government. Since civil disobedience involves breaking the law, protesters who engage in it accept the reality that the government may respond to their civil disobedience with arrests and prosecutions. As Henry David Thoreau wrote in his famous essay Civil Disobedience, Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. It is thus in the grand tradition of the civil rights movement that protesters subject themselves to arrest, and, in the process, call attention to the injustice and create the impetus for change.

While arrest and prosecution is thus woven into the very fabric of civil disobedience, there are still limits to how the government may legitimately respond to law-breaking protesters. Recent events in Louisville demonstrate how easily these limits can be exceeded.

On July 14, protesters seeking to spur action by Attorney General Daniel Cameron on his investigation of the Breonna Taylor case staged a demonstration on the front lawn of Camerons home. After police ordered them to disperse, and they refused, they were arrested. As you might imagine, they were charged with trespass, which is either a misdemeanor or a violation under Kentucky law, depending on the degree.

So far, so good. Trespassing charges make all the sense in the world. There cant really be much question that they were trespassing they were ordered to disperse, and they refused to comply. But the police didnt stop there. The 87 protesters were also charged with intimidating a participant in the legal process, which under KRS 524.040 is a felony punishable by one to five years in prison. These charges were a blatant and obscene violation of the protesters constitutional rights and no legitimate or acceptable part of governance in a time of civil disobedience.

Section 524.040 requires the prosecution to show that the defendant used physical force or a threat directed to a person he believes to be a participant in the legal process. There is no indication that any of the protesters used physical force or threatened the attorney general. The only real threat was a demand for action. Think about two parents whose kids rooms look like a tornado hit them. The first parent says, Clean up that pigsty of a room! That is a demand for action. The second parent says, Clean up that pigsty of a room, or you will be grounded until you are ready to leave for college. That is a threat. The protesters were the first parent, demanding that Daniel Cameron clean up his mess. They made no threat, and they used no physical force.

Or, to put it another way, they engaged in speech speech that petitioned an elected government official for action. In other words, activity at the heart of the First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

And it wont do to respond that they could not have been exercising their First Amendment rights because they were trespassing. The trespass is already addressed through you guessed it the trespass statute. The intimidation element requires a lot more than trespass, and the protesters either didnt do that something more, or it is unconstitutional to apply the law to the protected (i.e., nonthreatening) expression in which they did engage.

If there was any question that it would be blatantly unconstitutional to apply the intimidation provision to the protesters activities, look no further than the Supreme Courts 2003 decision in Virginia v. Black. There, the Court held that a state may criminalize cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, but that such speech fell outside the First Amendment only when it constitutes a true threat i.e., statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. It should go without saying that the trespassing protesters on AG Camerons lawn made nothing like such a true threat, and thus that their speech was protected by the First Amendment.

Nor, despite the statement issued by the Louisville Metro Police Department, did the protesters chant that if we dont get it [it referring to justice for Breonna Taylor], burn it down constitute a true threat. The chant had not even begun at Camerons house. Instead, it occurred at Ballard High School, before the protesters marched to his house. The only reasonable interpretation is that they were talking about burning down or rethinking the justice system. As the Supreme Court said in Black, for the state to punish threats, they must be clear and targeted at someone in particular. It cant be ambiguous; punishing an ambiguous statement as a threat violates the First Amendment.

All this, I believe, is why on July 17, the Jefferson County Attorney decided to drop the felony charges, saying in a statement that he was doing so in the interest of justice and the promotion of the free exchange of ideas. While this was good news for the protesters and the First Amendment alike, it is not an alls well that ends well situation, either. Sadly, the LMPDs decision to file these charges in the first place did considerable damage despite the County Attorneys decision. These 87 peaceful protesters will have felony charges on their records. Expungement of even dismissed charges can be expensive and time-consuming. Even though the County Attorney took the commendable step of saying his office would assist the protesters in expunging the felony charges from their records in this instance, the specter of the typical obstacles that make expungement difficult would linger over protesters going forward. And of course, future protesters will know that the LMPD is willing to use and abuse every tool at its disposal to chill their expression.

Here is the irony of the situation. If we ask whose conduct better fits the statutory definition of intimidation under 524.040 the protesters or the LMPDs the clear answer is the police. Nothing the protesters did constituted a threat directed to a person he believes to be a participant in the legal process. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the LMPD officers. It is no great stretch to see their actions in bringing thoroughly unjustified felony charges as a threat to the protesters to stay in line, and since they were already being arrested on the trespassing charges, the protesters were participants in the legal process. If I had to choose only one of the two groups as having violated 524.040, I would have little difficulty choosing the LMPD. And it ought to be a deeply troubling state of affairs when it can plausibly be argued that the police are using their authority to intimidate peaceful protesters.

Put simply, KRS 524.040 is blatantly unconstitutional if applied as broadly as the LMPD attempted to use it in these cases. While prosecutorial overcharging has a long tradition in the criminal justice system (plea bargaining leverage doesnt grow on trees, you know), charging protesters under a statute that doesnt apply to their conduct, and especially when they were engaged in constitutionally protected expression, is not just routine overcharging. Sadly, it is routine in another sense: These arrests are simply the latest example of a routine pattern of the LMPD trampling civil rights. We are long past the point where enough is enough.

Sam Marcosson is a professor at the UofL Brandeis School of Law. The views expressed herein are his alone and do not speak for UofL or the School of Law.

Read the original here:

LMPD Blues: Civil disobedience and abuse of authority - Louisville Eccentric Observer