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 -...

'; 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

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

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

(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

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

Sarasota Herald-Tribune Editorial Board| Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Marsy's Law, intended for crime victims, now used to shield law enforcement

The Marsy's Law amendment, as approved by Florida voters, was intended to protect victims of crime. But it's being used to shield law enforcement.

C. A. Bridges, Tallahassee Democrat

In return for the immense amounts of unspoken trust and expansive authority that our society willingly gives to law enforcement and judicial agencies, those who wield such powershave a clear obligation to hold themselves to higher standards of transparency and accountability.

Unfortunately, the Sarasota County Sheriffs Office and the 12th Judicial Circuit State Attorneys Office are both failing to meet those standards in their joint effort to bar the Sarasota Herald-Tribune from publishing the names of two deputies involved in a fatal Aprilshooting in Sarasota.

And, equally unfortunate, both parties are beingempowered to shirktheir responsibilitiesby an emergency injunction, granted last Friday by Chief Circuit Judge Charles E. Roberts, that upheld their request to block the Herald-Tribune from identifying two deputies involved in the shooting of Jeremiah Evans, 58, while carrying out a court-ordered eviction at the Palm Place Condominium in Sarasota.

Related: Sarasota County deputy fatally shoots armed man during eviction, Sheriff says

It's ironic that the names of the two deputies along with a third who was presentwhen Evans was shot had previously been provided to the Herald-Tribune by the State Attorneys Office in response to a routine public records request for a letter in which prosecutors had ruled the shooting was justified.

But when the Herald-Tribune sought additional information regarding the case, the Sheriff's Officeabruptly moved to pursue the emergency injunction in tandem with the State Attorney's Office.

With these facts established,the following conclusionsare beyond debate:

The ruling, which granted the injunction with no notice to the Herald-Tribune, is an unconstitutional prior restraint of the press that is prohibited by the First Amendment in both the U.S. Constitution and Florida Constitution.

This fact was driven homein the emergency motion filed June 13 byCarol Jean LoCicero and James B. Lake, from the firm of Thomas & LoCicero in Tampa, on the Herald-Tribunes behalf to overturn the emergency injunction.

Freedom of speech means that its up to the Herald-Tribune to decide whether to report information in its possession, especially facts about such a significant matter as a fatal shooting by law enforcement, Lake told the Herald-Tribune.We fully expect that, once our arguments are heard, the injunction will be set aside.

The Sheriffs Office and the State Attorneys Office have poorly servedthis community by: a) citing Marsys Law, which is designed to prevent the disclosure of potentially sensitive details about victims of crime, to justify asking for the emergency injunction, and b) working in hurried, secretive and underhanded fashion to secure a court order to restrain the press from publishing the deputies names even though the press had lawfully obtained that information and isnt bound by Marsys Law.

In effect, then, the Sheriffs Office and State Attorneys Office are not only behaving as though the First Amendment, which clearly applies to the press, does not exist they are also using a state law that doesnt apply to the press as a weapon to muzzle a news organization and blatantly obstruct its ability to provide information that the public has aright to know.

This is inexcusable. And this is just plain wrong.

Its time forthe Sheriffs Office and State Attorneys Office to adhere to the elevatedstandards of transparency and accountability that they must meet. Its time for the emergency injunction to be dissolved, and for both agencies to show the proper respect for the publics right to be fully informed.

This editorial was written by Opinions Editor Roger Brown for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Editorial Board.

More:

Citizens have a right to know about Sarasota shooting case - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

In September 2020, former President Donald Trump referred to an MSNBC reporter suffering a knee injury from a police projectile as a beautiful sight. The reporter had been injured by police while covering a Black Lives Matter protest earlier that year.

That statement, and the near-constant attacks on the press during his administration, played a key role in a dark, new chapter for press freedom in the United States.

(That) administration serves as a horrible, yet impactful, example of the ways that pitting the population against the press and blaming reporters for unfavorable coverage can be a potent political tactic, said Katherine Jacobsen, United States and Canada regional program director for the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Following the murder of George Floyd and the killing of Breonna Taylor at the hands of police, millions took to the streets across America and the world in the spring of 2020 to protest police brutality and a system of law enforcement that has historically and disproportionately targeted Black and brown people.

What followed was months of protests, clashes with riot police and mass arrests of largely peaceful protesters and demonstrators. This is not a new phenomenon. The country witnessed similar situations transpire in Ferguson, Missouri, following the police killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old Black man, in 2014.

What struck more urgently this time was the public and violent disregard for the practice of journalism by some police, including mass arrests and assaults on the rights of journalists covering these protests.

Ed Ou, a visual journalist with NBC News, had his scalp lacerated by a projectile fired at close range by police while he was covering a protest in Minneapolis.

Ou was wearing a clearly visible NBC press badge.

CBS San Francisco reporter Katie Nielsen was arrested by police while covering a Black Lives Matter protest in Oakland, California, on June 1, 2020.

Neilsen was wearing a clearly visible CBS press badge.

While journalists have been arrested in the past, including during the Ferguson protests, these instances are increasing and raising larger questions about this shift in treatment and the concerns it bears for the free press. In 2020, journalists across the United States faced record numbers of physical attacks, arrests and cases of equipment damage, as well as many other press freedom violations, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press annual report analyzing data from the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.

The Press Freedom Tracker was launched in 2017 by the RCFP and more than two dozen other press freedom organizations, including the Freedom of the Press Foundation a national nonprofit that documents and catalogs press freedom violations across the U.S.

Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said the U.S. saw a shocking increase in the number of journalists arrested between 2019 and 2020.

There were about 150 press freedom violations in 2019 in the U.S., which we thought was very high, Timm said. But then in 2020, it increased by at least fivefold.

Timm says its no surprise that the number of press freedom violations, assaults and arrests of journalists increased with the rise of protests across the nation.

We have seen police act in this abusive and unconstitutional manner in the past, Timm said, citing the arrests of journalists covering the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York in the early 2010s, the Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson in 2014, and the Standing Rock protests in 2016.

If there was never really any accountability in any of these past instances, when there is now this nationwide movement, are cops going to be worried theyre going to get in trouble if they violate journalists rights? The answer is no, Timm said.

The report identified that journalists faced 438 physical attacks in 2020 in the U.S. alone, more than 90% of which occurred as they reported on the nationwide racial justice protests. Police officers were responsible for 80% of these attacks, affecting 324 journalists. Nearly 200 of them appeared to be deliberately targeted by police, according to the Reporters Committees 2020 Press Freedom report.

Police officers assaulted reporters with tear gas, batons, pepper balls and rubber-coated bullets.

Even as municipalities across the country imposed curfews in an effort to suppress protests, many of these curfews contained exemptions for journalists either explicitly or by permitting essential workers, according to a report from the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Over the years according to guidelines compiled for the Committee to Protect Journalists by TrustLaw, the Thomson Reuters Foundations global pro bono legal program courts have commonly recognized that the First Amendment protects a reporters right to record law enforcement in public, including during a protest. Furthermore, there is a similar consensus, according to the same legal analysis for CPJ, that the Fourth Amendment protects journalists against having to hand over notes or reporting materials to police, and against illegal arrest. An arrest can be considered seizure of a person, which also implicates the Fourth Amendment. Police must have probable cause to make an arrest, and in the case of journalists, mere proximity to criminal activity is not enough to justify an arrest while covering a protest even if protesters become violent.

Police were not shown to have honored the exemptions for journalists in these curfews, nor the commonly understood legal protections, during the monthslong Black Lives Matter protests of 2020.

In Oregon, attacks and arrests of journalists continued even after a federal judge barred law enforcement from targeting journalists engaged in lawful newsgathering.

A federal officer guards the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse as protesters gather Friday, July 24, 2020, in Portland, Ore. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)

Summer 2020 saw numerous examples of clearly identified and law-abiding journalists arrested for covering protests.

Omar Jimenez, a CNN correspondent, and his crew were arrested while giving a live television report in Minneapolis while covering protests over Floyds murder.

Carolyn Cole, a veteran photojournalist with the Los Angeles Times, and her team were cornered by police and pepper-sprayed at close range while documenting a protest, also in Minneapolis.

Cole suffered damage to her right cornea and chemical burns to her eye and skin. She was forced to halt coverage.

Last May, Cole and her colleague, Molly Hennessy-Fiske, filed a lawsuit against Minnesota State Patrol officers, saying officers violated their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit sought compensatory and punitive damages. In an interview after filing the lawsuit, both Cole and Hennessy-Fisk reflected on some of the more dangerous areas of the world their careers have taken them into war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example and noted they had never experienced such specific targeting as they did by Minneapolis police in May 2020.

Cole and Hennessy-Fisks lawsuit was later included in a class-action suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, which represented a larger group of journalists who were attacked and arrested during that time.

Ou, of NBC News, was also part of the suit.

This February, a settlement was reached in the case, holding the Minnesota State Patrol accountable for these attacks.

In addition to more than $800,000 in financial compensation for the journalists involved, Minnesota State Police and outside law enforcement working alongside them under court order will now be explicitly prohibited from:

Those involved in the case say they hope this will serve as an example of what kind of action other states should take against police who participated in similar First Amendment violations.

Black Lives Matter protesters rally outside Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds office, Monday, June 29, 2020, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

On May 31, 2020, Andrea Sahouri, a reporter with The Des Moines Register, was arrested in Des Moines, Iowa, while covering Black Lives Matter protests in the area.

This was the third night Sahouri had covered the protests in Des Moines that began shortly after news broke of Floyds murder.

Sahouri described the protest on May 31 as made up largely of middle school and high school students. It escalated when protesters blocked the street at a busy intersection near a local shopping center and quickly turned violent after riot police arrived and began forcing dispersal.

Police came out after that in a line of riot gear, Sahouri recalls. There was pepper spray, tear gas, batons and later in the night full-on Bearcats (armored S.W.A.T. vehicles).

Riot police began pushing the crowd into a parking lot near the shopping center, really with no means of leaving, in order to make mass arrests, Sahouri said.

During a lull, Sahouri walked across the parking lot to interview protesters.

As Sahouri and a fellow journalist approached the group of protesters, police arrived in an armored vehicle, deploying pepper spray and rubber-coated bullets.

Obviously were going to run from that, so we ran, Sahouri said. I couldnt really see much of what was behind me so I turned around.

Thats when Sahouri saw a police officer charging at her.

I immediately put my hands up and said Im press, Im press, Im with The Des Moines Register, she said. He grabbed me, pepper-sprayed me right in the face and said Thats not what I asked, and proceeded to arrest me.

Her colleague was allowed to go, but Sahouri was charged with failure to disperse and interfering with official acts, both of which are misdemeanors. She was the only journalist of color on the scene.

As pepper spray soaked her clothes, Sahouri went live on her Twitter account in the back of the police car.

I just knew what was happening wasnt right. I did nothing wrong and its a big deal arresting a journalist, she said.

This livestream was how Sahouris editor learned of her arrest.

What many dont realize is that pepper spray spreads like poison ivy, Sahouri said. By the time she arrived at the Des Moines jail, her entire body felt like it was burning.

I actually had to strip and shower in front of female officers because I was in so much pain, Sahouri noted.

She was held in police custody, including time at the Polk County jail for nearly four hours before being released.

While many journalists were arrested and later released, the Polk County Attorney brought Sahouri to court for her charges in March 2021 a move that drew outrage from many in newsrooms across the country.

The ACLU of Iowa called the trial an outlandish prosecution.

The Committee to Protect Journalists Jacobsen initially called the arrest and trial incredibly concerning.

Thats an understatement actually, Jacobsen said, adjusting her language. It was alarming that a journalist would actually be brought to trial simply for being in a location and covering one of the top stories in the country at the time. I think it speaks to a larger issue about local authorities trying to perhaps make statements by deciding to go after reporters.

A jury acquitted Sahouri of both charges after only two hours of deliberation. The Des Moines police officer who arrested Sahouri did not activate his body camera until 15 minutes after the arrest took place, which drew the validity of the arrest itself into question during the trial.

Even after her unanimous acquittal, members of the prosecutorial team, including Polk County Attorney John Sarcone, defended their failed attempt to charge Sahouri.

After I was found not guilty, he (Sarcone) doubled down and told national media that I was there to protest, Sahouri said.

Sahouri continued to cover protests and civil unrest for The Des Moines Register after her release and acquittal but has since requested her newsroom take her off the breaking news beat, which had her interacting with police on a near-daily basis, noting it was the best choice for her mental health. Sahouri now covers criminal justice for the Detroit Free Press.

Associated Press videojournalist Robert Bumsted reminds a police officer that the press are considered essential workers and are allowed to be on the streets despite a curfew, Tuesday, June 2, 2020, in New York. New York City police officers surrounded, shoved and yelled expletives at two Associated Press journalists covering protests in the latest aggression against members of the media during a week of unrest around the country. (AP Photo/Wong Maye-E)

Stephen Solomon teaches First Amendment law and said law enforcement departments need a refresher course on what the First Amendment entails. He said they need to understand what freedom of the press means and what police can and cant do as far as telling reporters what to do and where they can be.

There may be some situations of animosity, you may have a police officer who just doesnt like the media or maybe is trying to hide something, Solomon, who is the founding editor of First Amendment Watch and Marjorie Deane Professor at NYUs Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, said. But I think there is also a lack of understanding of what the law requires under the First Amendment.

Police must understand the public benefit and crucial role of journalism, Solomon said.

Part of that is making it clear once again, to law enforcement, what the purpose of the press is, Solomon said.

Thats the reason why you have a press pass. Thats the reason why you should be allowed to stay while theyre clearing the street. Thats the reason why you should be allowed to go past the police barricade to cover whats going on up close. Thats the function and if that meaning has been eroded over the years or is in danger, it needs to be renewed.

For Jacobsen, the issue has been getting worse in recent years and reaches far deeper than simply a lack of education.

Theres no better way to control coverage than to make sure that its not possible to cover something safely in the first place, she said.

The disparity in police action against protesters is visible when examining movements like Black Lives Matter compared to recent anti-vaccination protests, Jacobsen notes.

I think it says a lot about topics of coverage that perhaps cause greater concern for police, she said. When police go out and as we saw during the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 specifically target journalists who are doing their jobs and trying to cover matters of public interest, I think it points to problems that perhaps they dont want the media to cover.

This poses a risk to the free press and the public service of informing the masses that journalists seek to fulfill, Jacobsen said.

When you see your colleagues being poorly treated by law enforcement when in theory theyre there to protect people it makes you think twice about how youre going to cover something and whether its worth the risk, she added.

Jacobsen said journalists of color have long had to pay attention to concerns about risks and awareness that the rest of the news media are now also facing.

In the field of journalism, foreign reporters and war correspondents often undergo Hostile Environment and Emergency First Aid Training (HEFAT), meant to prepare journalists for the trauma and risk that comes with operating in war zones.

Now, Jacobsen said, she is encouraging domestic journalists to undergo the same training.

Theres a new understanding that home also carries with it these risks and that journalists should be prepared, she said.

This story was updated to note that Andrea Sahouri has taken a job at the Detroit Free Press.

More here:

How police treatment of journalists at protests has shifted from cohabitation to animosity - Poynter