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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sean McCabe for Rolling Stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOP activist and greenroom creature Ed Butowsky.

AP Photo/LM Otero

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rod Wheeler/Twitter, Fox News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy of the Rich family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow this link:

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

US Senate Releases Final Report Into ‘Aggressive’ Russian Interference in 2016 Election – The Daily Beast

The Senate Intelligence Committee has released its fifth and final report on Russias aggressive, multifaceted effort to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election on behalf of Donald Trump.

The committee described its 966-page bipartisan report as the most comprehensive description to date of Russias activities and the threat they posed. The report goes further than Special Counsel Robert Muellers report by concluding that President Trump most likely did have advance knowledge of Russias hack of Democratic National Convention emails before WikiLeaks released themcontrary to what the president told Muellers team.

It also provides fresh evidence of Paul Manaforts connections to Russian intelligence officers, establishing a clear pipeline between Russia and the top level of the Trump campaign. And it has new details of how the FBI handled the dossier from ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

But while it offers a damning assessment of the Trump campaigns extensive contacts with Russia, its vulnerability to foreign manipulation, and its indifference to Russian interference, it does not conclude that the campaign engaged in a coordinated conspiracy with Russia.

Although the full committee signed off on the startling report, which took three years to compile and involved 200 witnesses, Democrats and Republicans ended up with wildly different interpretations about what it reveals about the Trump campaign.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement that the report exposes the breathtaking level of contacts between Trump officials and Russian government operatives that is a very real counterintelligence threat to our elections.

Less than three months out from another presidential election, Warner added: This cannot happen again.

However, Acting Senate Intelligence Chairman Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said the committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election.

Trump 2020 communications director Tim Murtaugh chose to highlight just one instance of foreign interference outlined in the report. The report does remind Americans that there was, however, political reliance on foreign assistance in 2016, since Hillary Clintons campaign and the DNC paid for the bogus Steele Dossier assembled by a foreign operative using Russian disinformation.

The report says that Manaforts high-level access to the Trump campaign and his willingness to share information with Russian and Ukrainian operativesparticularly Konstantin Kilimnik, who hed previously hired and worked with, and oligarch Oleg Deripaskarepresented a grave counterintelligence threat.

[His] presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over and acquire confidential information on the Trump Campaign, it states.

The committee wasnt able to determine why Manafort shared internal polling data and campaign strategy information with Kilimnik, or what Kilimnik did with it. However, the committee did obtain some information suggesting Kilimnik may have been connected to the Russian hack of Democratic emails.

The report goes further than Muellers report by classifying Kilimnik as a Russian intelligence officer who was an integral part of Manaforts prior work in Ukraine and Russia, and worked closely with Trumps campaign manager.

It also states that, after the election, Manafort continued to coordinate with Kilimnik and other Russian operatives to workshop narratives that sought to undermine evidence that Russia interfered in the election by instead fingering Ukraine. The committee concluded there was no evidence Ukraine was behind the interference.

The report goes further then previous public reports to conclude that two other key players, Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, who were at the infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting aimed at providing Donald Trump Jr. and others with dirt on Hillary Clinton, have significant connections to the Russian government, including Russian intelligence services.

Manafort was convicted of financial crimes in mid-2018 and was released to home confinement amid the coronavirus pandemic, after serving almost two years of a seven-and-a-half year sentence.

The report addresses the Steele dossier, which made lurid accusations about potentially compromising material from Trumps trips to Russia. The committee didnt use Steeles memos as evidence in their report and states that the FBI gave it unjustified credence, using it to obtain FISA warrants despite having an incomplete understanding of Steeles past and the reliability of his sources.

But the committee says it independently became aware of three general sets of allegations involving women that were in the Steele dossier.

The first allegation, based on testimony and other witnesses, was made by Moscow businessman David Geovanis, who stated that during Trumps travel to Russia, both in 1996 and 2013, Geovanis was aware of Trump engaging in personal relationships with Russian women.

The report states another businessman said in 2015 he overheard two people discussing sensitive tapes of a Trump visit to Russia. The information reached Trumps longtime personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who told the committee he knew of other similar allegations from Trumps travel to Moscow in 2013 that he was unable to corroborate.

Finally, the report states an executive at Marriott International overheard two colleagues discussing how to handle a tape of Trump with women in an elevator at the Ritz Carlton Moscow. The report stresses that the allegations were not confirmed.

The report concludes, for the first time, that the Russian government was the source of the hacked DNC emails, contrary to WikiLeaks and founder Julian Assanges claims.

The committee says they found significant evidence to suggest WikiLeaks was knowingly collaborating with Russian government officials when it hacked and released the emails in an effort to derail Clintons campaign.

The report provides a detailed timeline of the release of the emails, which came about 30 minutes after The Washington Posts Oct. 7 story on Trumps Access Hollywood tape. Roger Stone, who was in contact with WikiLeaks, had a six-minute call the night before with a phone number belonging to Trumps bodyguard Keith Schiller. While the substance of the call is unknown, it appears quite likely that Stone and Trump [using his bodyguards phone] spoke about WikiLeaks, the report concludes.

The Trump campaign first heard of the Access Hollywood tape about an hour before its release, the report says. Stone then called Jerome Corsi and, according to Corsi, told him to get Assange to drop the Podesta emails immediately.

WikiLeaks then released 2,050 emails that Russia had stolen from DNC chair John Podesta, the report says.

While the Senate committee found no evidence that Trumps campaign knew for sure that the hack was done by Russia, the campaign was indifferent as to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian interference effort.

The findings go further than Muellers report, which didnt conclude that Trump knew about the WikiLeaks hack prior to its release and didnt take a position on whether Trump was lying when he said in written answers to Muellers team that he didnt recall ever discussing WikiLeaks with Stone during the campaign.

Despite Trumps recollection, the Committee assesses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stones access to WikiLeaks, the report says.

Stone was found guilty of lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks, but Trump later commuted his prison sentence.

The report is most critical of the Trump campaigns general incompetence and vulnerability to Russian contact during the transition to the White House. It concludes that the Kremlin capitalized on the relative inexperience of Trumps teamand the new presidents desire to deepen ties with Russia.

The lack of vetting of foreign interactions by Transition officials left the Transition open to influence and manipulation by foreign intelligence services, government leaders, and co-opted business executives, the report states.

The disorganized and unprepared transition team also actively engaged with foreign actors, which created notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities and allowed Russian officials, intelligence services, and others acting on the Kremlins behalf to exploit Team Trumps shortcomings. The team repeatedly took actions that sometimes interfered with U.S. diplomatic efforts, were not part of a visible overriding foreign policy and were narrow and transactional.

This created unnecessary confusion among U.S. allies and other world leaders, creating the potential to harm Americas ability to conduct diplomacy both bilaterally and in multilateral institutions, and undermine U.S. credibility and influence.

The report provides new details about Robert Foresman, an American businessman who was named in Muellers investigation due to his high-level Kremlin contacts and alleged efforts to meet with Trump during and after the 2016 election.

Foreman testified that, at the end of a Dec. 6 meeting with chief strategist Steve Bannon, Bannon asked him to send a memo. In it, Foresman offered advice for structuring the National Security Council so that Russia was a main focus of the council, including the creation of a Russia-specific deputy national security adviser.

After submitting that memo, Foresman met with national security adviser Michael Flynn and told Flynn he was on his way to Russia to meet with people close to President Putin. He asked if the Trump team wanted to convey a message from the incoming administration.

Flynn replied, You can convey that on behalf of the President-elect and myself, we genuinely hope for improved relations between our two countries, the report states, adding that Foresman said that he conveyed the message to Russian banker Sergey Gorkov, who relayed the message to Putin.

Separately, Foresman, who wanted a position in the Trump administration, conveyed messages between the Trump campaign and several Kremlin-linked people, including Putin confidant Matthias Wamig, the report states.

Go here to see the original:

US Senate Releases Final Report Into 'Aggressive' Russian Interference in 2016 Election - The Daily Beast

Trump Judges Try to Reverse Ruling Against First Amendment Retaliation: Confirmed Judges Confirmed Fears – People For the American Way

Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trumps judges on Americans rights and liberties. Cases in the series can be found by issue and by judge at this link.

Trump Fifth Circuit judges James Ho, Don Willett, Kyle Duncan, and Andy Oldham tried to get the full court of appeals to reconsider a decision allowing an elected member of a public board to pursue a claim that he was improperly censured in violation of his First Amendment rights. The court declined to rehear the case in the July 2020 decision in Wilson v. Houston Community College System.

David Wilson was an elected member of the Board of Trustees of the Houston Community College System (HCC). Beginning in 2017, Wilson began to criticize, first privately and then publicly, a number of Board actions that he thought violated the Boards bylaws and were not in the best interests of HCC. These included funding a campus in Qatar and allowing voting by videoconference. Wilson maintained a website where he discussed his concerns.

In mid-January 2018, the Board voted to publicly censure Wilson for his actions, stating that this was the highest level of sanction available since Wilson was an elected official and warning him to cease and desist his conduct. Wilson then amended a pending state court lawsuit to contend that the Board had violated his First Amendment rights and to seek damages. The Board removed the case to federal court, where a judge dismissed the case for lack of standing, claiming that Wilson could not demonstrate injury in fact to him as a matter of law. Wilson appealed.

A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit unanimously reversed. The court explained that the lower court had erred because in the primary decision it relied upon, a Tenth Circuit ruling where the court dismissed a similar challenge by a public community college board member, the court had in fact held that the plaintiff did have standing because he claimed that a censure had tarnished his reputation. The court went on to point out that both the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit had held that allegations of retaliatory censure of a public official that a plaintiff claims give rise to a reputational injury is an injury in fact. Although Wilsons requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were now moot since he had left the Board, the court continued, his claim for damages continues to present a live controversy and he should have an opportunity to prove his case.

The full Fifth Circuit then determined to decide whether to rehear the case. Eight judges on the court voted in favor of vacating the panel opinion and rehearing the case, including Trump judges Ho, Willett, Duncan, and Oldham. Eight others, however, voted against rehearing, including Reagan nominee Jerry Smith, George W. Bush nominees Leslie Southwick and Catherine Haynes, and Trump nominee Kurt Engelhardt. As a result, rehearing was denied.

The four dissenting Trump judges joined a harsh dissent by Judge Edith Jones, and Ho also filed his own dissent. The dissenters wrote that the panel decision was out of step with the decisions of four other circuit courts, which had supposedly ruled that a legislatures public censure of one of its members could not give rise to a First Amendment claim. The dissenters also argued that Fifth Circuit precedent respects the lack of a constitutional remedy for intra-legislative squabbling and that cases concerning official reprimands of elected Texas state judges did not apply. Ho commented that the panel ruling violated the principle that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, not freedom from speech.

The panel decision, however, had already responded to such arguments by HCC. The panel explained that both the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit had recognized the importance under the First Amendment of ensuring that elected officials be allowed freely to express themselves on matters of public concern and that they not be punished or deterred by improper official censures. The panel went on to note that the Fifth Circuit had held that there is no doubt that formal reprimands for speech by elected officials, which go far beyond simple criticism, can lead to a First Amendment violation. The court specifically pointed out that the fact that some of these cases involved elected judges matters not, and that if anything, judges are accorded less protection than legislators like Wilson. After a close review, moreover, the court concluded that the cases from other circuits that the dissenters also relied upon were distinguishable, either because they involved claims only against individual members of a governing body like HCC or did not involve censures.

The panel recognized that although Wilson had raised a plausible claim, he would need to prove his contention that HCCs retaliatory censure against him actually caused the damages he sought. If it had been up to Trump judges Ho, Willett, Oldham, and Duncan, however, he would not even have had that opportunity and the court would have ruled that the First Amendment does not protect against retaliatory censures of public officials for their speech.

See more here:

Trump Judges Try to Reverse Ruling Against First Amendment Retaliation: Confirmed Judges Confirmed Fears - People For the American Way

The U.S. Has Never 100% Upheld the First Amendment (And Still Doesn’t) – Patheos

This may come as a surprise, but the U.S. has never uniformly upheld the right to free speech, and in many cases still limits it. Once you know this history, its hard to feel much sympathy for people with bad ideas being deplatformed.

As I wrote in my previous post, the freedom of expression is widely regarded as a universal human right, albeit one that different governments interpret differently. In the U.S., the First Amendment is held up as a golden beacon of free speech and yet it hasnt always been interpreted or enforced that way, and in many cases still is not.

In his excellent book What Snowflakes Get Right: Free Speech, Truth, and Equality on Campus, Ulrich Baer demystifies the history of freedom of speech in the U.S. with an emphasis on its implications for the university setting, where inquiry and truth are important values. Baer also addresses critical moments in free speech history that solidified around Frederick Douglass, escaped slave and prominent 19th century abolitionist and intellectual.

Significantly, Baer asserts:

The First Amendment played an insignificant role in our countrys jurisprudence until early in the 20th century. It was never cited during the 19th century by our Supreme Court but first applied in 1925 to overturn state regulation of speech and used for the first time in 1965 to rule an act of Congress unconstitutional (regulating the mailing of political material). In fact, Douglass spoke against prevailing public sentiment of his era, formalized by the Supreme Courts morally reprehensible Dred Scott decision of 1858 and shared by a great number of white people, which ruled that Black Americans could never be citizens in the United States, even in states where slavery had been ruled illegal. This ruling also affirmed that Black Americans would never have the right of free expression of any other civil liberties such as the vote. Douglass insisted on his speech rights although he did not have a right to speak, and did not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment. But he gave a speech. What does this mean? (75-76)

Theres a lot to unpack here. First, Baer tells us that nobody was running around invoking the First Amendment in the 19th century, and it really didnt gain traction in major court rulings until the 20th century. In fact, the people supposedly responsible for upholding free speech accepted and enforced limits on their own free speech; as Baer reminds us: Even in Congress, governed by procedural rules to ensure robust but reasoned debate, the mere discussion of the abolition of slavery had been prohibited for eight consecutive years, from 1836 to 1844, via a gag rule' (72).

The gag rule on discussing abolishing slavery may have ended in 1844 but informally, it continued, as Baer chronicles: In 1856, Massachusetts senator Douglas Sumner had been caned nearly to death by a South Carolina Representative for criticizing slavery (73). So its not like the esteemed representatives of the U.S. government upheld free speech rights uniformly or even non-violently.

In this political and cultural climate, Douglass risked his life to give speeches about free speech (hows that for meta). And hes held up as a free speech absolutist by advocates today, which as Baer points out, isnt really a great interpretation of the historical evidence, since it misses some major points about the contexts in which he was speaking.

This brings me to my second point about the lengthy block quote above: that Douglass was speaking in conditions that were hostile yet transformative. When Douglass said to a white audience: Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he is the rightful owner of his body?To do so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer insult to your understanding (quoted in Baer 45) he was essentially engaged in what linguists and other social scientists would call a performative speech act. Unlike other kinds of speech acts which may function more descriptively, performative speech acts change or accomplish something in the world, as when the right kind of official pronounces someone married andbamnow its real.

In other words, when Douglass says that requiring him to present an argument for his liberty, and thus for the alienable rights that include freedom of speech would insult his audience, he means that such an argument would insult his listeners intelligence as well as their knowledge, since the self-evident fact of another humans inherent liberty is not worthy of any thinking humans deliberation and attention (Baer 77). Douglass engages in a performative speech act because, in speaking, he demonstrates that the bigoted attempts to limit his speech are logically unsound (as in, you cant try to deny someone basic human rights on the grounds that theyre subhuman when theyre standing right in front of you using human language to make an elegant argument). It is a genius move of rhetoric, but it is inescapably linked to its social context and the equation of freedom of speech with the necessity of coming to the table as equals, both of which are points that modern-day free speech absolutists miss.

I know Im relying a lot of Baer but I think his take on this topic is brilliant. To reiterate, Baer writes that Douglass exposes the absurdity of expecting some peoples speech not to be measured on the strength of their argument but on whether they qualify as fully human (77).

And that brings us back to the modern-day context. The concept of free speech is only meaningful if we dont restrict who can participate based on inalienable or inherent qualities of their personhood. If the very premise of your speech is rooted in ignorance, insecurity, and unreason as Baer argues racism is, in a discussion of author Toni Morrisons take on the topic then you will inherently undermine the conditions for equal and open exchange central to a university along with other places (80). If your speech is based on dehumanizing others, then it automatically disenfranchises those people, and disqualifies them from engaging on the same level as you; this is exactly the same as inviting Douglass to debate his own humanity. Its preposterous.

So yes, we get to restrict freedom of speech at least in terms of who gets access to which platforms if those speakers are making tiresome and illogical arguments based on the racism, misogyny, and homophobia of decades and centuries past. Not only is it a yawn-fest (no new ideas there!) but its also insulting and dehumanizing to potential audiences, and as seen above, the ability to engage in free speech rests on acknowledging that free speechmustbe rooted in equality. And I do mean we in that first sentence: Im not going to invite a guest speaker into one of my college classes if they seem likely to not only insult my students but also deny them basic humanity based on whether theyre trans or Jewish or disabled. Were all adults, we can get over being insulted but as a guardian of education, I am not going to allow a speaker to mock and debase the very existence of those under my tutelage, and as Baer and others argue, this is a valuable gatekeeping function that university administrators serve when they say yeah no, were not going to host that alt-right speaker at an official university event. Its protecting our students, and it doesnt make them weak snowflakes but rather affirms their basic right to engage in speech and debate that starts at the insultingly low bar of Were all human here. Okay, moving on

To quote Baer again: You may be refuted in a debate because your arguments are weak, wrong, or badly phrased, but you must not be excluded a priori based on whether or not you count as fully human (80). And I think this is where a lot of the friction in contemporary free speech discussions comes in: folks who are more attuned to equality and basic human rights (I guess were labeled social justice warriors or SJWs? as though thats a bad thing?) are not interested in the arguments of bigots. Bigots tend to dehumanize people, which cancels out the function of free speech since it creates a mockery of the whole thing, asking someone to come to the table and justify their very being. This doesnt make bigots inhuman, it makes them bad humans, and yet in the attempt to have this type of conversation, to say wow, no we are really not interested in the bullshit youre spewing, somehow that gets twisted into were judging you and think youre subhuman and hence were taking away your free speech rights. Which, lets recall, is not whats happening: denying someone a platform isnotthe same thing as oppression, which would look more like jailing them or something similarly drastic.

In the interest of wrapping this post up, I want to revisit the idea of gag rules. Earlier I mentioned the pre-Civil War agreement to not talk about abolishing slavery. That type of gag rule is not uncommon in the U.S., despite many peoples belief that weve always had this angelically perfect implementation of the First Amendment. Here are a few brief examples of suppressed free speech in the U.S., both then and now:

The maddening thing? The support for this suppression is usually coming from folks who would scream First Amendment! if their attempt to verbally trample on someones humanity was denied. Sorry, maybe thats just me being cynical. But the hypocrisy is evident when, as Baer explains: By prohibiting speech about a legally permissible procedure, they are doing exactly what they decry as unconstitutional when a college declines to host a white supremacist (110). How conservatives deal with the mental acrobatics of cognitive dissonance when suppressing free speech on allegedly religious grounds is beyond me, especially given that the U.S. hypothetically promotes a separation of church and state (and I have yet to see many anti-abortion arguments that are not rooted in religious belief).

To recap: freedom of speech is only meaningful when all can be equal participants. We need to not rely on abstract ideas about the nonexistent universality of the freedom of speech, nor assume that the marketplace of ideas will govern the exchange equitably, not assume that reason and truth will magically enforce themselves. Dont take this to mean that Im in favor of censorship Im not! but rather that certain platforms require certain guidelines, and academic/intellectual/educational ones in particular benefit from a bit more guardianship so that we dont willy-nilly let in alt-right speakers who will dehumanize our students to their faces and thereby eject them from having a seat at the table of learning. Baer has a ton more to say about this in particular but dont worry, Im done quoting my newest BFF, this post doesnt need to be any longer than it currently is.

(also, shout-out to the reading group on academic freedom at Butler University, which provided me with this book and with many instances of intellectual companionship and challenge that were thought-provoking, useful, and enjoyable)

References:

Baer, Ulrich.What Snowflakes Get Right: Free Speech, Truth, and Equality on Campus. Oxford University Press, 2019.

See original here:

The U.S. Has Never 100% Upheld the First Amendment (And Still Doesn't) - Patheos

‘The 19th amendment means everything’: 5 first-time voters on 100 years of women’s suffrage and the 2020 election – CNBC

August 18 marks the 100th anniversary of the 19th amendment being ratified, granting women the right to vote in the United States.

Though this anniversary is a celebrated milestone in American history, the reality is that not all women were able to immediately exercise their right to vote as racial discrimination kept Black women, and Black Americans in general, from voting. In fact, it wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 45 years after the 19th amendment was passed, that the federal government made it illegal to disenfranchise a person based on race.

As America continues to deal with a global pandemic, as well as racial unrest in the country, exercising the right to vote in the 2020 election has never been more important, though ongoing acts ofvoter suppressionstill deny many people their right to vote today.

CNBC Make It caught up with five young women who will be voting for the first time in the 2020 election, to get their insight on what the 19th amendment means to them, why it's important for them to make their voice heard at the 2020 polls and the social and political issues they've been paying close attention to this year.

Alliyah Logan, 18-year-old youth advocate from Bronx, New York.

Photo credit: Alliyah Logan

Alliyah Logan is a Jamaican-American youth advocate from Bronx, New York who served as a former teen advisor for Girl Up, an organization founded by the United Nations Foundation to support the leadership development of young women. This fall, she will be a freshman at Smith College in Massachusetts.

What does the 19th amendment mean to you and how important is it for you to exercise your right to vote in the 2020 election?

This is such an important election, especially for women, and it's important for everyone to be fully engaged.

For me, when I think about the 19th amendment, I think about the foundation of women's rights and some sort of equality in America. And the reason why I say foundation is because there's a lot of work that needs to be done. So when I think about 100 years ago and the environment of that time, I wouldn't have been able to be as accepted in the movement as I am today. And I think it's because [the suffrage movement] was viewed as being predominantly White.

When you look at it, White women were really primarily only advocating for voting rights, whereas Black women, Native American women, [Hispanic] womenand other groups of women of color were advocating for so many other things like racial justice and class justice. So for me, looking back 100 years, I saw that there was just one narrative of stories that were valued at that time. And now, 100 years later, we're seeing that there are still so many more measures that need to be done to ensure that we're not only advocating for the voting rights of women, but also using that energy to advocate for other issues that women of color face, especially Black women, when looking at racial injustice and class injustice.

What are some of the issues you're fighting for and policies you're paying close attention to when voting in this election?

I think for me, the first thing is racial justice. I think even if you look at this summer in general in terms of the George Floyd protest, it's extremely important that our nominees are pushing for racial justice in America because we need national leadership who can make sure our voices are heard in policy decisions. And, we need national leadership supporting us and saying that Black people deserve human rights and human decency when it comes to interacting with police and many other things.

Another very important issue for me is health care. When looking at the impact of Covid-19 we see how it impacted all people in general, but it more heavily impacted the Black community and Native American community just because of systematic oppression. So for me, establishing a universal health plan that all people can have access to is very important.

Also, education is important and making sure that young people from K- 12 have access to equitable education that is free of harm and is free of policing in schools. I think young people need to be in environments that are safe and empowering and that really uplift their spirits and I don't think the current education system does that.

Lastly, there are a lot of people in America living in areas that are considered food deserts or have food insecurity and this is not an issue that a lot of people speak on because a lot of people don't recognize how inherently violent it is to not have access to healthy foods.This is a very important issue that we need national leadership on and it's from the impact of years of red lining and years or systematic racism that made people move into these communities that are impacted by poverty.

Rebecca Fairweather, rising freshman at University of California, Santa Barbara.

Photo credit: Rebecca Fairweather

Rebecca Fairweather is an 18-year-old Latina activist from Queens, New York who plans to attend the University of California, Santa Barbara in the fall. She's also a former teen advisor for Girl Up.

What does the 19th amendment mean to you and how important is it for you to exercise your right to vote in the 2020 election?

The 19th amendment has always been incredibly important to me. I remember first learning about the 19th amendment in middle school and it's kind of mind boggling to me that that happened a hundred years ago and we're still continuing to fight for equality today.

As an 18-year-old, it kind of feels a little weird to be voting on this anniversary in a time where so many injustices are still being brought to light every single day. But, I'm voting on the 100th anniversary knowing that my generation is stepping into the voting booth and that's so powerful to me. I know that the future will be in good hands because of it.

What are some of the issues you're fighting for and policies you're paying close attention to when voting in this election?

I've been cultivating a list for years now and definitely climate change is a big thing for me. I think it should be acknowledged regardless of your political party because it is real and it is happening and we need to get a hold of it quickly. Something that's also very important to me is women's rights and women's access to healthcare. As a woman who suffers from endometriosis, birth control and reproductive healthcare are so important to me and knowing that it could be taken away is so scary.

Amore' Daniels, 19-year-old student at Spelman College.

One time use: Amore' Daniels

Amore' Daniels is a 19-year-old computer science major at Spelman College who will be voting for the first time this year in Georgia.

What does the 19th amendment mean to you and how important is it for you to exercise your right to vote in the 2020 election?

The 19th amendment is very important and I think it's important for me to exercise my voice and my right to vote because historically [Black people] didn't always have that opportunity.

What are some of the issues you're fighting for and policies you're paying close attention to when voting in this election?

When it comes to this election there are several issues that I'm considering, including women's rights. Although this is the 100th anniversary of the passing of the 19th amendment, women are still fighting for freedom and equality in terms of human rights and equal pay. Another issue I'm paying attention to is police brutality. I know that the system of policing was founded upon racist ideologies and we can see some of that in the way that police enforcement operates today. I would say another issue I'm focused on is reparations. I would like to think that the right candidate would understand that descendants of those who built this country simply don't want an apology for what has happened in the past, but we would like acknowledgement from the country that allows us to move forward and have success and progress as a community.

Denisse Alvarado, 19-year-old student at Oregon State University.

Photo credit: Denisse Alvarado

Denisse Alvarado is a rising sophomore at Oregon State University who is majoring in computer science with a minor in business.

What does the 19th amendment mean to you and how important is it for you to exercise your right to vote in the 2020 election?

I think the 19th amendment is really important and I think women, just as much as everyone else, need to be able to exercise their voice by voting. And you know, voting is the way we use our voice to change the policies that are affecting us. Though we are not certain where we will be in the future, it is a guarantee that whoever is elected into office will make choices and implement policies that will impact our lives. So, we need to speak up and have a say, especially in this upcoming election, because at the end of the day, if you're not voting for your own interests and standing up for your own beliefs then who will.

What are some of the issues you're fighting for and policies you're paying close attention to when voting in this election?

The issues that are really important to me are gender-based violence, workplace equality and educational equity. So, the sexual abuse and human trafficking that has been happening and the gender-based violence that has been manifesting in various ways in the lives of women around the world is a really important issue and I feel like we need to focus [more] on it. Workplace equality is also important. I read a report the other day that for every 100 men promoted to management, only 72 women were promoted and that number is even lower for women of color and Latinas like myself.I believe that female representation at senior level roles and in senior leadership needs to increase. And though we have seen a little bit of change, I still think that we have so much left to do and so much more we need to do to break these glass ceilings. Also, educational equity is so important because education plays a major role in providing work opportunities and I feel like from an early age boys and girls are stereotyped by teachers and educated according to their gender-based attributes.

Eugenie Park, rising freshman at Wellesley College.

Photo credit: Eugenie Park

Eugenie Park is a former Girl Up teen advisor who will be a freshman at Wellesley College this fall.

What does the 19th amendment mean to you and how important is it for you to exercise your right to vote in the 2020 election?

The 19th amendment means everything to me in terms of being able to express my political opinions and actually have them make an objective difference. I actually voted in my state's primary on August 4th since I live in Washington state. Although it wasn't a federal election, it was definitely a huge turning point for me and I felt on top of the world being able to actually make an objective difference in the legal system.

Before I voted I did kind of dabble in political activism where I could, but I never felt like I was doing as much as I wanted to because I never got to actually take part in the democracy in terms of being able to cast a vote. So being able to do that for the first time is everything for me.

What are some of the issues you're fighting for and policies you're paying close attention to when voting in this election?

There's a couple of issues that have always been of particular importance to me. The first one is how political candidates are setting up support systems for small businesses, especially family businesses. My dad actually runs a small business himself and so I have a really personal connection to the struggles he's been through in our own economy and how our government has succeeded or has failed to support him in that way. Another big issue for me is education policy. I want to know how politicians are planning to revise our K- 12 education system because the disparities in our elementary, middle and high schools across the country are extremely unacceptable in my opinion.

Something else that has also become more on the forefront of my mind is how different politicians are approaching racial equity through their policies, especially in the wake of the murders of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and many others. I'm looking at how politicians are responding to that and what kind of policies are cropping up from these incidents.

These interviews have been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

CNBC Make It is NOW STREAMING on Peacock. Find our original programming in the Channels section.

Don't miss:Sen. Kamala Harris secures historic vice presidential candidacy, sparking #WinWithBlackWomen hashtag

Originally posted here:

'The 19th amendment means everything': 5 first-time voters on 100 years of women's suffrage and the 2020 election - CNBC

Tech Policy and the 2020 Election, Part 2: Online Speech, Net Neutrality, and Data Privacy – AAF – American Action Forum

Executive Summary

Introduction

The United States has historically taken a hands-off approach to regulating technology, allowing innovators to create products with minimal government interference. This approach is part of what has enabled numerous services, from search engines to social media to online payment processors, to develop here in the United States. This innovation has been a tremendous force for economic growth as well as a critical platform for speech and entrepreneurship. But recently, policymakers on both sides of the aisle have been questioning if there is a need for greater regulation.

Part 1 of this series analyzed the policy proposals of the 2020 presidential candidates, President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, related to internet infrastructure. This part of the series will analyze how the candidates are approaching internet policy issues, including calls for regulation related to online content moderation, data privacy, and net neutrality.

Section 230 and Online Content Moderation

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act limits the legal liability of online intermediaries that host or publish speech that their users post, while allowing platforms to engage in moderation of this user-generated content. This law has been incredibly important to the growth of a wide range of online platforms, from social media and review sites to less obvious examples such as Wikipedia and blog comments. Unfortunately, both candidates have been critical of this law, which allows new opportunities for speech and keeps barriers to entry low for new online platforms.

On the right, critics of Section 230 allege it allows social media platforms to take biased actions that silence conservatives. President Trumps criticisms and approach to Section 230 are best seen in his May 2020 executive order on social media. He has been vocal about what he perceives as bias against himself and other conservatives by various social media platform and called for changes to Section 230 that would require viewpoint neutrality in moderation, among other changes. Section 230 has allowed many voices, including conservative voices, to flourish online, however. Such a change would effectively create a new Fairness Doctrine for the internet that would likely limit the reach of the voices it claims to protect. The old fairness doctrine was a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule that had required radio and television stations to provide time and access for opposing viewpoints on editorial commentary on news and politics to maintain their license. It also could result in a chilling effect and increased moderation that could silence many online voices (including conservatives), particularly on controversial topics.

Critics on the left assert that Section 230 has resulted in platforms not acting quickly enough to remove harmful content such as hate speech or allowing the spread of misinformation. While former Vice-President Biden was critical of President Trumps executive order, he too has called to revoke Section 230 protections. Revoking Section 230 would make many of the concerns about content moderation worse by placing platforms back in a dilemma where they must choose between over-zealous content moderation and aggressive takedowns (silencing legitimate speech in the process) or no moderation whatsoever (creating an internet most of us would not want to be on). User-generated content protected by Section 230 has allowed for powerful movements and discussions such as #metoo and Black Lives Matter. Without this protection, platforms might be more hesitant to carry such content, and these movements would not have had the same reach and impact.

Content moderation is a difficult task, but Section 230 allows companies to find the right balance for their consumers and to provide consumers with a wide range of choices. As University of Arizona law professor Derek Bambauer argues, Section 230 helps companies that are now dealing with the problem of content moderation at scale and the increasing costs large companies would have to expend, especially given the possibility of bad-faith reports. Section 230 is also critical to small platforms and those far beyond social media such as review sites and even Wikipedia that might face company-ending liability and legal costs even if they were successfully vindicated in court. Additionally, proposals for Section 230 reform raise questions about potential First Amendment violations by inserting government regulators into decisions about what speech a platform must allow or disallow.

While the criticisms extend from different reasons, the fact that both candidates are critical of Section 230 means this debate is unlikely to subside after the election.

Data Privacy

Both candidates appear to support a federal law to deal with data privacy concerns, but their policy proposals would likely be very different and could impact many industries beyond the technology sector.

In July 2018, officials for the Trump Administration stated they were working on a federal consumer data privacy policy to become legislation. While relevant agencies have held various workshops on this issue, no proposal has emerged. In the meantime, several states, most notably California, have passed consumer data privacy laws that create a potentially disruptive and burdensome patchwork of regulatory environments. Most Republican legislative proposals have included federal preemption of state regulation, which would help resolve this concern. It is unclear what exact principles in such legislation the Trump Administration supports, but most Republican proposals recognize the potential problems with a state-level approach to internet policy and call for preemption in favor of a federal standard.

Former Vice President Biden also does not have a complete proposal on data privacy, but has stated that he supports an approach similar to the Europeans. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that is in effect in Europe shows the consequences of a more regulatory approach to the issue. In light of the GDPR, several companies, including American newspapers, chose to withdraw from the European market rather than face the burdensome and costly compliance. In other cases, the GDPRs assumption that privacy is always of the highest value can create other problems when data usage would be beneficial. For example, it is more difficult to develop GDPR-compliant contact tracing apps during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition to general consumer data privacy regulation, the Unity Taskforce proposal for the Democratic Partys policy platform also includes heightened regulation of the use of biometrics technology such as facial recognition and fingerprint scans. Biometric technology can be beneficial for applications ranging from searching for missing children to tagging photos, but there has been an increasing amount of debate over whether there needs to be regulation on the private or governmental use of these technologies. Some states already have their own laws regulating biometric privacy. Notably, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) has led to products being unavailable in that state and an increasing amount of litigation. If there is to be federal regulation in this area, policymakers should avoid the costly and innovation-limiting burdens of these current state laws such as overly broad application and private rights of action.

For now, progress on a federal law appears to have stalled, but state laws on both specific technologies and more general consumer data privacy continue to go into effect. Hopefully, meaningful progress on a federal law can be made again to avoid constitutional issues and the disruption to innovation of a state-level approach.

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality remains a topic of intense debate and one on which the candidates clearly diverge.

The FCC during the Trump Administration repealed net neutrality in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. Despite many apocalyptic predictions, the internet did not cease to exist or load one word at a time, and consumers are still able to stream Yankees games and Netflix without additional lags. While there is still debate about whether the full benefits of increased investment and innovation have been realized since this repeal, it is clear that the doomsday predictions have not come true.

Biden has been clear that he supports net neutrality. Restoring these rules would place more regulatory barriers on internet service providers that might make it more difficult to expand service and innovate. Such a rulemaking would certainly be subject to further legal scrutiny, as both the Restoring Internet Freedom Order and the original net neutrality rules faced court challenges. If such requirements were to be a truly desired policy, they would most likely need to be pursued by legislation and not just administrative rulemaking. Even then, such policies might face a high burden to show they are needed in the courts, especially given the potential First Amendment implications. As the Mercatus Centers Brent Skorup noted during the prior net neutrality debates, there are questions of whether the original net neutrality regulations requirements might have violated the First Amendment by allowing some services (such as family-focused providers) to block content but did not allow other services similar discretion in content prioritization.

This difference of viewpoint regarding the benefits of net neutrality also impact the way each administration would pursue cases regarding state-level net neutrality laws. The Trump Administrations Department of Justice has filed suit against Californias state net neutrality law to block its enforcement. Such state-level laws raise concerns about splintering the internet and creating roadblocks to expanding internet service if providers face additional restrictions at state and local levels. As a result, American Enterprise Institute Visiting Fellow and Boston College law professor Daniel Lyons has noted that such laws could raise constitutional concerns under the Dormant Commerce Clause. A Biden Administration likely would not pursue such action against states on this issue.

Conclusion

Increasing regulation on the internet will impact the future of online speech and the continued innovation of platforms. Both presidential candidates have suggested new regulatory approaches for online content moderation, but for different reasons. The next president will need to consider what appropriate federal frameworks should look like on issues such as data privacy and net neutrality in order to prevent a potentially disruptive patchwork of state laws.

See more here:

Tech Policy and the 2020 Election, Part 2: Online Speech, Net Neutrality, and Data Privacy - AAF - American Action Forum

Closure of theaters in N.J. not a violation of rights, judge rules in blow to movie chains – NJ.com

A federal judge has upheld Gov. Phil Murphys executive order that closed movie theaters in New Jersey, finding that the state is not infringing on theaters First Amendment rights in its response to the pandemic.

U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti on Tuesday denied a motion for an injunction by the National Association of Theatre Owners on behalf of several chains in New Jersey.

In closing indoor movie theater operations, (the state is) promoting the significant governmental interest of protecting public health by keeping closed areas that present heightened risks for COVID-19 transmission, Martinotti wrote in his 33-page opinion.

The injunction would have stopped state officials from applying or enforcing executive orders that closed theaters back in March when Murphy declared a state of emergency and mandated the closure of theaters and other facilities.

The theater owners argued New Jersey officials were discriminating against them by allowing churches to reopen.

The state, however, argued that churchgoers can wear masks but that a mask mandate is difficult to enforce in theaters because patrons sit in darkness.

Before filing suit, theater owners sent representatives to meet with the governors office and outline comprehensive safety plans for the reopening of movie theaters in New Jersey.

The protocols included having theater employees wear masks and gloves, signing documents each day stating they dont have COVID-19 symptoms and taking staggered breaks to aid in social distancing.

Theater owners also said they would limit ticket sales to comply with reductions in capacity, implement touchless ticketing and install Plexiglas partitions in customer service areas.

But the judge cited the states argument that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has said the risk of transmission increases with prolonged person-to-person interactions.

Movie theaters necessitate a large number of individuals congregating together concurrently in one indoor location for an unusually long period of time, Martinotti wrote in denying the injunction.

New Jersey on Monday reported 316 new coronavirus cases and four more deaths as the states rate of transmission climbed back above the key benchmark of 1 that indicates the outbreak is expanding.

The Garden States death toll now stands at 15,916 fatalities attributed to COVID-19 14,077 confirmed and 1,839 considered probable in more than five months since the first case was reported March 4.

The National Association of Theatre Owners, American Multi-Cinema, Cinemark USA, Regal Cinemas, BJK Entertainment, Bow Tie Cinemas and Community Theaters filed suit against Murphy and state officials on July 7 with the hopes of reopening.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Anthony G. Attrino may be reached at tattrino@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @TonyAttrino. Find NJ.com on Facebook.

Read more here:

Closure of theaters in N.J. not a violation of rights, judge rules in blow to movie chains - NJ.com

Never have we seen the kind of vitriol and anger that police are enduring now: Illinois FOP – Chicago Sun-Times

For over 50 years, the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police has worked to increase the efficiency of the law enforcement profession and more firmly establish public confidence in the service dedicated to the protection of life and property.

Today, the FOP represents a diverse group of over 35,000 police officers throughout our state. These officers go to work every day, their spouses praying they return safely, so they can provide for their families. They are members of your community; their children attend school with your children. They are husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, Little League coaches, church members, school board members, neighbors and so much more.

As advocates for police officers, the FOP has seen many trends in public perception through the decades. But never have we seen the kind of vitriol and anger that our men and women have encountered in recent months.

In many recent news publications, we see, side-by-side, stories of protests next to stories of police officers being assaulted while doing their assigned duties. In recent weeks, we have seen officers being attacked with rocks, bricks, frozen water bottles and fireworks. We have even seen reports of restaurant employees spitting in and soiling food and drinks being served to officers. It is hard to imagine any other profession where such treatment of public servants would be so casually accepted.

We fully understand the tragic death of George Floyd in Minnesota has severely undermined the mission of the ILFOP in establishing and maintaining public trust in law enforcement. We further recognize the protests that followed began as peaceful endeavors to exercise First Amendment rights.

However, as these protests have progressed, there has been a sharp increase in radical actors whose goals center more on destroying property and injuring innocent citizens and police than they do on enacting social change. It is important that we condemn, in the sharpest possible terms, not only any individual who takes action to harm innocent civilians and peace officers, but any elected leader or media outlet that justifies and praises senseless acts of violence against the police or our community.

Law enforcement is much more than just front-line police; it is a system with multiple parts and players. Police have a job to do, as do prosecutors. When elected prosecutors chase political favor and refuse to prosecute criminals who viciously attack police, it sends a crystal-clear message that the system is no longer functioning.

Failure to hold bad actors accountable will only ensure that what has already been a long summer will be even longer and more dangerous for police officers and peaceful protesters alike.

Clearly, with what we have seen in the past few months, broad institutional reform is needed in Illinois and the nation. One incident may have provided the spark, but underneath it lay decades of kindling. Economic stagnation, social stratification, redlining, the pandemic, along with numerous other issues have all helped to lay the foundation for unrest.

Not one of these political decisions was made by a law enforcement officer. Yet it falls to the police to protect their cities when the political failures mount too high to contain public outrage.

As law enforcement leaders, the FOP has engaged in multiple negotiations on a variety of police reforms through the years, including but not limited to banning excessive chokeholds, instituting body cameras and expanded tactical training.

We look forward to being active participants and advocates for our officers and to assist the conversation by providing first-hand insight and knowledge that only experience in the field can bring.

We stand ready to work with any elected leaders who share our goal of improving all aspects of law enforcement. We ask all our partners in law enforcement and the lawmaking process to stand with us in our shared goal of ensuring that citizens, as well as our law enforcement professionals, are able to safely return home to their families each night.

Chris Southwood is State Lodge President, Illinois Fraternal Order of Police.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com

Read this article:

Never have we seen the kind of vitriol and anger that police are enduring now: Illinois FOP - Chicago Sun-Times

Why Keep Section 230? Because People Need To Be Able To Complain About The Police – Techdirt

from the discourse-demands-it dept

The storm has passed and the charges have been dropped. But the fact that someone who tweeted about police behavior, and, worse, people who retweeted that tweet, were ever charged over it is an outrage, and to make sure that it never happens again, we need to talk about it. Because it stands as a cautionary tale about why First Amendment protections are so important and, as we'll explain here, why Section 230 is as well.

To recap, protester Kevin Alfaro became upset by a police officer's behavior at a recent Black Lives Matter protest in Nutley, NJ. The officer had obscured his identifying information, so Alfaro tweeted a photo asking if anyone could identify the officer "to hold him accountable."

Several people, including Georgana Szisak, retweeted that tweet. The next thing they knew, Alfaro, Sziszak, and several other retweeters found themselves on the receiving end of a felony summons pressing charges of "cyber harassment" of the police officer.

As we've already pointed out, the charges were as pointless as they were spurious, because they themselves directly did the unmasking of the officer's identity, which the charges maintained was somehow a crime to ask for. Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh took further issue with the prosecution, and in particular its application of the New Jersey cyber harassment statute against the tweet. Particularly in light of an earlier case, State v. Carroll (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018), he took a dim view:

N.J. Stat. 2C:33-4.1a(2), under which Sziszak is charged, provides, in relevant part,

According to the criminal complaint, the government's theory is that the post "caus[ed] Det. Sandomenico to fear that harm will come to himself, family and property."

But the Tweet (and the retweet) aren't "lewd, indecent, or obscene." ... [And] if the "lewd, indecent, or obscene" element isn't satisfied, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.1(a)(2) doesn't apply regardless of whether it was posted with the intent to "caus[e] Det. Sandomenico to fear that harm will come to himself, family and property."

These "cyber harassment" statutes are often problematic, targeting for punishment what should be protected and often socially valuable critical speech. Cases like these, where they get applied to criticism of state power, highlight the Constitutional concern. Being able to speak out against the state is at the heart of why we have the First Amendment, and laws interfering with that ability offend the Constitution. In this case, even if the New Jersey law had been drafted in a sufficiently narrow way to not be unconstitutional on its face by in theory only targeting speech beyond the protection of the First Amendment, applying it in this way to speech that should have been protected made it unconstitutional.

But while it's bad enough that the original tweeter had been targeted by the police for his speech, the aspect of the story that is most worrying is that police also targeted for prosecution people who had simply retweeted the original tweet. Section 230 should have barred such prosecutions. And before we so casually chuck out the statute, as so many propose, we need to understand why it should have applied here, and why it is so important to make sure that it still can in the future.

The First Amendment and Section 230 both exist to foster discourse. Discourse is more than just speech; it's the exchange of ideas. The First Amendment protects their expression, and Section 230 their distribution. Especially online, where speaking requires the facilitation of others, we need both: the First Amendment to make it possible to speak, and Section 230 to make it possible to be heard.

This case illustrates why it is so important to have both, and why Section 230 applies, and must apply, to more than just big companies. Here, someone tweeted protected speech to notify the community of concerning police behavior. Section 230 ensured that the Internet platform in this case, Twitter could exist to facilitate that speech. And it's good that Section 230 meant that Twitter could be available to play that role. But Alfaro only had 900 followers; Twitter helped him speak, but it was the retweeters who turned that speech into discourse by helping it reach the community. They had just as important a role to play in facilitating his speech as Twitter did, if not even more so.

It's important to remember that the statutory text of Section 230 in no way limits its protection to big Internet companies, or even to companies at all. It simply differentiates between whoever created the expression at issue (and can thus be held to answer for it) and who facilitated its distribution online (who therefore can't be). Given how important that facilitation role is in having meaningful public discourse, we need to ensure that everyone who performs it is protected. In fact, it may be even more important to ensure that individual facilitators can maintain this protection than the larger and more resourced corporate platforms who can better weather legal challenges.

Think about it: think about how many of us share content online. Many of us may even share far more content created by others than we create ourselves. But all that sharing would grind to a halt, if we could be held liable for anything allegedly wrong with that content. Not just civilly, but, as this case shows, even criminally.

And that chilling is not a good thing. One could certainly argue that people should take more care when they share content online and do the best they can in vetting it before sharing it, to the extent it is possible. Of course, it could also be fairly said that many people should use their right to free speech more productively than they necessarily do. But the reason we protect speech, even low-value speech, is because we need to make sure that the good, socially beneficial speech we depend on to keep our democracy healthy can still get expressed too. Which is also why we have Section 230: it is not possible to police all the third-party created content we intermediate, and if we want to make sure that the good, socially beneficial content can get through, to reach the people who need to hear it, then we need to make sure that we don't have to. When we snip away at Section 230's protection, or limit its application, we obstruct that spread and curtail the discourse society needs. We therefore do so at our peril.

Obviously in this case Section 230 did not prevent the attempted prosecution. Nor did the First Amendment, and that the police went after anyone over the tweet was an unacceptable abuse of authority that imposed an enormous cost. Discourse was damaged, and the targeted Twitter users may now think twice before engaging in online discourse at all, much less discourse intending to keep state power in check. These are costs that we, as a society, cannot afford to bear.

But at least by having both of these defenses available, the terrible toll this attempted prosecution took was soon abated. Think about how much worse it would have been had they not been. And ask why that is a future we should be continuing to spend any effort trying to invite. Our sole policy goal should be to enhance our speech protections, to impose costs on those who would undermine public discourse through their attempts at abusive process. The last thing we should be doing is taking steps to whittle away at them and make it any easier to chill discourse than it already is, and cases like this one, where people were trying to speak out against abuses of power, illustrate why.

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

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

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

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: criminal charges, georgana sziszak, kevin alfaro, new jersey, nutley, protests, retweets, section 230

Continued here:

Why Keep Section 230? Because People Need To Be Able To Complain About The Police - Techdirt

US liquor giant hit by ransomware what the rest of us can do to help – Naked Security

Third, they encrypt as many files on the network as possible, using a scrambling algorithm for which they alone have the key. The crooks typically copy the malware program across the network first, so that when they kick off the encryption process, it runs in parallel on all your devices, thus bringing maximum disruption in minimum time.How these stages evolved

As you probably know, the first two stages above are fairly recent developments in ransomware criminality.

When ransomware crooks started out back in 2013 when the infamous CryptoLocker gang were the kings of the ransomware scene it was all about stage 3: scrambling files and then using the decryption key as a blackmail tool: Send us $300 or your files are gone forever.

The crooks generally didnt target networks back then; instead, they went after millions of victims in parallel, with each infected computer ransomed independently.

The criminals targeted everyone from home users who probably didnt have backups of any sort and might be willing to spend $300 to get their wedding photos or the videos of their children back to big companies where 100 users might fall for the latest ransomware spam campaign and the business would need to spend 100 $300 to get the unique decryption key for each now-useless computer.

Stage 1 arrived on the ransomware scene when criminals realised that by going after entire networks one-at-a-time, they could cut their losses early in the case of a network that they didnt have much success with, and focus on networks where they could cause disruption that was both sudden and total.

Instead of pursuing thousands of individual computer users for hundreds of dollars each, the crooks could blackmail a single company at a time for tens of thousands of dollars a time.

Indeed, the early adopters of the all-at-once ransomware approach often took the cynical approach of offering two prices: a per-PC decryption fee, and an all you can eat buffet price for a master key that would unscramble as many computers as you wanted almost as if the crooks were doing you a favour.

The crooks behind the SamSam malware four Iranians have been identified and formally charged by the US, but are unlikely ever to stand trial even offered a staged payment service whereby you could pay half the ransom to receive half of the decryption keys (chosen randomly by the criminals).

If you were lucky, you might just end up with enough computers running again to save your business for just 50% of the usual price

but if not, you could pay the rest of the ransom, presumably now with considerable confidence that the crooks would deliver the decryption tools as promised.

You could even take a chance on paying the per-PC fee for your most critical computers typically $8000 a time to tide you over, and top up later, once you were confident in the criminals, to the master-key price, which was typically set by the SamSam crooks just below $50,000.

Whether they chose $50,000 at a guess, or because they found it represented a common accounting department limit in the US below which it was much easier for the IT manager to get the payment approved, we never found out.

As you can imagine, the exposure of the alleged perpetrators by US law enforcement pretty much drove the SamSam crooks out of business, albeit not before they had extorted millions of dollars from victims around the world, but ultimately didnt make much of a dent in ransomware attacks in general.

Sadly, the SamSam gangs fee of $50,000 a network turns out to be small by current standards.

A recent ransomware attack that took US GPS and fitness tracker giant Garmin offline for several days was apparently resolved when the company coughed up a multi-million dollar payment, supposedly negotiated downwards from $10,000,000.

That incident attracted controversy because the ransomware involved was alleged to have been the work of a Russian cybercrime outfit known as Evil Corp, and transactions with that group are prohibited by US sanctions imposed in December 2019.

And US travel company CWT is said to have coughed up $4,500,000 recently again, down from an opening demand of an alleged $10 million for unscrambling what the crooks claimed were 30,000 ransomed computers.

If true, $10,000,000 for 30,000 devices comes out at $333 each, a fascinating full-circle back to the $300 price point of the 2013 CryptoLocker ransomware, which was itself an intriguing echo of the first ever ransomware attack, way back in 1989, where the criminal behind the malware demanded $378. (With no prepaid credit cards, online gift cards or cryptocurrencies to use as a vehicle for pseudoanonymous payments, this early attempt at ransomware, known as the AIDS Information Trojan, was a financial failure. Indeed, it wasnt until the early 2010s that cyberextortion based on locking up computers or files worked out at all for the cyberunderworld.)

But the biggest tactical change in ransomware is stage 2 above.

By perpetrating data breaches up front, before unleashing the file scrambling component in Brown-Formans case, the breach allegedly includes 1 terabyte; in CWTs attack, the criminals claimed that 2 terabytes were thieved up front the crooks now have a double-barrelled weapon of criminal demand.

Youre no longer being extorted to pay for the crooks to do something, namely to send you a set of decryption keys, but also being blackmailed into bribing the crooks not to do something, namely not to go public with your data.

Early ransomware had more in common with kidnapping, though with jobs at stake rather than the victims life: the theory was that if you paid up and the crooks released a working decryption tool, you not only got your data back but also quite clearly ended the power that the criminals had over you.

For the crooks to ransom your data again (sadly, this happens), theyd need to break into your network again and essentially start from scratch, assuming that you worked out how they got in before and closed the holes they used last time.

But todays ransomware is turning into old-school, out-and-out blackmail: the crooks promise to delete the data they already stole, and thereby to prevent your ransomware incident turning into a publicly visible data breach, but you have no way of knowing whether they will keep their promise.

Even worse, you have no way of knowing whether the crooks can keep their promise, even if they intend to.

For all you know, the data they took illegally could already have been stolen from them remember that many of the cybercrime busts written about on Naked Security, including ransomware arrests, happened because of cybersecurity blunders made by the perpetrators that allowed their evil secrets to be probed, uncovered and ultimately proved in a court of law.

Or the criminals themselves may have been victims of insider crime, where one of their own decided to go rogue after all, weve also written about crooks getting busted not through operational blunders but through a falling-out among thieves, where one of the gang has ratted out the others or otherwise co-operated with the authorities to save themselves

Technically, or at least from a regulatory point of view, all ransomware attacks are data breaches, even if all they do is scramble your files in place.

After all, if an outsider is able to modify files they werent supposed to access at all, that clearly amounts both to unauthorised access (a crime in most jurisdictions) and to unauthorised modification (a yet more serious crime) and even though this makes you a victim of crime, it also means youve failed in at least some way at protecting information you were supposed to protect.

And ransomware crooks who steal your data before scrambling it are really in the pound seats when it comes to blackmail.

Even if you prevent the final stage of the attack and the file scrambling failed, or if you have reliable and comprehensive offline backups that allow you to repair and reimage all your computers without relying on the crooks for decryption keys, the crooks are going to squeeze you anyway, by threatening to make a bad thing (a provable data breach) much worse: a data breach that can actively be used against you, by other crooks, by unscrupulous competitors, by activists, by regulators, by anyone who is determined to make you look bad for any reason they choose.

The good news, in the case of the Brown-Forman attack, is that current reports suggest two important things:

All we can say to that is, Well done, and thanks for standing firm.

Grubman Shire Meiselas & Sacks, a law firm that represents numerous high-profile celebrities, recently faced a demand similar to Brown Formans, where the ransomware criminals menaced company founder Allen Grubman in broken English with threats to auction off celebrity data in the cyberunderworld:

We have so many value files, and the lucky ones who buy these data will be satisfied for a very long time. Show business is not concerts and love of fans only also it is big money and social manipulation, mud lurking behind the scenes and sexual scandals, drugs and treachery. [] Mr. Grubman, you have a chance to stop that, and you know what to do.

The company famously likened the blackmailers to terrorists and refused to pay up. (The threatened auctions havent yet happened though no one knows whether thats because the crooks felt they couldnt trust their own or because the data stolen simply wasnt up to what the crooks claimed.)

To reward companies that are willing to say, We wont pay, and who help to break the feedback that keeps the ransomware cycle turning, we suggest that you repay them by making sure that if their data does get dumped by crooks

that you simply do not look.

No matter how useful it might seem; no matter what items that you feel are now both in the public domain and in the public interest; no matter how much you might argue that companies like Brown-Forman were themselves remiss in the first place for not protecting data that they ought to have, dont look.

We urge you, Just say no.

Brown-Formans breach is now a matter of public record and we assume it will be carefully investigated by law enforcement and the relevant regulators, so lets leave them to it.

As Sophos Cybersecurity Educator Sally Adam put it:

There is no end justifies the means discussion to be had here because this is nothing like the cases of whistleblowers like Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning, where no matter what you think of their ultimate actions an insider identified something they perceived to be wrong. This is purely about extortion.

Clearly, prevention is way better than cure.

Its important to have protection in place to stop stage 3 above (after all, not all ransomware attacks do follow this three-step process, and one-off scrambling attacks are still an ever present risk.)

Weve got plenty of advice on how to do just that, including our popular report:

But the earlier you block or spot the crooks, the better for everyone, including yourself.

So we recommend you review the following handy resources too, to keep ransomware crooks out right from the very start:

Go here to see the original:
US liquor giant hit by ransomware what the rest of us can do to help - Naked Security