Daily Archives: January 31, 2021

Editor:

Recently, My Edmonds News reported on the vandalism to the art installation that changed key characteristics of the message into an entirely new message altogether. The public was appropriately appalled, and legal action was pursued. Oscar Wilde is quoted as sayingI may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself. Service members have given their lives defending this freedom. All the people of Edmonds should be mindful, respectful, and display the true meaning of decorum when it comes to defending every citizens right to protected speech.

In local Facebook groups, discussion is abundant and emotionally charged about the theft of political signs and other signs reflecting individual beliefs. We might not agree, or even understand the messages on those signs and can become blinded by our own passion. The use of a sign is a way to provoke thought, declare a strong personal belief, offer support. It is a sacred and protected right we as Americans enjoy and others in the world can only envy. Recently, many in Edmonds have had to resort to extreme measures to keep trespassers, enemies of free speech, and those who disagree from stealing yard signs. This week Councilmember Adrienne-Fraley Monillas used her position to make rhetorical and unproven statements during the Council Comments section of the Jan. 26, 2021 council meeting. I will fight to protect her right to express her thoughts. She is perfectly within her rights to say the things that she does, and residents of Edmonds are perfectly within their rights to display legal signage on private property to express their views.

A case in point. Recently, I was asked to watch a neighbors property while they were away. They had multiple legal signs on their private property. Over the course of seven days, trespassers stole private yard signs no fewer than four times. Fortunately, in two of the cases, I was able to secure photographs of these individuals. I promptly filed a police report and provided the photographs.

The people stealing these signs (and silencing protected speech) need to be prosecuted and serve their penalty.

Whether you want to express Black Lives Matter, Drop the Mike, Equity, Justice, We Choose Kindness, or I Like Turtles signs on your private property is your business. If you dislike the sign, think about why that is and engage in a discussion with those you disagree with to understand their views and share yours. Using misleading speech and to emotionally divide our community as Councilmember Adrienne-Fraley Monillas is doing is both wrong and dangerous.

One thing most of us have in common is our love for this city. We have done our best work when we share ideas, opinions, and respect. Members of this community crave having a voice and a meaningful role in their future. History has taught us what we become when we seek to silence those with whom we disagree.

George BennettEdmonds

More:
Letter to the editor: Silencing free speech by breaking the law not what Edmonds is about - My Edmonds News

Online social media platforms accepted the role of moderating content from Congress in 1996. The Great Deplatforming that occurred after January 6 was less a silent coup than a good faith effort to purge online platforms of toxic content.

After former President Trump and many of the extremist followers he goaded were removed from a variety of online platformsmost notably Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, as well as Redditmany saw the subsequent silence as a welcome relief. But is that, as Luigi Zingales posits, an emotional reaction to a wrong that is being used to justify something that, at least in the long term, is much worse?

The Great Deplatforming (aka the Night of Short Fingers) has exposed the fact that a great deal of political discourse is occurring on private, for-profit internet platforms. Can these platforms be trusted as our guardians of free speech?

Recognizing that the Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity, and with the intent of preserving the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation, Congress granted immunity in 1996 to interactive computer services (which are equivalent of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other online social media platforms) for any information published by the platforms users. Without this immunity, social media platforms would simply not exist. The potential liability for the larger platforms arising from the content of the millions upon millions of posts would be far too great a risk.

Congress also granted social media platforms immunity for any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. This provision gives platforms an incentive to moderate content to weed out objectionable and illegal content. It can be a vile world out there, as evidenced by some of the hateful, harmful, and obscene comments that are posted in online forums. As noted by Cloudfare founder Matthew Prince, What we didnt anticipate, was that there are just truly awful human beings in the world. The situation has devolved to such an extent that experts now recognize that some human moderators suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder-like symptoms.

What do we do when the moderation we have encouraged social media platforms to conduct is applied to what some consider political speech? Many fear that platforms have difficulty differentiating between racist and/or extremist posts advocating violence against individuals or institutions based on political views, and simple political opinion. Indeed, Facebooks own executives acknowledge that the companys algorithm-generated recommendations were responsible for the growth of extremism on its platform. Concerns have also been raised that, with bad intent, some platforms refuse to make that differentiation to promote their executives own political agendas. Social media platforms have also been accused of moderating such political speech with a bias toward a particular party.

One approach is to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the law that provides internet social media platforms their immunity. Republicans introduced five bills in the 20192020 Congressional session calling for amendments, as well as the full repeal, of Section 230. For example, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo), claiming a lack of politically neutral content on social media platforms, sponsored the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act. Under the bill as introduced, online social media platforms with 30 million or more active monthly users in the US (or 300 million or more active monthly users worldwide, or more than $500 million in global annual revenue) would have to obtain an immunity certification from the FTC every two years. The social media platform would be denied a certification and lose Section 230 immunity if it was determined to be moderating in a politically biased manner, which would include disproportionately restricting or promoting access to, or the availability of, information from a political party, political candidate, or political viewpoint. As one article noted, Hawley wants to stop internet censorship by censoring the internet, not to mention regulating political speech.

The Parler lawsuit amplifies a point made by one commentator: If you are so toxic that companies dont want to do business with you, thats on you. Not them.

In May 2020, President Trump signed an Executive Order claiming online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans speech, and stating that online platforms should lose their immunity, because rather than removing objectionable content in good faith as required under the law, they are engaging in deceptive actions by stifling viewpoints with which they disagree. The Executive Order called on the FCC to propose new regulations to clarify immunity under Section 230 and for the FTC to investigate online platforms for deceptive acts. Both Tim Wu and Hal Singer have provided cogent arguments on ProMarket as to why these are doomed approaches.

Online moderation is enforced through each platforms terms of service (TOS) that each user must agree to before being able to post to each respective platform. After the January 6 siege of the US Capital, the tech companies that deplatformed a large number of users, including former President Trump, and deleted tens of thousands of posts, did so on the basis of users violating their respective TOS. For example, Amazon Web Services (AWS) stopped hosting Parler because of Parlers alleged violations of the AWS TOS, which include an Acceptable Use Policy. Parlers subsequent lawsuit against AWS could have served as a bellwether case for the application of TOS to regulate speech. Unfortunately, the case Parler presented is appallingly weak (one lawyer referred to it as a lolsuit). For example, the AWSParler hosting agreement clearly gives AWS the power to immediately suspend and terminate a client that has violated AWSs Acceptable Use Policy.

In its swift denial of a preliminary injunction in this case, the court also noted the lack of any evidence that Twitter and AWS acted together either intentionally or at all to restrain Parlers business.

Parlers causes of action continue with a claim that Twitter was given preferential treatment by AWS because similar content appeared on Twitter, for which Twitters account was not suspended, while Parlers account was terminated. There are two issues with this assertion: First, we return to the role of moderation. Twitter actively (though, to some degree, imperfectly) moderates the content on its platform. In contrast, Parlers home page stated its users could [s]peak freely and express yourself openly, without fear of being deplatformed for your views.

Even more damaging to Parlers assertion is the fact that the evidence in the case demonstrates that AWS doesnt even host Twitter on its platform and therefore did not have any ability to suspend Twitters account even if it wanted to. But the Parler lawsuit amplifies a point made by one commentator: If you are so toxic that companies dont want to do business with you, thats on you. Not them (which would seem to apply to Zingaless justification for Simon & Schusters cancellation of Senator Josh Hawleys book deal).

In denying Parlers request for a preliminary injunction that would order AWS to restore service to Parler pending the full hearing, the court rejected any suggestion that the public interest favors requiring AWS to host the incendiary speech that the record shows some of Parlers users have engaged in. While this ruling does not end the case, it does substantiate the weakness of at least some of Parlers arguments.

The corporate owners of the social media platforms are permitted in our free enterprise system to set the terms under which content may be posted or removed from the platforms.

Although the AWS-Parler case before the court will ultimately resolve this particular dispute, the underlying issues will remain far from resolved regardless of the outcome of the case. The explosion of social media over the last ten years, and its supplanting of traditional media to a large degree, has created a new and untested playing field for public discourse. Some of the issues raised are similar in scope, if not size, to the issues our courts have dealt with in the past. The corporate owners of the social media platforms are permitted in our free enterprise system to set the terms under which content may be posted or removed from the platforms. As non-government actors, the First Amendments freedom of speech protections do not apply to the speech of a private company, a fact confirmed by the court in denying Parlers preliminary injunction. The audience of the social media platforms at issue, however, has grown to exponentially. While deplatforming will, at least temporarily, silence those voices promoting violence on specific platforms, the long-lasting implications are less clear.

While it is true that Trump lost the popular vote in the 2020 election by 7 million votes, the fact remains that 74.2 million Americans did cast their votes for Trump. Once Twitter permanently banned Trump from its platform, and many surmised that he would join the less restrictive Parler, nearly one million people downloaded the Parler app from Apple and Google before it was removed from those stores and Parler was suspended from AWS. Moving the conversation off of mainstream social media and driving it into less balanced platforms whose subscribers are more homogeneous, much to the dismay of even Parlers CEO, John Matze, encourages an echo chamber of ideas in smaller encrypted platforms that are more difficult to monitor and potentially amplifies the most angry and passionate voices.

If the touted exodus of conservatives from Twitter to other platforms that they view as more welcoming comes to fruition, could our public discourse become even more divided, with opposing viewpoints feeding upon their own biases rather than potentially being tempered by responses and dialogue with each other? An informed public exposed to conflicting opinions is the best chance for resolving political differences. These issues are important and warrant further discussion, but the current termination of Parler from the AWS platform does not seem to result in heightened concern that public discourse is truly harmed. There are alternatives to AWS, and in fact, Parler already seems to have found one that will bring it back. While there is a significant amount of talk of conservatives leaving Twitter, there seems to be little evidence that has happened on a large scale. For the moment, at least, the largest social media platforms seem to be retaining users on both sides of the political spectrum, which we believe is good for democracy.

Go here to read the rest:
The Great Deplatforming: Can Digital Platforms Be Trusted As Guardians of Free Speech? - ProMarket

Donald Trumps Twitter suspension after the riot at the US Capitol made headlines around the world. What was less reported, however, was that as the then-President was suspended, so too were tens of thousands of right-wing accounts. Their social media refuge was Parler, another micro-blogging platform.

Parler markets itself as a free speech-focused and unbiased alternative to mainstream social networks. Whatever its intentions, in recent years the platform has become a cesspit of extremist content. So extreme, in fact, that Amazon banned Parler from its hosting services earlier this month. The case is now going through the courts, after Parler launched a lawsuit.

What makes Parler an interesting case is that there was initially speculation it could be hosted on the blockchain networks used by cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin (although Parler has since opted for a more conventional hosting system). For the uninitiated, blockchain is a special type of computer database for cryptocurrency transactions. It functions like a ledger and can record transactions between parties in a way thats verifiable, permanent and, most importantly, anonymous.

So what unites an obscure social media platform dedicated to free speech and the fiendishly complicated databases used by cryptocurrencies? In short, libertarian politics. These networks do not have any top-down control, whether from governments or internet monitors; that is their appeal. If Parler moved its network to a blockchain, it would ensure its ability to survive without interference from Amazon or any government.

The problem is that if a service like Parler was hosted on such a network, messages that incite violence would be pretty much impossible to attribute. Funds could move to finance bombings, murders or other terrorist activities while remaining undetected by the authorities.

Indeed, fears of a far-right insurgency have spooked some big players in the cryptocurrency world. Vinay Gupta, who helped launch Ethereum, a major Bitcoin rival, responded in no uncertain terms to suggestions that Parler should move to Ethereums network: You will regret it. We will collude against you. We will make your lives miserable. We will seriously figure out underhanded-yet-ethical ways to make your project fail if you force us to host it. Please, kindly, fuck off and build your own infrastructure. You are not wanted here.

His belief that Ethereum should under no circumstances allow itself to become a haven for the far-right goes beyond political preferences: If these people move on to our platform, we will be knee deep in terrorism financing lawsuits in 18 months. It is critical for the survival of the open internet that we are not a safe haven for fascists. Let me explain the logic If Parler was built on Ethereum instead of AWS [Amazons network] right now we would be losing all of the non-blockchain infrastructure the Ethereum community depends on: websites, exchange licenses, bank accounts, IPFS infrastructure, Infura, he tweeted.

Guptas fears are far from unfounded. Reuters reported on 14 January that payments in Bitcoin worth more than $500,000 were made to 22 different virtual wallets, most of them belonging to far-right activists and internet personalities, before the storming of the US Capitol. There is a real danger that a blockchain network could find itself complicit in acts that might fall under terrorism legislation. But there are those who disagree with Guptas approach. Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has claimed that Parler has a right to exist, full stop.

At the heart of the matter is a conflict that has been raging in the tech world for years: how much freedom should there be online? This debate has particularly affected the crypto and hacking communities. Defcon, one of the world's largest hacker conventions, effectively told alt-right agitators they werent welcome at its events in 2018. In the same year, Hope, another conference, was accused of refusing to remove fascists and white nationalists.

Its not just in the US either: at CCC, a conference organised every December in Leipzig, an actual physical fight reportedly broke out between left-wing organisers and attendees accused of alt-right sympathies in 2019.

What comes up again and again, from Parler being shut down to Trump being banned from Twitter, is the tension between the right to free speech and the potential of these technologies to cause real-life harm. Its about the threat that the far-right could pose if they had the expertise to utilise technologies like blockchain networks. And furthermore, how much of a presence the alt-right already has in the tech community.

Gupta tells me he believes the tension has arisen online because the libertarians in the crypto-community look at the new left, the woke left, and what they see is Stalinism. At the same time:

The left hates libertarians because theyre individualist and dont care about political correctness or the idea of society. So the libertarian position, that we are not responsible for what other people do, we are only responsible for what we do, is the standard Bitcoin political doctrine Libertarians will say you want to impose censorship on the blockchain, just like you imposed censorship on the internet. What they dont understand is that if we end up hosting that kind of content, the feds are going to shut us down. Fundamentally, the clash with a sovereign national state is one that the blockchain cannot survive.

What is clear, as we have seen over the last month, is that the far-right can thrive in the space created by the (admirable, if at times naive) defence of absolute free speech. And it will fall on communities, like the blockchain one, to find a way to navigate these choppy waters.

The stakes are real: if self-regulation fails, nation states will start imposing their sovereignty over parts of the internet, in effect Balkanising it. The era of the free internet, where information flows (mostly) seamlessly, would be over. In its place would be a version of the internet that more closely resembles countries like Russia and China heavily censored and subject to the whims of politicians. It would be a sad end for one of the greatest experiments in history.

Go here to see the original:
The free speech row tearing apart the tech community - Spectator.co.uk

Supreme Courts refusal to grant interim protection from arrest to the cast and crew of Tandav facing FIRs in multiple states, for allegedly hurting religious sentiments, doesnt help the cause of free speech. The court observed that the right to free speech is not absolute and cannot come at the cost of hurting the rights of others. Hurt to sentiments, however, is a slippery slope that imparts a chilling effect on any exercise of the right to free speech. If Article 19(1) of the Constitution protects the citizens fundamental right to free speech, it is noteworthy that hurt to sentiment doesnt figure among the reasonable restrictions to free speech in Article 19(2).

Hurt to sentiments is subjective in the sense that what is entertainment or information or a legitimate belief to one person could be deeply disturbing or falsehood or blasphemy for another. Unless a clear cut offence that endangers public order by inciting imminent violence is committed, the state and its organs like police and courts will ordinarily have a tough time adjudicating free speech cases amid such subjective biases. Clearly, the Tandav makers havent succeeded in inciting any such offence. Indias free speech laws then necessarily command authorities to exercise forbearance in such cases.

The tactic of police filing cases in multiple states is a deadly and effective instrument of state harassment. Few individuals have the resources or temperament to withstand such pressure. In SCs glorious precedents lies its equally effective antidote of asking the offence industry to refrain from seeing what they cannot stomach. Lawyers for the Tandav cast and crew invoked the SC relief in similar situations for journalists Arnab Goswami and Amish Devgan. Both hyper-aggressive practitioners of their free speech rights were granted protection from arrest, and rightly so, effectively ending witch hunts against them.

The Tandav petitioners have an uphill task approaching each high court under whose jurisdiction FIRs have been filed, seeking protection from arrest. They had apologised and deleted the offending portions hoping to mollify the culture censors. A similarly apologetic Munawar Faruqui, still in jail for jokes he didnt crack, has suffered three bail rejections. A single-judge MP high court bench has raised the possibility of investigation coughing up more incriminating evidence. Faruquis jokes disqualifying him for bail conflict with free speech protections under Article 19(1). All courts must promptly call the police bluff, not let it play on much longer.

This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.

END OF ARTICLE

Follow this link:
Sanctifying sentiment? Bail must be overriding principle in free speech cases unless theres incitement to v - The Times of India Blog