Daily Archives: December 13, 2021

Despite his claims to the contrary, then-President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election but his campaign lawyer Sidney Powell apparently did very well for herself. We recently learned Powell raised over $14 million for her Defending the Republic nonprofit group using baseless claims about fraud in that election.

Its unclear where all that money went. Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed the financial records of Defending the Republic and a related political action committee, also organized by Powell.

Spreading fake news to ask for money is commercial speech, and courts enforce laws criminalizing fraud.

Lets be clear about something: Spreading fake news alone may be protected speech under the First Amendment. But spreading fake news to ask for money is commercial speech, and courts enforce laws criminalizing fraud. While Powell may argue that she believed her claims, there is no First Amendment right to lie to people to get their money.

Trump himself has shown the profitability of this model. A minor agitator suspended by Twitter for repeatedly lying might start a GoFundMe account and complain to sympathetic donors about being canceled by Big Tech. A former president, however, can open a Super PAC and rake in millions claiming to be a victim of both election fraud and cancel culture. And Trump has done just that, to the tune of $255.4 million raised in the eight weeks during which he sought to overturn the election result.

Since the 2020 election, I have received dozens of email solicitations from Trump or someone writing on his behalf asking for money. Most of these fundraising pitches come with either false statements of fact about the 2020 election or about President Joe Biden or some other Democrat or both.

Lies that people get away with in politics can result in indictments in the charitable fundraising world. Former White House adviser Steve Bannon was indicted in August 2020 for the Build the Wall charitable scam he orchestrated, allegedly using the money he hustled in the name of supporting Trumps border wall for his own purposes. Trump pardoned Bannon before he could be tried for this alleged fraud.

Understandably, prosecutors and courts accept the fact that First Amendment protection gives somewhat more leeway for untruths in political speech, even when accompanied by campaign fundraising, than is allowed when raising money for a business transaction or an erstwhile charitable endeavor like Bannons. In a public sale of securities to investors, for example, it is illegal not only to lie, but also to fail to disclose something that needs to be disclosed for what you have already said not to be misleading. If we applied that standard to politicians in their fundraising pitches, most of them would be in jail by now.

On the other hand, there must be limits to what politicians, political parties and independent organizations organized for political purposes permissibly can say to raise money.

Telling someone that Trump won the 2020 election, or that there was enough election fraud to flip the results, were false statements, and Powell almost certainly knew as much.

For example, in 2018, I lost a primary election against Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith. If after losing the primary I had sent out emails, tweets and mailers telling people that I had won the primary and that they should send me money to run in the general election, that would have been a fraud. A candidate can and should go to jail for that.

But what about a candidate who loses an election by a wide margin, ought to know he has no possible legal way of changing the election result, but still solicits money from the public to pay lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits challenging the election? That presumably is a fraud too, unless the people who send their money are told that there is little or no chance that the lawsuits will succeed or that the election results will change. As we know, that has not been the case with Trumps missives.

Granted, there are close elections in which both candidates would be within their rights to hire lawyers and raise money to pay for litigation. Millions were raised and spent before the Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore in 2000. John F. Kennedys win over Richard Nixon in 1960 was not so close, but that election was close enough 49.72 percent versus 49.55 percent of the popular vote that Nixon could credibly have raised more money and gone to court with some chance of success (though not much) to try to prove election fraud in Illinois.

The fact that Nixon who later became the second most dishonest president in American history did not stoop to that level says something about the relative standing of truth in American politics then and now.

The 2020 presidential election wasnt a landslide like we saw in 1964 for Lyndon Johnson or Ronald Reagans back-to-back sweeps. But Bidens margin of victory 51.3 percent to 46.8 percent in the popular vote and 306 to 232 in the Electoral College was far larger than in many recent presidential elections. Short of sedition, insurrection and a military coup, the result was not going to change. Raising money for the purpose of changing the election result was fraud.

Back to Powell. She is a lawyer, which means that she is subject not only to criminal prohibitions on fraud, but also to state bar ethics rules, which largely mirror that of the American Bar Association.

The American Bar Association Rule 4.1 clearly states that In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person. Telling someone that Trump won the 2020 election, or that there was enough election fraud to flip the results, were false statements, and Powell almost certainly knew as much. The fact that she raised millions making such false statements makes it that much worse and we still dont know what happened with the money.

Freedom of speech is critical to a representative democracy, and sometimes this means that we must tolerate politicians and their supporters who lie. But there are legal limits to lying, even in politics. Lying about nonexistent election fraud to a turbulent crowd ahead of their storming the Capitol and threatening to kill the vice president is incitement of insurrection, which can be criminal. Likewise, lying about demonstrable facts concerning an election that is already over to get people to send you money which cannot possibly be used to change the election result should be prosecuted as fraud.

After the 2020 election, the Trump political operation turned from its habitual distortion of facts for political purposes to outright fraud to raise money, some of which is unaccounted for. The Department of Justice and state attorneys general need to investigate and, if criminal fraud can in fact be shown, press charges against these political scam artists.

Richard W. Painterwas the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007, underPresident George W. Bush. He is currently the S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Minnesota, and is a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School.

Read more here:
Sidney Powell's election lie cash grab must be treated as fraud - MSNBC

It won't surprise you to hear Twitter is fighting former President Trump's lawsuit over his ban. Bloomberg reports Twitter has asked a judge to dismiss the suit as it allegedly misinterprets and threatens the company's First Amendment free speech rights. The social network noted it was a private company that isn't obligated to host speech it doesn't like, and that Trump repeatedly violated the rules he agreed to when he chose to use the service. A forced ban reversal would challenge "bedrock principles of constitutional law," Twitter said.

Moreover, Twitter argued its editorial choices related to basic public concerns, including threats to a peaceful White House transition as well as statements that could foster "further violence." The company merely flagged Trump's tweets as misleading in the run-up to the January 6th Capitol assault, but banned him after he continued.

Lead attorney John Coale has contended Twitter is a "state actor" as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act supposedly equates to a subsidy that forces it to honor the First Amendment like the government does. Biden's Justice Department has objected to this interpretation in a court filing, however, stating that Section 230 is only meant to protect against liability, not regulate the speech of officials like the ex-President.

Trump isn't waiting for a return to Twitter, Facebook and other social networks. He recently launched Truth Social in a bid to enable himself and other conservatives who've felt silenced by tech companies. If Twitter succeeds in its dismissal request, though, Trump won't have much of a choice but to give up his once-preferred platform.

All products recommended by Engadget are selected by our editorial team, independent of our parent company. Some of our stories include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, we may earn an affiliate commission.

Original post:
Twitter asks judge to throw out Trump's lawsuit over ban - Engadget

The realm of social media has been something of a minefield for public officials. Whether its Facebook, Twitter, Tik Tok or some other digital realm where folks gather to gab, scroll or troll, youll find plenty of elected officials trying to communicate their messages directly to the masses.

The problem whether youre a U.S. president or town councilman is that your message can get overrun with opposite-minded folks. But where the average social media user can simply delete unwanted material from their pages, elected officials cant. A number of courts have ruled that deleting opposing or unwanted comments or viewpoints abridges that persons First Amendment rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court calls social media sites the modern public square, where constituents can petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a direct manner.

None of which has stopped elected officials from deleting and hiding comments they dont like or agree with or that they consider off topic. But just because they all do it doesnt mean we should accept it. But given the bountiful case law, does it merit yet another federal lawsuit? Apparently so.

James Moore and Beth Ann Pratte, two Moore County residents already suing the Board of Education over another matter, joined forces with the same Raleigh attorney to file a federal lawsuit in the Middle District of North Carolina last month charging that board members Stacey Caldwell, Libby Carter and Ed Dennison deleted comments of theirs from their pages.

Interestingly, the legal outrage appears to be situational. Moore and Pratte left out of the lawsuit other board members who have also deleted, hidden or redirected comments from their various pages over the past year. Board member David Hensley admits he hired his own lawyer earlier this year when he was called out for removing content on his page.

Moore and Prattes other lawsuit is filed in state court and seeks to block the sale of the former Southern Pines Primary School campus to the West Southern Pines Land and Housing Trust. That suit alleges an open sale to the highest bidder is the proper way to go.

Moore and Pratte have spoken out against face mask mandates and other policy issues at previous board meetings. In this newest suit, they say their First Amendment rights were violated when certain comments were removed from Facebook pages by Caldwell, Carter and Dennison.

The comments themselves are all relatively minor: Youre a big disappointment, Pratte wrote on Dennisons page. You need to take a class on the constitution. RINO.

OK, not exactly the Federalist Papers, but a federal case?

Lets be clear: We stand for the First Amendment and against elected officials who seek to delete content on their social media pages. If youre going to communicate directly to the people, youd better be prepared to hear directly from the people, too.

And it doesnt matter if you say its not an official page, so you can do what you want were looking at you, Bob Levy. Levy says his page is not a public or gov. page but then adorns the top with a giant yellow school bus and posts comments about school business and politics. If youre on social media and youre an elected official, youre stuck with the fanboys and the trolls. Get over it.

As for this being grounds for a federal lawsuit, its all just meant to distract and waste time and government money. No federal judge is going to let this case go forward. Its really about public embarrassment. Frankly, were all embarrassed of all the parties involved.

In one of Prattes undeleted comments on Carters page, she asks, When will the board of education start to focus on education?

Maybe when they can stop dealing with all the antics and breathless embellishments.

Read the rest here:
Column: Tripped Up By Social Media | Opinion | thepilot.com - Southern Pines Pilot

A federal court order against the Pennsbury School District for curtailing public comments that officials deemed abusive or irrelevant has districts across the region reconsidering how theyll handle heated or hateful speech during school board meetings a regular phenomenon in some communities over the last year.

The order, issued by U.S. District Judge Gene Pratter, came in response to a lawsuit filed Oct. 1 by four residents in the Bucks County district who said their comments were censored, limited, or disrupted by the board, largely as they questioned its equity initiatives.

The First Amendment protections for free speech apply to speaking at public school board meetings, Pratter said in an opinion accompanying her Nov. 17 order, which granted a preliminary injunction against the district but hasnt settled the case.

She agreed that Pennsburys policies prohibiting certain comments including those considered personally directed, offensive, abusive, and irrelevant appeared to be vague and overbroad, and directed the district to stop enforcing them.

Many area school boards have a similar policy in place, modeled after a template recommended by the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, and those boards are going to have to suspend it, said Jeffrey Sultanik, a solicitor for multiple Philadelphia-area districts.

While the Pennsbury order applies only to that district, it could be cited in lawsuits against other school boards. And Pennsbury says it plans to appeal which could lead to a decision that would be binding on all school systems within the nine counties of the federal courts Eastern District. In the meantime, Annette Stevenson, a spokesperson for the school boards association, said its model policy was currently under review but declined to comment further.

The Pennsbury school board is proud of its work during its meetings to ensure all children in the district have equal opportunity to an excellent education, and that work will continue, said spokesperson Jen Neill. The district welcomes the input of its stakeholders in a productive, respectful manner as a way to achieve this goal.

Among the residents who brought the lawsuit was Simon Campbell, a former Pennsbury school board member who said that the country was founded by disruptive, disrespectful people. He and fellow plaintiffs were represented by the Institute for Free Speech, which called the order a wakeup for school boards across America. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit is also representing members of the Moms for Liberty group in a similar case against Floridas Brevard County School Board.

Pennsburys board garnered broad attention this summer after a fiery speech by Campbell accusing the board of censorship including calling its president Benito Mussolini went viral. The president, Christine Toy-Dragoni, said she received death and rape threats that escalated with the national attention.

Some thought last months court decision could stoke more antagonism.

It has the potential to make public comment more disrespectful, said Kenneth Roos, another local school district solicitor, though he added that being recorded during meetings hopefully ... is a disincentive to people to behave in an egregious or inappropriate way.

In Central Bucks, school board member Karen Smith saw Pratters order as like putting gasoline on a fire at this point.

At that boards last meeting, some public comments drew outrage including one suggesting ties between Jews and organized crime and calling for a stand against Zionism and communism, and another worrying that transgender students had the right to rape girls in the womens bathroom.

Smith interjected during that latter comment, calling out, Thats enough. But the board president, Dana Hunter, allowed the commenter to continue noting that this is his three minutes.

Smith said her reaction grew out of an accumulation of comments during past meetings targeting transgender people. We dont have that many of these students, but its very difficult for them, she said. The boards policy would have justified ending the comments, she said, but now we cant do anything.

Smith and three other members of the nine-member board released a statement after the meeting condemning the comments. The board meets again with newly elected members on Monday.

Tina Stoll, the school board president in North Penn, said her board has been advised that it can respond to comments that may be hateful maybe not get into it tit-for-tat but make clear the board doesnt endorse such speech.

We cant grab the mic, or cut them off, or anything. Frankly, I think thats sometimes what they want to get the attention, said Stoll, whose board has hosted tense meetings, particularly around masking.

When people have leveled accusations against board members, theyve been permitted to speak: Stoll said: Weve always said, Thank you for your comment. Next.

Some have sought to limit the role of board members in policing public comment. In West Chester where school board president Chris McCune took the microphone this summer from a woman whose time limit expired as she was demanding to know whether the district taught critical race theory the district had its solicitor start attending meetings and enforce the limits.

In Philadelphia, the ACLU sued the district in March on behalf of two community groups alleging a new policy limiting the number of people who could comment at meetings prevented meaningful participation.

The Pennsbury parents lawsuit focused in part on actions by the districts solicitor, Peter Amuso. During a May board meeting, Amuso cut off three men who had begun to criticize the districts equity policy. One had said that diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts were based on a predetermined narrative, ignoring, for example, that first-generation Nigerian immigrants excel.

Youre done! Amuso shouted at each of the men, calling their comments irrelevant.

That meeting followed controversy around the districts handling of public comments at its March meeting. The man who spoke about Nigerian immigrants, Doug Marshall, also one of the plaintiffs in the censorship lawsuit, at the March meeting had questioned equity efforts while explaining the history of racial problems in the country.

Marshall wasnt interrupted that night. But at the urging of the districts equity and diversity director, the board later struck his remarks from a video recording of the meeting, issuing a statement that the comments escalated from expressing a viewpoint to expressing beliefs and ideas that were abusive and coded in racist terms, also known as dog whistles.

In her opinion, Pratter, while not calling Marshalls comments offensive, wrote that the First Amendment protects offensive speakers, and said censorship of comments deemed racist by the district was impermissible viewpoint discrimination.

She didnt agree with the districts argument that not enforcing its policies would lead to violence calling the claim deliberately provocative. She noted the board could call police if a speaker threatens violence, a policy the plaintiffs didnt challenge.

They also didnt challenge a ban on obscene comments. And while Pennsbury can no longer prohibit personally directed comments, lawyers say that doesnt mean school boards have to allow speakers to target a board members family or other personal characteristics only their role in the district.

Sultanik said the decision could be viewed optimistically, as an invitation for tolerance of another viewpoint that you might find personally offensive.

But in a time of heightened animosity and polarization and the potential for another round of contentious board meetings while the future of Pennsylvanias school-masking order is up in the air that might not be realistic, Sultanik said.

I really believe that much of this public discourse is doing very little to change anybodys mind, he said.

More:
Pennsbury school board now cant stop public comments it deems offensive. What does it mean for other districts? - The Philadelphia Inquirer

LANCASTER The three Fairfield County commissioners have no control over how state and federal authorities manage the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. But for almost two years now the pandemic is basically all citizens who speak at the weekly commissioner meetings talk about.

Citizens are granted three minutes to address the commission on any topic they choose. However, the commissioners rarely respond on the spot because the three minutes are not a question-and-answer session.

Commission president Dave Levacy and commissioners Jeff Fix and Steve Davis all said they welcome public comments and have no plans on changing the format or allowing only comments related to county business.

"Obviously, we could do that," Levacy said. "But we don't want to be too restrictive in what people want to talk about. I think people have concerns and it's OK if they want to express those concerns."

However, Levacy and Fix said they wish speakers would stick to county issues instead of issues like COVID-19 mask mandates and vaccine mandates. For example, one speaker gives the commissioners handouts each week on issues that are not county specific.

But Levacy, Fix andDavis all said they have no issues with how the public comment portion of the meetings are going.

"First of all, I respect everybody's right to speak," Levacy said. "Obviously, the First Amendment gives us that privilege. I think it's important we stay focused andlook at the things we can possibly change and not focus on areas that we can't change. People should focus on the things we in Fairfield County can change and not in areas that we have no ability to change."

Some speakers have asked the commissioners to make the county a sanctuary county for various issues like mask mandates and Second Amendment issues. Levacy, though, said that is not a place he wants to go.

"We county commissioners don't have the ability to legislate," he said. "So when some of the counties take that approach, basically they're doing it for the visuals, for the optics. It really has no legal justification. I think it's a waste of time. We don't have the legislative authority. That's done by the state legislature."

Therefore, Levacy said people should talk to their state officials on state-related issues instead of the commissioners. However, he said it's important that everyone voice their concerns and that he has no problem with that.

But he said long-winded conversations rob the commissioners the time needed for county business.

"That's my only concern," Levacy said. "If we had an unlimited amount of time it wouldn't be an issue. But we don't."

Fix said the commissioners welcome public comment. But like Levacy, he said he wishes people would stick to county issues.

"We every week get a reading of things that don't apply to what we do as county commissioners," Fix said. "I've told those people that they'rewelcome to come in and talk to us about that stuff, but that's not what we do.

"We don't decide on mandates for vaccines or masks for anything like that. That's all outside of our purview.But nonetheless, if they want to come and air their grievances and this is the place they feel comfortable doing that, so be it."

Fix said Levacy is technically correct in saying that outside issues take time away from dealing with county issues. But he said he wants all constituents to feel comfortable coming to meetings and talking about what's on their mind.

As for limiting discussion to only county business, Fix said that would be less welcoming to speakers.

"I know there are people who attend our meetings virtually or in person who get frustrated and often leave the meeting when people get up to talk about vaccine mandates that don't really have anything to do with us," he said."But some people who choose to spend their time and talk to us about what's important to them, that's important to them.

"As challenging as it may be to go through that every week when it doesn't really apply to what we do, I feel like we owe it to the public to hear them out on whatever topic is on their mind."

Davis would appear to be the most lenient of the three commissioners on the issue. He said he has no problem with people talking about issue not related to county business.

"We shouldn't be trying to monitor content because I just don't know when to stop it you start doing that," Davis said. "It's really hard for me to intellectually think about what is or isn't county business. We're a very complex $190-millon organization and we touch a lot of things.

"So for me to say that, 'Well, you said this and we don't have anything to do with that.' In some attenuated way we probably do. So I just don't want any content regulations."

jbarron@gannett.com

740-304-9296

Twitter: @JeffDBarron

Follow this link:
Commissioners get a lot of public comments on things they have no control over at meetings - Lancaster Eagle Gazette

CLOVIS, N.M.(KRQE) One southeastern New Mexico town is trying to come into compliance with federal law. It involves the billboards and what a community must allow on them.

The city of Clovis met last week to discuss a revised ordinance on the signs in the city. This chapter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the first amendment of the United States constitution, which guarantees free speech including prohibition of regulating signage based on content viewpoint or message, said Mike Morris the mayor of Clovis.

The citys ordinance is trying to come in compliance with the constitution and not regulate what kinds of signs can go up. Justin Howalt, Clovis city manager, said, what the means is basically you cannot regulate signage by what can potentially be on that sign.

The signage ordinance would also have rules based on where they are in the city. They are looking to regulate the height of signs, how long they can stay up, and what to do with them if they stay vacant.

The reason for doing that obviously is the feel of the different zones and the aesthetics of the different zones we wanted to make sure that we were honoring and trying to make it that the property owners that live in that area or the other businesses in that area have the ability to still advertise for their business, Howalt said.

At the meeting last week, citizens were concerned about the ordinance being a one-size-fits-all that doesnt work. People were worried about the safety of large distracting signs. The thing that I have the biggest concern for is one size doesnt fit all, one resident said.

You know somewhere around 60 ft along the highway where people are driving fast is a lot different than where you have stoplights, another said.

The city of Clovis is having the open comment period through next month, the council will then vote on the revised ordinance in January.

Read the original post:
City of Clovis looking at sign ordinance to follow U.S. Constitution - KRQE News 13

Extensive redactions in public investigative reports into a scandal that rocked the town of Danvers are raising legal and ethical questions about how town officials chose to balance privacy rights with the publics right to know.This comes as Danvers school leaders for the first time acknowledged and praised the one hockey player who told 5 Investigates the disturbing details of racist and homophobic hazing rituals conducted by the boys high school hockey team in the locker room.Despite that praise for the anonymous whistleblower, school officials have given no indication they will uncover blacked-out information in investigative reports about their findings.The hockey player who would later talk to 5 Investigates and the Boston Globe had told town investigators all about it months earlier, but the Danvers community never saw those statements because town officials redacted them in all three public investigative reports.5 Investigates interviewed the hockey player on camera on the condition that we shield his identity.5 Investigates: Do you believe there is a cover-up?Player: I do.5 Investigates: Why?Player: How much black writing is there? That's a cover-up.This hockey player was talking about reports produced by three different town investigations in Danvers involving alleged violent, racist and homophobic hazing rituals inside the boys varsity hockey team locker room.He told 5 Investigates the disturbing details of what he said happened behind closed doors in the teams locker room, including what he said were called, "Hard-R Fridays." He said players who refused to say the N-word with a hard "R" were physically assaulted, sometimes with a red sex toy.I would refuse to say it and get held down by multiple of my friends and beaten, the player said.But if you read copies of reports by the Danvers school department, the Danvers Police Department and an outside consultant paid by the town, you have no idea what took place there.The reason? The town of Danvers redacted almost all the keywords throughout the reports.These are public records. The public owns these records, said Jeff Pyle, a First Amendment lawyer at the Boston law firm of Prince Lobel, who reviewed the reports for 5 Investigates.Pyle said state law permits redactions in public records for certain reasons, including to protect people's privacy, but not, in this case, to shield unpleasant details of the hockey team's rituals from public scrutiny. The law provides that the public has a right to know what's in the record unless there's a very specific and narrow legal exemption, Pyle said. These (records) are very broadly redacted, and that leads me to suspect that they're more redacted than is possible or permissible under the law.In the school department's report, Pyle found redactions he says had no legitimate purpose.There is a conclusion that's redacted that says a culture of normalizing blank and blank language existed among the blank team, he said. Whose privacy are they trying to protect by redacting words like racism or anti-gay from a report like this? Are they trying to protect racism's privacy? Because this is not a privacy redaction. This is a redaction to try and cover up the conclusions of an investigation. Danvers School Superintendent Lisa Dana declined 5 Investigates' request for an interview. Attorneys for the Danvers School Department said they were careful to protect the privacy rights of the students involved. The chair of the Danvers School Committee recently described the town's thinking at a public meeting.Would it have helped them to have details of any of the conduct that we acknowledged publicly was inappropriate? Eric Crane asked. Would that have served (the players) emotional safety in the school if we came out with it publicly?But Pyle said the town took another questionable step in its handling of the investigative reports by leaving visible, not redacting, many statements that said nothing seriously wrong happened in the Danvers boys hockey locker room.It says to me that the municipality is over redacting these reports in order to prevent embarrassment to itself, Pyle said.The Danvers school department said its redactions were approved by the state's supervisor of public records.The Danvers police said the town balanced any right the public has to information in the records with the privacy interests of the individuals involved.

Extensive redactions in public investigative reports into a scandal that rocked the town of Danvers are raising legal and ethical questions about how town officials chose to balance privacy rights with the publics right to know.

This comes as Danvers school leaders for the first time acknowledged and praised the one hockey player who told 5 Investigates the disturbing details of racist and homophobic hazing rituals conducted by the boys high school hockey team in the locker room.

Despite that praise for the anonymous whistleblower, school officials have given no indication they will uncover blacked-out information in investigative reports about their findings.

The hockey player who would later talk to 5 Investigates and the Boston Globe had told town investigators all about it months earlier, but the Danvers community never saw those statements because town officials redacted them in all three public investigative reports.

5 Investigates interviewed the hockey player on camera on the condition that we shield his identity.

5 Investigates: Do you believe there is a cover-up?

Player: I do.

5 Investigates: Why?

Player: How much black writing is there? That's a cover-up.

This hockey player was talking about reports produced by three different town investigations in Danvers involving alleged violent, racist and homophobic hazing rituals inside the boys varsity hockey team locker room.

He told 5 Investigates the disturbing details of what he said happened behind closed doors in the teams locker room, including what he said were called, "Hard-R Fridays." He said players who refused to say the N-word with a hard "R" were physically assaulted, sometimes with a red sex toy.

I would refuse to say it and get held down by multiple of my friends and beaten, the player said.

But if you read copies of reports by the Danvers school department, the Danvers Police Department and an outside consultant paid by the town, you have no idea what took place there.

The reason? The town of Danvers redacted almost all the keywords throughout the reports.

These are public records. The public owns these records, said Jeff Pyle, a First Amendment lawyer at the Boston law firm of Prince Lobel, who reviewed the reports for 5 Investigates.

Pyle said state law permits redactions in public records for certain reasons, including to protect people's privacy, but not, in this case, to shield unpleasant details of the hockey team's rituals from public scrutiny.

The law provides that the public has a right to know what's in the record unless there's a very specific and narrow legal exemption, Pyle said. These (records) are very broadly redacted, and that leads me to suspect that they're more redacted than is possible or permissible under the law.In the school department's report, Pyle found redactions he says had no legitimate purpose.

There is a conclusion that's redacted that says a culture of normalizing blank and blank language existed among the blank team, he said. Whose privacy are they trying to protect by redacting words like racism or anti-gay from a report like this? Are they trying to protect racism's privacy? Because this is not a privacy redaction. This is a redaction to try and cover up the conclusions of an investigation.

Danvers School Superintendent Lisa Dana declined 5 Investigates' request for an interview. Attorneys for the Danvers School Department said they were careful to protect the privacy rights of the students involved. The chair of the Danvers School Committee recently described the town's thinking at a public meeting.

Would it have helped them to have details of any of the conduct that we acknowledged publicly was inappropriate? Eric Crane asked. Would that have served (the players) emotional safety in the school if we came out with it publicly?

But Pyle said the town took another questionable step in its handling of the investigative reports by leaving visible, not redacting, many statements that said nothing seriously wrong happened in the Danvers boys hockey locker room.

It says to me that the municipality is over redacting these reports in order to prevent embarrassment to itself, Pyle said.

WCVB

The Danvers school department said its redactions were approved by the state's supervisor of public records.

The Danvers police said the town balanced any right the public has to information in the records with the privacy interests of the individuals involved.

More:
Did Danvers officials try to cover up hockey team hazing scandal? - WCVB Boston