another site
Okechukwu Efobi, a sergeant with London’s Metropolitan Police Service, has pleaded guilty to three counts of computer misuse for accessing a police database to monitor an investigation into his own misconduct. A court ordered him to perform 50 hours of community service and pay a total of £540 ($679) in fines and prosecution costs. He remains employed by the police department but on restricted duty.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YY24Ma
via IFTTT
Authored by Tony Cartalucci via 21stCenturyWire.com,
Had Iran openly hijacked a vessel of any nation, for any reason, plying through waters anywhere on Earth, the US and its allies would immediately cite it as a provocation toward war.
In fact, even without evidence, suspiciously timed attacks carried out last month on tankers passing through the Persian Gulf were cited by Washington and London as a pretext for increased pressure on Tehran despite the attacks appearing staged by the West itself.
Now in a display once again illustrating just who the actual menace is to global peace and stability, the British have openly – even proudly – hijacked a ship carrying Iranian oil allegedly bound for Syria.
The Guardian’s article, “Iran fury as Royal Marines seize tanker suspected of carrying oil to Syria,” would report:
Royal Marines have helped seize an Iranian supertanker suspected of carrying oil to Syria off the coast of Gibraltar, escalating tensions between the UK and Tehran as the agreement aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear programme unravels.
A detachment of nearly 30 British troops working with the Gibraltarian police intercepted the vessel, believed to be carrying 2m barrels of oil, in a dramatic manoeuvre Spain said had been conducted at the request of the US.
The article would quote the British ambassador to Iran who claimed:
[The UK] welcomes this firm action by the Gibraltarian authorities.
As to why the UK believed it was justified to hijack the Iranian tanker – the article would cite “sanctions against the regime of Bashar al-Assad” the UK and EU placed on Syria – which are in themselves illegal and an act of war.
The UK’s presence in Gibraltar itself is a point of contention between London and Madrid.
Spain does not recognize British claims over the tiny piece of land located at the furthest tip of the Iberian Peninsula. The British presence is one of its many holdovers from its imperialist past. The British presence gives the UK a choke point over the Strait of Gibraltar and all shipping passing through it.
The fact that the British are using the disputed territory of Gibraltar to hijack ships or that the London Guardian is trying to depict it as an operation undertaken while “working with the Gibraltarian police” – when the “Gibraltarian police” are nothing more than functionaries representing London itself – provide a clear illustration of how foreign policy, media, and crimes against international law are being coordinated, justified, and sold to the public by Washington and London.
While Iran has regularly threatened to impede shipping through the Stait of Hormuz in retaliation to Western military aggression – it has never acted upon these threats – reserving them as a means of last resort.
The British and Americans – on the other hand – have literally implicated themselves in disrupting “freedom of navigation.”
The US and UK both pose as international arbiters and underwriters of what they call “the freedom of navigation” of the world’s seas. They regularly accuse nations like China of impeding such “freedom” in the South China Sea – using these accusations as an excuse to build up a military presence off China’s shores – thousands of miles from their own shores.
They have also regularly cited Iran’s “threats” to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz as another reason Iran should be further pressured, sanctioned, and its government ultimately removed from power.
Yet by hijacking Iranian ships, or likewise intercepting North Korean vessels, or the ships of any nation based on sanctions unilaterally and illegally imposed by Washington, London, and Brussels implicates the West themselves as the primary threat to the very “freedom of navigation” of the world’s seas they claim to uphold.
From Western policy think tanks to policymakers and politicians themselves – the West has all but admitted it is trying to goad Iran into war.
Sanctions, Western-sponsored terrorism aimed at Iranian territory itself, and provocations – like the recent hijacking of an Iranian tanker – all aimed at Tehran – are moves seeking to trigger a response from Iran that will justify even wider Western economic sanctions and military aggression.
And if Iran fails to provide such a provocation, one might be staged and blamed on Iran anyway.
These are the actions of outlaw nations presiding over a fading international order – one fading specifically because it is so transparently unjust, lopsided, and disruptive toward global stability. It has persisted for so long solely through the maxim of “might makes right.”
The British stealing ships from stolen land to enforce illegal sanctions is a vulgar display of “might makes right,” but one that may possibility be reaching its expiration.
The countervailing multipolar order emerging across Eurasia has an opportunity to oppose this flagrant provocation – not merely on Iran’s behalf – but to erode the impunity that will allow the US and UK to target the ships of other nations in a similar fashion if afforded impunity to do so to Iran now.
For Tehran, it will need to continue exhibiting “maximum patience” while enduring Washington and London’s “maximum pressure” campaign – avoiding the traps both have laid out for Tehran as they attempt to bait the nation into war and change their failing fortunes in the Middle East and around the globe.
The British – still a thorn in the side of global peace and stability despite losing most of its empire – presents us with a preview of what to expect from America even long after it fades as sole global hegemon. Learning to put the UK’s recent provocations in check now will help develop the tools necessary to put in check its future provocations – and those the US will find itself also depending on more and more often in the future.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2XJGQoR Tyler Durden
The British pound tumbled to its weakest level in more than two years on Tuesday as fears of a ‘no deal’ Brexit continued to weigh on GBP, which has been steadily sinking during the Tory leadership contest that many expect will send Boris Johnson, a committed Brexiteer, to No. 10 Downing Street.
And on Tuesday, Johnson – who said last night that he wouldn’t accept any time limits (both he and his rival Jeremy Hunt ruled out such a measure), unilateral escape hatches or any other kind of elaborate device to make the Irish Backstop more palatable – gave investors one more reason to worry: Sky News reports, citing anonymous sources from within Johnson’s campaign, that the candidate could delay a customary speech by the Queen that marks the beginning of the Parliamentary session – this would render MPs unavailable on Oct. 31, the day the UK is set to leave the EU. Though Johnson’s rival Jeremy Hunt has said he’s open to another brief delay, Johnson’s position is that on Halloween, Brexit will finally mean Brexit.
There have been some negotiations to work out an alternative to Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement, but thanks to the inevitability of dealing with the hated Irish Backstop – which conservatives argue would effectively allow Europe to annex Northern Ireland – talks have once again been fraught.
As Sky explains (for our American readers), Parliament is typically out of session for between one and two weeks ahead of the Queen’s speech – meaning MPs would in effect be unavailable to stop a no-deal Brexit immediately before October 31.
Johnson’s campaign confirmed that the delay is one option being explored, but insisted that no final decision had yet been made. But others pointed out that this move would scupper the chances of a last-minute deal, since Parliament wouldn’t be there to approve it.
With an orderly Brexit is looking less likely by the day – even as some remainer Tories join the struggle to thwart their own future leader. And for anybody trying to discern what might happen next, well, BBG has put together yet another complicated Brexit flow chart.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30z7NIH Tyler Durden
By Matteo Giovannini, Matteo Giovannini finance professional at ICBC in Beijing and a member of the China Task Force at the Italian Ministry of Economic Development. The article was first published at CGTN.
On July 10, the First China-Italy Finance Dialogue was held in Milan, Italy’s financial center, in the presence of the Minister of the Economy and Finance of the Italian Republic, Giovanni Tria and the Minister of Finance of the People’s Republic of China, Liu Kun.
This event follows the Strengthening the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership agreed by the two Heads of State on March 23, 2019 on the “China-Italy Finance Ministers Dialogue Mechanism” and the agreement reached in the Memorandum of Understanding for the China-Italy Finance Dialogue signed by the two sides on November 29, 2018.
This meeting is another major step in the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding between the two governments on jointly promoting the development of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), where Italy joined as the first G7 country, identifying synergies between the BRI and the EU Strategy on Connecting Europe and Asia on project cooperation.
The two countries have historically been bound by a long-lasting mutual friendship and recently this commitment has been deepened and broadened through bilateral and economic relations to enhance macroeconomic policy coordination and cooperation on economic and financial issues.
The cooperation between the two countries has been frequently described as a model for the dialogue between East and West.
Italy and China have expressed “their commitment to uphold the rules-based international economic system, to support multilateralism and the multilateral trading system with the WTO at its core, and to foster participation in the reform of global economic governance with a view to promoting high-quality, strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth, improving living standards and boosting employment”.
In my view, it is important to stress the commitment the two countries have expressed to openness, cooperation, multilateralism and accountability in a globalized 21st century.
Responsible countries cannot deny the importance of international bodies such as the G20, the International Monetary Fund, and multilateral developments banks, such as the World Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). These should be the venues where countries are expected to make decisions in an increasingly interconnected world instead of acting unilaterally.
During the discussions, the importance of infrastructure for growth and development to fill the gap in developing countries has been underlined. In this context, Italy and China expect the AIIB to continue expanding its business and enhancing international influence, exploring projects and third market cooperation opportunities, especially in Africa.
Probably the most important outcome of this event has been the agreement on the first issuance in China of the so-called “Panda Bond” for an initial amount of 150 million euro, which will be issued by Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (CDP), the Italian sovereign wealth fund and distributed in the Chinese mainland by Italian and local commercial banks.
Italy’s economy is dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and, due to their size, these companies struggle to expand their business overseas. The issuance of the bond has the significance of supporting the expansion of Italian SMEs in China that have enormous potential but do not have easy access to financing.
This is not the first time that a foreign entity has been allowed to issue bonds in local currency. In 2005, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) received the green light from the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) to issue over 1 billion Chinese yuan.
The same happened with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and in 2016, the PBOC through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) authorized Poland to become the first European country to issue Panda Bonds. In 2018, Philippine and Portugal issued the debt security.
China and Italy are demonstrating to the world how a constructive relationship can be successfully managed. Most commentators described the signing of an MOU between the two countries as pure theater and as an empty contract. I do believe that both countries consider that document a stepping stone to future shared common goals.
The expressed intent to meet again next year for the second China-Italy Finance Dialogue in China and the ongoing preparation for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties in 2020 clearly demonstrate that there is a bright future in the relationship between these two countries.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2XS8E5B Tyler Durden
Germany’s Ursula von der Leyen, considered a key and close ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel, has been narrowly elected president of the EU Commission, becoming the first woman to fill Europe’s most powerful policy-making post, and the first German at the helm in over half a century.
The 60-year old center-right German defense minister will replace Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker starting November 1st after receiving votes from over half of the members of the European parliament on Tuesday evening. 383 European lawmakers voted in favor of von der Leyen assuming the EU’s most visible post, surpassing the 374 votes needed to confirm her. Chief Economist at Berenberg Bank, Holger Schmieding said the EU had “averted a major institutional crisis” by securing the appointment.
Schmieding pointed out further that there’s now no doubt that Christine Lagarde, who just announced her resignation as head of the IMF, will be next President of the European Central Bank.
Ursula von der Leyen’s succeeding Luxembourg’s Juncker means the top policy job will remain in Christian Democratic party hands (CDU) for another five years. Her nomination over two weeks ago was generally considered a “total surprise”. She’s long been considered among the strongest pro-EU voices in Merkel’s cabinet.
A BBC political analyst pointed out that “European leaders will be breathing a sigh of relief,” given it “took days of fraught negotiations and a difficult compromise among EU countries to nominate von der Leyen.
“Our most pressing challenge is keeping our planet healthy,” she had told the EU Parliament prior to the vote. “This is the greatest responsibility and opportunity of our times.” She also vowed to push for more social welfare oversight by the EU, to advance women’s rights, and to root out poverty.
Bloomberg noted,
She also pledged to turn parts of the European Investment Bank, the EU’s lending arm, into a “climate bank” in a bid to unlock 1 trillion euros of investment ($1.12 trillion) over the coming decade.
On commerce, she’s warned against the dangers of protectionism and upheld the World Trade Organization’s multilateral vision. “We defend the rules-based order because we know it is better for all of us,” she said.
The BBC summarized her positions outlined in her speech given in European parliament Tuesday as follows:
“The trust you placed in me is confidence you placed in Europe,” she said after securing the vote Tuesday.
Congratulations Ursula @vonderleyen. Congratulations Europe.
— Donald Tusk (@eucopresident) July 16, 2019
“Your confidence in a united and strong Europe, from east to west, from south to north,” she continued “It is a big responsibility and my work starts now,” she added. “Let us work together constructively.”
Interestingly, Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki pointed out at press conference in Warsaw that votes from Law & Justice MPs had “tipped the balance” in von der Leyen’s favor, and that she sees eye to eye with Poland concerning the “threat from Russia,” as related by Bloomberg. In other words, it was the Poles who assured that Germany maintains its supreme dominance over Europe, and did everything in their power to weaken Russian influence in Europe.
In light of historical events, it would be ironic if that particular twist comes back to bite Poland some day in the not too distant future.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2JE2oJu Tyler Durden
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens passed away tonight, at the age of 99. Stevens served on the Supreme Court for almost 35 years (1975-2010), one of the longest tenures in the Court’s history. Although a Republican appointee, he voted with the liberal wing of the Court on most contentious issues.
Stevens was notable for his independence and devotion to duty, both of which are amply evident in his fascinating recent memoir, The Making of a Justice: My First Ninety Four Years. I never had the privilege of meeting him myself. But I know a number of people who worked for him as law clerks. All speak of him with great admiration.
In his statement on Justice Stevens’ passing, Chief Justice John Roberts (who served with Stevens during the latter’s last five years on the Court) praised his colleague’s “inimitable blend of kindness, humility, wisdom, and independence.” Stevens was also one of the last prominent public servants from the generation that fought and won World War II, in which conflict he served in the Navy and won a Bronze Star.
Justice Stevens was not a prominent advocate of any particular theory of constitutional interpretation (like Justice Antonin Scalia with originalism); nor was he primarily known for shaping one or two specific areas of legal doctrine (like Justice Anthony Kennedy in the field of gay and lesbian rights). His legacy rests primarily on his numerous opinions across a wide range of issues. That makes it harder to assess, especially at a time when many of the issues he wrote opinions on are still highly controversial.
It will, therefore, probably be a long time before we reach any consensus on his place in legal history. For example, it is possible future generations will agree with him that the Court made a terrible mistake in recognizing an individual right to bear arms on the Second Amendment, which he considered the worst decision the justices made during his time on the Court. In that event, his dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller, might go down in history as one of the great opinions of its era. But it is also entirely possible that the verdict of history will go against him on this issue or that it will remain closely contested.
While I have great respect for Justice Stevens, I also believe that two of his majority opinions—Gonzales v. Raich and Kelo v. City of New London, were among the most problematic Supreme Court decisions of the last several decades. I hope both will someday be overruled. But I should add that Justice Stevens deserves great credit for admitting that his majority opinion in Kelo was based in part on a significant mistake (though he continued to believe he got the bottom-line result right). It is extremely rare for a Supreme Court justice—or any prominent jurist—to publicly recognize he made a serious error in one of his most famous opinions. Whether we agree with his views or not, we have much to learn from Justice Stevens’ honesty, integrity, and humility.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2LX4Spc
via IFTTT
Last week, two days after he lost a First Amendment lawsuit brought by critics he had blocked on Twitter, Donald Trump promised to “protect the free speech rights of ALL AMERICANS” through “regulatory and legislative solutions” aimed at guaranteeing equal access to social media. “At a time when social media platforms are banning conservative voices and supporters of the president,” said Brad Parscale, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, “it’s important for President Trump to emphasize that he appreciates their support and wants to protect their First Amendment rights.”
No one would mistake the president, who averred during his “social media summit” that press coverage he considers unfair is “not free speech,” for a constitutional scholar. But his views reflect widespread confusion about the First Amendment that has led many of his supporters to endorse policies that would interfere with freedom of speech in the name of protecting it.
In the case that Trump lost, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that he had created a “public forum” by using his Twitter account for official purposes and letting people participate in the “interactive space” associated with it. Under those circumstances, the court said, the president could not constitutionally exclude Twitter users whose opinions offended him.
The principle described in that decision is politically neutral. On the same day the 2nd Circuit issued its ruling, two critics of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a prominent Trump opponent, filed lawsuits arguing that she had violated their First Amendment rights by blocking them on Twitter because of their views.
But the 2nd Circuit’s ruling did not impose any obligations on Twitter or any other social media platform. That’s because the First Amendment applies only to government officials, not to private companies, no matter how inscrutable or unfair their decisions might seem.
The premise of the so-called Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, which Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced last month, is therefore fundamentally mistaken. The bill, which Trump calls “very important,” would charge the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with determining, every two years, whether social media companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are moderating content “in a manner that is biased against a political party, political candidate, or political viewpoint.”
Companies deemed biased would lose protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker” of information posted by others. That principle, which was crucial to the development of the internet, generally shields websites from civil or criminal liability for material they did not produce.
To pass muster with the FTC, a company would need the votes of four out of five commissioners, three of whom are currently Republicans. In other words, if two Republicans think a platform is biased against Republicans, that would be enough to strip it of the vital protection that Section 230 provides.
Although Hawley claims he is trying to promote freedom of speech, the upshot of such decisions would be more censorship, not less. If they could not rely on Section 230, social media platforms would be forced to monitor content much more intensely than they currently do, since anything that is arguably libelous or criminal would expose them to liability.
Hawley argues that services such as Twitter and Facebook are getting “a sweetheart deal” while failing to “hold up [their] end of the bargain,” which he says requires them to maintain “politically neutral” forums. But that “bargain” is a figment of Hawley’s imagination. As Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who wrote Section 230, recently told my Reason colleague Eric Boehm, the provision “has nothing to do with neutrality.”
Hawley and Trump are pushing a solution to censorship that will encourage censorship, under the control of partisan bureaucrats who supposedly will guarantee neutrality. No conservative who claims to believe in limited government, free markets, and freedom of speech should be tricked into buying their snake oil.
© Copyright 2019 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2xMr8tM
via IFTTT
Recording events from public land shouldn’t be a crime.
Yet when a woman in Utah, standing by a public road, filmed farmworkers pushing a cow with a bulldozer, the farmer drove up to her and said, “You cannot videotape my property.”
Soon the police came and local prosecutors charged her with “agricultural operation interference.”
They dropped the charges several months later since she was on public land.
But what if she’d posed as a farmworker, got a job on the farm, and then secretly recorded what she saw?
Increasingly, activists do that. More than 100 such undercover investigations have been done.
They then distribute video that sometimes shows animals being cruelly abused. In my video this week, we see calves being hit, kicked, and thrown.
Farmers, upset about such recordings, are now asking politicians to outlaw them, and several state legislatures have obliged. They’ve passed “ag-gag” laws—bans on sneaking onto farms to secretly record what they see.
Kay Johnson Smith of the Animal Agriculture Alliance supports such laws, though she doesn’t use the term “ag-gag.”
“We call it ‘farm protection,'” she told me. “Activists stalk farms to try to capture something that the public doesn’t understand. The agricultural community is the only business where this sort of tactic is really being used.”
Smith says the activists’ real agenda is not just preventing cruelty to animals: “These activist groups want to eliminate all of animal agriculture.”
I believe her. Many activists are animal rights extremists.
But I also worry that laws like ag-gag rules will stop people from revealing abuses. I’m an investigative reporter. I can’t do my job well if laws prevent me from showing the abuse. Audiences often won’t believe what I report if they can’t see it for themselves.
Videos made by the group Mercy for Animals have led to criminal charges. Some of their investigations led Walmart to create new purchasing policies.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund claims ag-gag laws violate the First Amendment. They’ve succeeded in getting several states’ ag-gag laws struck down.
When Iowa’s law was ruled unconstitutional, legislators simply replaced it with a narrower law that forbids activists to lie to get access to farms.
The activists argue that because farms lie about their practices, the only way to reveal the truth is to lie to get onto farms.
Activists simply “want to ensure that the American public knows how these foods are processed, what happens to animals,” says Animal Legal Defense Fund lawyer Amanda Howell.
“You’ve got tens of thousands of animals in warehouses standing on concrete floors never seeing the light of day…. If that affects people’s purchasing decisions, then there’s a reason for it,” says Howell.
“They want to make their movie…their sensational video,” retorts Smith. “If they really cared about animals, they would stop it right then! Instead, they go weeks and months without reporting anything to the farm owners.”
That’s often true.
Activists say long-term investigations are necessary because otherwise “a company can say this is a one-off,” says Howell. Long-term investigations “show that’s something that happens every day.”
I took that argument to Smith.
“What they really want is to stop people from eating meat, milk and eggs,” she said. “There are bad apples in every industry, (but) 99.9 percent of farmers in America, they do the right thing every single day. Farming isn’t always pretty.”
I asked Howell if she and her group do want to end all consumption of meat and eggs. It’s funny watching her response on the video. She never gives a straight answer.
But her evasions bother me less than corporations using politicians to censor their critics.
Whatever you think of the activists—and I have problems with many of them—government shouldn’t pass special laws that prevent people from revealing what’s true.
COPYRIGHT 2019 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2xRHnWs
via IFTTT
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens passed away tonight, at the age of 99. Stevens served on the Supreme Court for almost 35 years (1975-2010), one of the longest tenures in the Court’s history. Although a Republican appointee, he voted with the liberal wing of the Court on most contentious issues.
Stevens was notable for his independence and devotion to duty, both of which are amply evident in his fascinating recent memoir, The Making of a Justice: My First Ninety Four Years. I never had the privilege of meeting him myself. But I know a number of people who worked for him as law clerks. All speak of him with great admiration.
In his statement on Justice Stevens’ passing, Chief Justice John Roberts (who served with Stevens during the latter’s last five years on the Court) praised his colleague’s “inimitable blend of kindness, humility, wisdom, and independence.” Stevens was also one of the last prominent public servants from the generation that fought and won World War II, in which conflict he served in the Navy and won a Bronze Star.
Justice Stevens was not a prominent advocate of any particular theory of constitutional interpretation (like Justice Antonin Scalia with originalism); nor was he primarily known for shaping one or two specific areas of legal doctrine (like Justice Anthony Kennedy in the field of gay and lesbian rights). His legacy rests primarily on his numerous opinions across a wide range of issues. That makes it harder to assess, especially at a time when many of the issues he wrote opinions on are still highly controversial.
It will, therefore, probably be a long time before we reach any consensus on his place in legal history. For example, it is possible future generations will agree with him that the Court made a terrible mistake in recognizing an individual right to bear arms on the Second Amendment, which he considered the worst decision the justices made during his time on the Court. In that event, his dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller, might go down in history as one of the great opinions of its era. But it is also entirely possible that the verdict of history will go against him on this issue or that it will remain closely contested.
While I have great respect for Justice Stevens, I also believe that two of his majority opinions—Gonzales v. Raich and Kelo v. City of New London, were among the most problematic Supreme Court decisions of the last several decades. I hope both will someday be overruled. But I should add that Justice Stevens deserves great credit for admitting that his majority opinion in Kelo was based in part on a significant mistake (though he continued to believe he got the bottom-line result right). It is extremely rare for a Supreme Court justice—or any prominent jurist—to publicly recognize he made a serious error in one of his most famous opinions. Whether we agree with his views or not, we have much to learn from Justice Stevens’ honesty, integrity, and humility.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2LX4Spc
via IFTTT
Last week, two days after he lost a First Amendment lawsuit brought by critics he had blocked on Twitter, Donald Trump promised to “protect the free speech rights of ALL AMERICANS” through “regulatory and legislative solutions” aimed at guaranteeing equal access to social media. “At a time when social media platforms are banning conservative voices and supporters of the president,” said Brad Parscale, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, “it’s important for President Trump to emphasize that he appreciates their support and wants to protect their First Amendment rights.”
No one would mistake the president, who averred during his “social media summit” that press coverage he considers unfair is “not free speech,” for a constitutional scholar. But his views reflect widespread confusion about the First Amendment that has led many of his supporters to endorse policies that would interfere with freedom of speech in the name of protecting it.
In the case that Trump lost, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that he had created a “public forum” by using his Twitter account for official purposes and letting people participate in the “interactive space” associated with it. Under those circumstances, the court said, the president could not constitutionally exclude Twitter users whose opinions offended him.
The principle described in that decision is politically neutral. On the same day the 2nd Circuit issued its ruling, two critics of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a prominent Trump opponent, filed lawsuits arguing that she had violated their First Amendment rights by blocking them on Twitter because of their views.
But the 2nd Circuit’s ruling did not impose any obligations on Twitter or any other social media platform. That’s because the First Amendment applies only to government officials, not to private companies, no matter how inscrutable or unfair their decisions might seem.
The premise of the so-called Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, which Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced last month, is therefore fundamentally mistaken. The bill, which Trump calls “very important,” would charge the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with determining, every two years, whether social media companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are moderating content “in a manner that is biased against a political party, political candidate, or political viewpoint.”
Companies deemed biased would lose protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker” of information posted by others. That principle, which was crucial to the development of the internet, generally shields websites from civil or criminal liability for material they did not produce.
To pass muster with the FTC, a company would need the votes of four out of five commissioners, three of whom are currently Republicans. In other words, if two Republicans think a platform is biased against Republicans, that would be enough to strip it of the vital protection that Section 230 provides.
Although Hawley claims he is trying to promote freedom of speech, the upshot of such decisions would be more censorship, not less. If they could not rely on Section 230, social media platforms would be forced to monitor content much more intensely than they currently do, since anything that is arguably libelous or criminal would expose them to liability.
Hawley argues that services such as Twitter and Facebook are getting “a sweetheart deal” while failing to “hold up [their] end of the bargain,” which he says requires them to maintain “politically neutral” forums. But that “bargain” is a figment of Hawley’s imagination. As Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who wrote Section 230, recently told my Reason colleague Eric Boehm, the provision “has nothing to do with neutrality.”
Hawley and Trump are pushing a solution to censorship that will encourage censorship, under the control of partisan bureaucrats who supposedly will guarantee neutrality. No conservative who claims to believe in limited government, free markets, and freedom of speech should be tricked into buying their snake oil.
© Copyright 2019 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2xMr8tM
via IFTTT
