I'll have more to say later about the Supreme Court argument in Counterman that just concluded, but a couple of moments that stand out: 1. Male Justices reading out messages sent to the stalking victim, joking & laughing about how they've said or been told similar things.
"France is relocating women beaten by their partners into hotels, and has created a secret code word for them to discreetly seek help in pharmacies, in response to a huge increase in domestic abuse during the coronavirus lockdown."
Critics of
@AOC
's tax proposal "displayed their rank ignorance of how the federal income tax works. Thatβs the charitable explanation of their reaction. The only other explanation is that they know how it works, and they were lying"
Among the enraging aspects of this is how women's consensual sexual conduct continues to be judged so much more harshly than men's nonconsensual sexual conduct. It's not just that
@RepKatieHill
is leaving office; it's that men who have raped, battered, & harassed women aren't.
It is with a broken heart that today I announce my resignation from Congress. This is the hardest thing I have ever had to do, but I believe it is the best thing for my constituents, my community, and our country.
See my official statement below.
Gentle reminder that the First Amendment prevents the government from punishing individuals for speech. It doesn't give anyone the right to a particular platform, publisher, or audience; in fact, it protects the right of private entities to choose what they want to say or hear.
As
@AOC
says, βWomen in leadership face more scrutiny," including being targeted for nonconsensual porn, both fake & real. That's why
@CCRInitiative
works for legislative & tech reform on these issues - everyone deserves equal protection online & off.
What is truly beyond satire is a person with a law degree calling a private entity's choice to enforce its own terms and services "censorship," especially given that Twitter added, not removed, speech.
Beyond satire.
Twitter is literally censoring the President of the United States for saying that violent anarchists will not be allowed to take over our nationβs capital & that law enforcement will act to protect public safety.
In Big Techβs Orwellian world, thatβs βabusive.β
Yes. This is why people who actually understand the law say that this case should have never gone anywhere: those sentences in the op-ed were objectively true.
1. The longer you look at it, the weirder the jury's verdict in the Depp-Heard case looks - even if you assume Heard lied constantly. The sentences from her op-ed that were at issue were phrased so carefully and vaguely that it's hard to see how a jury found them defamatory.
Johnny Depp's $15 million defamation victory against ex-wife Amber Heard could chill participation in public discussions, including by lawyers who attack their clients' accusers in the media.
The fact that some people believe that a private company's decision to remove nonconsensual pornography from its platform violates the First Amendment is a truly depressing indictment of both constitutional literacy and basic ethics.
"The even-tempered and dignified judicial persona that Kavanaugh has worked so hard to cultivate fell away to reveal a sneering and volatile boy with his arms crossed, furious not to be getting his way."
Scott just accused Sanders, who is Jewish, of "speaking with a forked tongue" in calling for a commitment not just to fight anti-Semitism but all forms of hatred.
4. Exhaustive references to the supposed chilling effect of stalking statutes that focus on objective intent, but not a single reference to the chilling effect on victims of stalking.
The overall impression was that the Court views the well-documented and severe physical, associational, and expressive harms to victims of stalking as simply trivial compared to the speculative risk that some speakers may hesitate to engage in objectively threatening speech.
The Court's newfound skepticism about the reasonable person standard is ... something, especially given how comfortable they are with its use in vast areas of the law, including in determining whether cops can make pretextual stops without violating the 4th Amendment
"I'm going to shut down an entire social media platform because it suggested that my false claims needed correction" is, among other things, the ultimate snowflake move.
There is no constitutional right to post nonconsensual pornography, and (shocking that this needs to be said) there is certainly no constitutional obligation to do so. It is a literally a crime in most US states.
3. Another Justice offering an example of this hyper-sensitivity in the form of a hypothetical black student feeling personally physically threatened by a history lesson about lynching.
We just witnessed an incredible display of sincere, principled, and passionate concern for the welfare of young people across the United States, and it wasn't from Scott.
Your semi-regular reminder that Twitter is not now nor has ever been synonymous with "free speech." It's not a public square, it's not a town hall, it's a corporate-owned property that is designed to exploit people's free labor for profit.
The reasonableness standard also governs self-defense law, a point we highlighted in our amicus brief, along with the potential consequences of requiring a higher legal standard for stalking convictions than for the use of deadly force.
Gist of the Counterman decision: the Supreme Court has just decreed that stalking is free speech protected by the First Amendment if the stalker genuinely believes his actions are non-threatening. That is, the more deluded the stalker, the more protected the stalking.
Breaking: Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously upholds state's nonconsensual pornography law against First Amendment challenge. Like Vermont & Illinois before it, MN recognizes that "revenge porn" is not protected free speech.
@CCRInitiative
@MiamiLawSchool
Yep. Wikipedia is a genuine huge barrier to women in publicβmost peopleβs first impression of someone is a Wikipedia page. Women are edited harshly, not contributed to, overlooked or deleted. You can help out by editing, adding and pushing back as much as possible.
Forget the oddities of the Nestor story for a moment, and focus on the fact that Matt Gaetz says that being challenged by Rep. Richmond, a black man, βmade me want to get up and rip his head off.β
6. No acknowledgement of the tension between the petitioner's claim that the objective intent standard chills speech, but also that adopting the subjective intent standard wouldn't change the outcome of most cases.
"as my final act, I voted to move forward with the impeachment of Donald Trump on behalf of the women of the United States of America. We will not stand down, we will not be broken, we will not be silenced...I yield the balance of my time for now, but not forever."
@KatieHill4CA
I am thrilled to announce that I will be joining the George Washington Law faculty as the inaugural Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil Rights Law this fall!
@gwlaw
#BREAKING
: Large, animated crush of βstop the countβ protestors trying to push their way into TCF hall in
#Detroit
where ballots are being counted.
Theyβre being blocked by guards at the door.
Pizza boxes are pushed against the window to obstruct view. Itβs tense.
@NBCNews
Historic moment! US House of Representatives just passed the 2021 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, including the
#SHIELDAct
amendment to prohibit nonconsensual pornography! We are one step closer to criminalizing this egregious form of abuse.
@CCRInitiative
#VAWA21
Daisy Coleman's mother: "I think she had to make it seem like I could live without her. I canβt. I wish I could have taken the pain from her! She never recovered from what those boys did to her and itβs just not fair. My baby girl is gone."
@CCRInitiative
Sanders also noted how anti-Asian hatred has spread throughout the US, particularly in the wake of the Trump administration's racist terminology around COVID
For those suspicious of the newfound hostility of powerful elites to Section 230, but who are interested in discussions of the real problems with the law and possibilities for meaningful reform of the tech industry, here is a thread of some of my recent work on the subject.
1. The result in this case is truly obscene. A teenage girl is the victim of nonconsensual pornography, but she is the one charged & punished β for child pornography of herself.
@CCRInitiative
Pages 80-82, Justice Barrett also expressing her concern about increased sensitivity, using the hypothetical example of a "black college student" who might interpret a college lecture about lynching as a physical threat:
Mourning the death of Egyptian doctor, writer, and feminist Nawal El Saadawi, a true free speech - and fearless speech - hero.
"They said, 'You are a savage and dangerous woman.'
'I am speaking the truth. And the truth is savage and dangerous.'"
It's not just the Women's March photos: the government is destroying national records on everything from the sexual abuse of children to presidential records to the safety of drinking water.
#censorship
Twitter has just flagged Trump's tweet containing a threat to shoot protesters for violating its rules against glorifying violence, but has left the content of the tweet accessible on the grounds of public interest.
Everyone is entitled to intimate privacy, from the powerful to the powerless.
@JeffBezos
asks the right question at a truly vulnerable moment: "If in my position I canβt stand up to this kind of extortion, how many people can?"
@CCRInitiative
As a private entity, Twitter is free to delete anything it likes, especially if that speech violates its policies. Exempting powerful people from the rules isn't "free speech," it's elitism.
CNN just covered Twitter's correct refusal to delete the tweets. No discussion of the free speech implications. Donie O'Sullivan just said it is about Twitter appeasing the President and Brian Stelter agreed this is only about appeasement. Not free speech.
So when demonstrators block traffic to protest police killings of unarmed black people, conservatives advocate shooting and running them down, but when white Trump supporters block traffic to intimidate voters, it's patriotism?
The court's ruling today is truly perverse, for all the reasons that
@cagoldberglaw
sets out in this thread. This doesn't protect "free speech" - it protects abusers, rapists, hackers, revenge porn traffickers, & self-appointed journalists who target famous or influential women.
Dismissing Katie Hillβs case on ANTI-SLAPP grounds sets a dangerous precedent for victims of nonconsensual pornography everywhere. Anybody who dares enter the public eye should now have legitimate concern that old nude and sexual images can be shared 3/
Supreme Court denies cert in Austin v. Illinois, letting stand IL Supreme Courtβs determination that the stateβs nonconsensual pornography law (which I helped draft & is the strongest in the nation) is consistent with the First Amendment.
@CCRInitiative
I have now officially joined the
@gwlaw
faculty as the inaugural Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil Rights Law:
Wait A MINUTE. This would be Matt Gaetz, who, as a Florida state representative in 2013, tried to gut that state's revenge porn bill by filing last-minute amendments restricting it to material taken (not posted) without consent & only if not removed in 48 hours after warning
Fact Check: False
Iβm loudly on the right side of the Revenge Porn issue...unlike virtually every Democrat in Congress.
Ask revenge porn victim
@katiehill4ca
Now that you mention it, why hasnβt
@joebiden
defended Katie Hill yet?
Silence is misogyny if you ask me...
Rev. Mariann Budde denounces Trump for tear gassing protesters and using "one of our churches as a prop, holding a Bible, one that declares that God is love and when everything he has said and done is to enflame violence."
#CatPerson
author interview: "it speaks to the way that many women, especially young women, move through the world: not making people angry, taking responsibility for other peopleβs emotions, working extremely hard to keep everyone around them happy."
"It will have a devastating effect on survivors, who will be silenced, now, with the knowledge that they cannot speak about their violent experiences at menβs hands without the threat of a ruinous libel suit. In that sense, womenβs speech just became a lot less free."
The claim that the First Amendment forces private companies to publish revenge porn cannot be taken seriously, however much it will be embraced by perverts and grifters.
If you care about image-based sexual abuse (aka nonconsensual pornography/revenge porn), contact
@LeaderMcConnell
NOW to ask him to include the bipartisan SHIELD Act (Stopping Harmful Image Exploitation and Limiting Distribution Act) in the omnibus.
PSA
#1
to professors moving to online instruction: far-right activists are encouraging students to record & share videos of teachers to document supposed liberal "indoctrination." Be v careful not to inadvertently reveal any personal info in Zoom, etc- these people are vicious.
There's a reason why the conservative-dominated Supreme Court thinks the Constitution does not contain a right to an abortion but is convinced that it contains an individual right to posses firearms, and that reason is white male supremacy.
We should all question why men with a history of assaulting women should be allowed to own weapons, especially given how many mass shooters have such history.
#MisogynyKills
Exciting intimate privacy news: House Rules Committee just made in order
@RepSpeier
&
@RepJohnKatko
's SHIELD Act amendment to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. House votes TOMORROW on SHIELD + final passage of
#VAWA21
@CCRInitiative
The text of the order is available now. It's exactly as opportunistic, constitutionally illiterate, Orwellian, and deliberately designed to distract from Trump's atrocities as one might expect.
It is a true indictment of our country's selective constitutional illiteracy that there are people who think a social media company fact-checking the President is a violation of free speech but arresting a person for peaceful protest is not
It appears that this woman was forcibly arrested and removed not for breaking any law, but simply for the words on her shirt - that is, for engaging in free speech.
Given that the Court has imposed a higher standard for state intervention against stalking than is used to lawfully justify the use of deadly force, it would seem that stalking victims are better off relying on lethal self-defense than law enforcement for protection.
Private companies who choose not to allow nonconsensual pornography on their platforms are not violating the First Amendment - in fact, they are exercising their First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech and association includes the right not to speak and not to associate.
2. The teenager in this case consensually sent a sexually explicit video of herself to two friends. One of them distributed the video without her consent. Her consensual act was punished while the friend's nonconsensual act is not. This is absurd and unjust.
So
@Facebook
flagged a post linking to an
@abcnews
article as "false" not because it contained any false info, or because the widely-circulated photo in it was in any way manipulated, but because some random
@Twitter
user made a false claim about it that
@USATODAY
debunked.
"Sheena Greitens said her ex-husband admitted to her that he had, in fact, taken a compromising photo of his hairstylist that led to the felony invasion of privacy charge."