liberty

Outrageous raid in Marion, Kansas

This entry was posted in Censorship News and tagged Kansas law liberty on by

I wish I had the time to write a proper article about the outrageous police raid on the offices of the Marion County Record and the home of its owner, Eric Meyer. Currently, though, I’m putting all my efforts into getting the revised edition of Tomorrow’s Songs Today ready for final review. Just as I thought it was ready to go, I discovered some omissions that had me sending out emails yesterday, and I got the first reply this morning.

So I’ll settle for links and short comments.

AP News. The official justification for the raid has not been made public. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation has said it was asked to assist in “allegations of illegal access and dissemination of confidential criminal justice information.” This could be justification for such a raid in some cases, such as breaking into law enforcement databases, but at present there’s no indication any such thing was involved. Most of the news articles I’ve seen follow the theory that the motivation was the Record‘s reporting on a local restaurant owner.

New York Post. The Post reports that Meyer’s mother, aged 98, died shortly after the raid on his home, and Meyer attributes her death to the stress of the raid. It says that the search warrant (which has not been publicly disclosed) “seems to violate federal law” and that normal procedure under the law is to subpoena materials.

Washington Post. The other Post mentions that “the Record had been actively investigating Police Chief Gideon Cody at the time of the raid after receiving tips that he had left his previous job in Kansas City, Mo., to avoid repercussions for alleged sexual misconduct charges.”

Read the articles. Find additional information for yourself. Comment if you think I’m missing something important.

The EU Media Freedom Act and a two-tiered Internet

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged EU Europe Internet law liberty on by

A language gripe which I haven’t mentioned lately is the treatment of “media” as a singular. I’ve given it up as a lost cause, but it damages discourse. People often think of “the media” as one thing. Obviously there are many media. This blog is a medium for information, no less than CNN is. But in common use, you don’t qualify as a medium unless either you’re a big corporation or a fortune-teller. Similarly, there’s a tendency to count people as “journalists” only if they work for a “medium” (or is it “a media”)? This leads to the idea that freedom of the press applies only to properly credentialed and accredited journalists and media.

This trend appears in Article 17 of the EU’s proposed Media Freedom Act, which the Electronic Frontier Foundation has strongly criticized.
(more…)

303 Creative LLC: A win for free expression from SCOTUS 2

This entry was posted in Writing as business and tagged Internet law liberty on by

The first article I came across on the Supreme Court’s 303 Creative LLC decision was an outright lie, claiming the Court had ruled businesses can now refuse service to same-sex couples. Creating panic is what a lot of news sites do best, and lots of people on social media are helping to spread the misinformation. What it actually ruled was this:

The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy. In this case, Colorado
seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the
past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they
thought vital at the time. But abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all will encounter ideas that are “misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. Consistent with the First Amendment, the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment.

(more…)

A Worldcon in Egypt?

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged conventions Egypt fandom liberty on by

The Chengdu Worldcon is collapsing from lack of organization, likely made worse by the need to satisfy the governmental authorities. A bid for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, has fortunately been withdrawn. It’s hard to say whether China or Saudi Arabia is worse on human rights, but Saudi Arabia holds a clear edge in sheer brutality. Replacing the JeddahCon bid is one for PharaohCon in Cairo.

You don’t have to be a flaming libertarian to recognize that every country in the world has human rights issues. The question is how serious they are and how they would affect people attending the convention. Egypt isn’t as bad as Saudi Arabia or China, nor as good as the United States or Canada. How concerned should potential supporters be about what it is doing and might do?
(more…)

New York’s threat to free speech on the Web 1

This entry was posted in Censorship News and tagged censorship law liberty on by

A law recently passed by the New York State Legislature poses a serious threat to online speech. FIRE is already challenging this outrageous law, which I doubt can survive a legal battle, but in the meantime, it poses a threat to anyone running a site that’s read in New York and allows user input.

The law applies to the ill-defined category of “social media networks.” That doesn’t just mean Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. It could apply to anyone who runs a Mastodon instance or even runs a blog that allows comments. FIRE says:
(more…)

A writer’s guide to freedom of speech and press in America

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged copyright law liberty writing on by

People in the United States enjoy some of the strongest legal protections on their speech and writing in the world. Saying some things is illegal, though, and others open you to getting sued. There’s a lot of misinformation around on what is and isn’t considered free speech. Here’s a quick rundown of some common claims. US Constitution

Standard disclaimer: This isn’t legal advice. It’s my best understanding. See a lawyer when in doubt. In some cases, I’ve cited court cases you can look up and study.
(more…)

Writers threatened with $300K fines

This entry was posted in Commentary News and tagged censorship liberty Russia on by

According to an article by Natylie Baldwin on antiwar.com, the United States Treasury Department has threatened writers with fines of more than $300,000 if they write for the Strategic Culture Foundation, a Russia-based online journal.

The writers, Daniel Lazare and Michael Averko, reportedly got letters from the Treasury Department, delivered by the FBI, claiming they were in violation of sanctions against SCF and could be subject to a “civil monetary penalty of up to the greater of $311,562 or twice the value of the underlying transaction.” They say that other writers have received similar letters.
(more…)

Judges assault First Amendment

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing Writing as business and tagged First Amendment law liberty on by

A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th circuit should seriously worry writers. It says that the government can ignore the First Amendment when it feels like it. In the case in question, the court acknowledged that website design work is “pure speech,” which means it’s protected by the First Amendment. “Appellants are forced to create websites — and thus, speech—that they would otherwise refuse.” But then it argued that the State of Colorado has a “compelling interest” in forcing a website designer to work for the plaintiff. It ruled that, in spite of the plain First Amendment violation, the designer can be forced to create speech.
(more…)

The “Pro Act” bill threatens free expression

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing Writing as business and tagged law liberty writing on by

The more I hear about the “Pro Act” bill (it’s not an act till Biden signs it), especially from its supporters, the more convinced I am that it’s a threat not just to writers’ livelihoods but to free expression.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. On the surface, it just grants freelancers a freedom we didn’t have before, the freedom to deal with clients through organizations. This ignores the reality of labor law, which gives unions the power to compel employers by force of law to enter into agreements. Outsiders often have the choice of joining the union, giving the union money without joining, or not working for a unionized employer.
(more…)

An assault in Congress on freelance writers

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing Writing as business and tagged law liberty writing on by

Previously I’d written about California’s AB-5, which put heavy restrictions on the number of articles freelance writers could sell. That was ultimately amended, after some major companies stopped using freelancers.

A bill now in Congress is raising similar concerns. It’s different from AB-5 in important respects but is still disturbing. The “PRO Act” has passed the House of Representatives and gone to the Senate. It would require clients to treat freelance writers as employees, but only in certain respects. To be exempt, writers would have to pass all three requirements of the “ABC test”:
(more…)