#slapp

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Company that makes millions spying on students will get to sue a whistleblower

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia handed down a jaw-droppingly stupid and terrible decision, rejecting the whistleblower Ian Linkletter’s claim that he was engaged in legitimate criticism when he linked to freely available materials from the ed-tech surveillance company Proctorio:

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/23/01/2023BCCA0160.htm

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/20/links-arent-performances/#free-ian-linkletter

It’s been a minute since Linkletter’s case arose, so I’ll give you a little recap here. Proctorio is a massive, wildly profitable ed-tech company that sells a surveillance tool to monitor students while they take high-stakes tests from home. The tool monitors the student’s computer and the student’s face, especially their eye-movements. It also allows instructors and other personnel to watch the students and even take control of their computer. This is called “remote invigilation.”

This is ghastly in just about every way. For starters, Proctorio’s facial monitoring software embeds the usual racist problems with machine-learning stuff, and struggles to recognize Black and brown faces. Black children sitting exams under Proctorio’s gimlet eye have reported that the only way to satisfy Proctorio’s digital phrenology system is to work with multiple high-powered lights shining directly in their faces.

A Proctorio session typically begins with a student being forced to pan a webcam around their test-taking room. During lockdown, this meant that students who shared a room — for example, with a parent who worked night-shifts — would have to invade their family’s privacy, and might be disqualified because they couldn’t afford a place large enough to have private room in which to take their tests.

Proctorio’s tools also punish students for engaging in normal test-taking activity. Do you stare off into space when you’re trying through a problem? Bzzzt. Do you read questions aloud to yourself under your breath when you’re trying to understand their meanings? Bzzzt. Do you have IBS and need to go to the toilet? Bzzzt. The canon of remote invigilation horror stories is filled with accounts of students being forced to defecate themselves, or vomit down their shirts without turning their heads (because looking away is an automatically flagged offense).

The tragedy is that all of this is in service to the pedagogically bankrupt practice of high-stakes testing. Few pedagogists believe that the kind of exam that Proctorio seeks to recreate in students’ homes has real assessment merit. As the old saying goes, “Tests measure your ability to take tests.” But Proctorio doesn’t even measure your ability to take a test — it measures your ability to take a test with three bright lights shining directly on your face. Or while you are covered in your own feces and vomit. While you stare rigidly at a screen. While your tired mother who just worked 16 hours in a covid ward stands outside the door to your apartment.

The lockdown could have been an opportunity to improve educational assessment. There is a rich panoply of techniques that educators can adopt that deliver a far better picture of students’ learning, and work well for remote as well as in-person education. Instead, companies like Proctorio made vast fortunes, most of it from publicly funded institutions, by encouraging a worse-than-useless, discriminatory practice:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/24/proctor-ology/#miseducation

Proctorio clearly knows that its racket is brittle. Like any disaster profiteer, Proctorio will struggle to survive after the crisis passes and we awaken from our collective nightmare and ask ourselves why we were stampeded into using its terrible products. The company went to war against its critics.

In 2020, Proctorio CEO Mike Olsen doxed a child who complained about his company’s software in a Reddit forum:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/01/bossware/#moral-exemplar

In 2021, the reviews for Proctorio’s Chrome plugin all mysteriously vanished. Needless to say, these reviews — from students forced to use Proctorio’s spyware — were brutal:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/09/04/hypervigilance/#radical-transparency

Proctorio claims that it protects “educational integrity,” but its actions suggest a company far more concerned about the integrity of its own profits:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/16/unauthorized-paper/#cheating-anticheat

One of the critics that Proctorio attacked is Ian Linkletter. In 2020, Linkletter was a Learning Technology Specialist at UBC’s Faculty of Education. His job was to assess and support ed-tech tools, including Proctorio. In the course of that work, Linkletter reviewed Proctorio’s training material for educators, which are a bonanza of mask-off materials that are palpably contemptuous of students, who are presumed to be cheaters.

At the time, a debate over remote invigilation tools was raging through Canadian education circles, with students, teachers and parents fiercely arguing the merits and downsides of making surveillance the linchpin of assessment. Linkletter waded into this debate, tweeting a series of sharp criticisms of Proctorio. In these tweets, Linkletter linked to Proctorio’s unlisted, but publicly available, Youtube videos.

A note of explanation: Youtube videos can be flagged as “unlisted,” which means they don’t show up in searches. They can also be flagged as “private,” which means you have to be on a list of authorized users to see them. Proctorio made its training videos unlisted, but they weren’t private — they were visible to anyone who had a link to them.

Proctorio sued Linkletter for this. They argued that he had breached a duty of confidentiality, and that linking to these videos was a copyright violation:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/10/17/proctorio-v-linkletter/#proctorio

This is a classic SLAPP — a “strategic litigation against public participation.” That’s when a deep-pocketed, thin-skinned bully, like Proctorio, uses the threat of a long court battle to force their critics into silence. They know they can’t win their case, but that’s not the victory they’re seeking. They don’t want to win the case, they want to win the argument, by silencing a critic who would otherwise be bankrupted by legal fees.

Getting SLAPPed is no fun. I’ve been there. Just this year, a billionaire financier tried to force me into silence by threatening me with a lawsuit. Thankfully, Ken “Popehat” White was on the case, and he reminded this billionaire’s counsel that California has a strong anti-SLAPP law, and if Ken had to defend me in court, he could get a fortune in fees from the bully after he prevailed:

https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1531684572479377409

British Columbia also has an anti-SLAPP law, but unlike California’s anti-SLAPP, the law is relatively new and untested. Still, Proctorio’s suit against Linkletter was such an obvious SLAPP that for many of us, it seemed likely that Linkletter would be able to defend himself from this American bully and its attempt to use Canada’s courts to silence a Canadian educator.

For Linkletter to use BC’s anti-SLAPP law, he would have to prove that he was weighing in on a matter of public interest, and that Proctorio’s copyright and confidentiality claims were nonsense, unlikely to prevail on their merits. If he could do that, he’d be able to get the case thrown out, without having to go through a lengthy, brutally expensive trial.

Incredibly, though, the lower court found against Linkletter. Naturally, Linkletter appealed. His “factotum” is a crystal clear document that sets out the serious errors of law and fact the lower court made:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aB1ztWDFr3MU6BsAMt6rWXOiXJ8sT3MY/view

But yesterday, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court, repeating all of these gross errors and finding for Proctorio:

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/23/01/2023BCCA0160.htm

This judgment is grotesque. It makes a mockery of BC’s anti-SLAPP statute, to say nothing of Canadian copyright and confidentiality law. For starters, it finds that publishing a link can be a “performance” of a copyrighted work, which meant that when Linkletter linked to the world-viewable Youtube files that Proctorio had posted, he infringed on copyright.

This is a perverse, even surreal take on copyright. The court rejects Linkletter’s argument that even Youtube’s terms of service warned Proctorio that publishing world-viewable material on its site constituted permission for people to link to and watch that material.

But what about “fair dealing” (similar to fair use)? Linkletter argued that linking to a video that shows that Proctorio’s assurances to parents and students about its products’ benign nature were contradicted by the way it talked to educators was fair dealing. Fair dealing is a broad suite of limitations and exceptions to copyright for the purposes of commentary, criticism, study, satire, etc.

So even if linking is a copyright infringement (ugh, seriously?!), surely it’s fair dealing in this case. Proctorio was selling millions of dollars in software to public institutions, inflicting it on kids whose parents weren’t getting the whole story. Linkletter used Proctorio’s own words to rebut its assurances. What could be more fair dealing than that?

Not so fast, the appeals panel says: they say that Linkletter could have made his case just as well without linking to Proctorio’s materials. This is…bad. I mean, it’s also wrong, but it’s very bad, too. It’s wrong because an argument about what a company intends necessarily has to draw upon the company’s own statements. It’s absurd to say that Linkletter’s point would have been made equally well if he said “I disbelieve Proctorio’s public assurances because I’ve seen seekrit documents” as it was when he was able to link to those documents so that people could see them for themselves.

But it’s bad because it rips the heart out of the fair dealing exception for criticism. Publishing a link to a copyrighted work is the most minimal way to quote from it in a debate — Linkletter literally didn’t reproduce a single word, not a single letter, from Proctorio’s copyrighted works. If the court says, “Sure, you can quote from a work to criticize it, but only so much as you need to make your argument,” and then says, “But also, simply referencing a work without quoting it at all is taking too much,” then what reasonable person would ever try to rely on a fair dealing exemption for criticism?

Then there’s the confidentiality claim: in his submissions to the lower court and the appeals court, Linkletter pointed out that the “confidential” materials he’d linked to were available in many places online, and could be easily located with a Google search. Proctorio had uploaded these “confidential” materials to many sites — without flagging them as “unlisted” or “private.”

What’s more, the videos that Linkletter linked to were in found a “Help Center” that didn’t even have a terms-of-service condition that required confidentiality. How on Earth can materials that are publicly available all over the web be “confidential?”

Here, the court takes yet another bizarre turn in logic. They find that because a member of the public would have to “gather” the videos from “many sources,” that the collection of links was confidential, even if none of the links in the collection were confidential. Again, this is both wrong and bad.

Every investigator, every journalist, every critic, starts by looking in different places for information that can be combined to paint a coherent picture of what’s going on. This is the heart of “open source intelligence,” combing different sources for data points that shed light on one another.

The idea that “gathering” public information can breach confidentiality strikes directly at all investigative activity. Every day, every newspaper and news broadcast in Canada engages in this conduct. The appeals court has put them all in jeopardy with this terrible finding.

Finally, there’s the question of Proctorio’s security. Proctorio argued that by publishing links to its educator materials, Linkletter weakened the security of its products. That is, they claim that if students know how the invigilation tool works, it stops working. This is the very definition of “security through obscurity,” and it’s a practice that every serious infosec professional rejects. If Proctorio is telling the truth when it says that describing how its products work makes them stop working, then they make bad products that no one should pay money for.

The court absolutely flubs this one, too, accepting the claim of security through obscurity at face value. That’s a finding that flies in the face of all security research.

So what happens now? Well, Linkletter has lost his SLAPP claim, so nominally the case can proceed. Linkletter could appeal his case to Canada’s Supreme Court (about 7% of Supreme Court appeals of BC appeals court judgments get heard). Or Proctorio could drop the case. Or it could go to a full trial, where these outlandish ideas about copyright, confidentiality and information security would get a thorough — and blisteringly expensive — examination.

In Linkletter’s statement, he remains defiant and unwilling to give in to bullying, but says he’ll have to “carefully consider” his next step. That’s fair enough: there’s a lot on the line here:

https://linkletter.opened.ca/stand-against-proctorios-slapp-update-30/

Linkletter answers his supporters’ questions about how they can help with some excellent advice: “What I ask is for you to do what you can to protect students. Academic surveillance technology companies would like nothing more but for us all to shut up. Don’t let them silence you. Don’t let anyone or anything take away your human right to freedom of expression.”

Today (Apr 21), I’m speaking in Chicago at the Stigler Center’s Antitrust and Competition Conference. This weekend (Apr 22/23), I’m at the LA Times Festival of Books.

[Image ID: A girl working on a laptop. Her mouth has been taped shut. Glaring out of the laptop screen is the hostile red eye of HAL9000 from '2001: A Space Odyssey.' Behind them is a tattered, filthy, burned Canadian flag.]

Image: Ingo Bernhardt https://www.flickr.com/photos/spree2010/4930763550/

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

Eleanor Vladinsky (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canadian_flag_against_grey_sky.jpg

CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[queersatanic]

We fuckin' won, y'all

It hasn't fully sunk in yet, but we did just get some truly joyful news.

The Satanic Temple lost AGAIN, and ours is a full victory here

The King County Superior Court just granted our motion for summary judgment in full, dismissing all claims with prejudice and ruling on our declaratory judgment counterclaim we have the right to use "the Memes Page".

facebook.com/queersatanic

It has been 1635 DAYS since The Satanic Temple filed their case against us in federal district court. We got it dismissed there once in February 2021; we got it dismissed again in January 2023 after TST re-filed.

The Satanic Temple appealed the second loss to the Ninth Circuit and also re-filed part of the case in state court in April 2023 — notably after the three-year statute of limitations had run out.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed most of the lower federal court decision but allowed TST to revive their defamation claims if they could specify what exactly had been said about them that was false and defamatory.

Apparently unable to do so, The Satanic Temple voluntarily dismissed the federal case against us.

Meanwhile, in 2022, TST sued Newsweek for writing about our case back in October 2021. The Satanic Temple dragged us into those proceedings to give depositions, but Newsweek seems to be prevailing with just one claim remaining and a bunch of embarrassing stuff coming out about TST.

TST sued a woman in Texas for making TikTok videos critical of them, after first forcing her to record a pretty upsetting retraction. This is despite the fact that she was right.

TST has threatened more people than we can make a reliable count of with litigation both before and after us.

The Satanic Temple's agents have stalked and harassed us and our loved ones, and there have been long periods of misery and where it seemed like the courts would let them keep doing this sort of thing indefinitely.

But today we won.

The Satanic Temple has lost every step of the way and shown themselves to be a toxic, abusive religious organization to everyone who has bothered to pay attention — tho unfortunately, too few people have.

Thank you all for your support over these long 4+ years.

Based on their pattern of behavior, The Satanic Temple is likely to appeal this loss or perhaps invent a new pretext to continue this SLAPP in a new venue. We know that.

The Satanic Temple, its owners, and lawyers have had had no argument justifying the last 1635 days beyond their wealth and desire to hurt and intimidate people. But TST also should have much bigger issues to deal with than lighting money on fire by continuing to come after us.

So, maybe The Satanic Temple will finally walk away now. They're definitely more vulnerable now than they have been in a long time.

Please let people know what The Satanic Temple is and how they behave, and also that however scary they seem, if you stand up to them you can win.

When it comes to The Satanic Temple, there's always more, and it's always worse, but they are at least as incompetent as they are malicious. They are ghouls, to be sure, but not ones who can survive any light on their actions.

So Ave Satanas, and Hail Lucifer the Lightbringer

[elladastinkardiamou]

This week's newsletter from AthensLive is out:

* Dimitriades is nowhere to be found in the court hearing for his SLAPP

* A Grieving Mother testifies on Tempi train accident - and shakes Greece

* Landmark ruling against Greece from the European Court for Human Rights

Journalists and media outlets who revealed the “Greek Watergate” appeared in the court hearing this week amidst a wave of solidarity. The lawsuit, widely deemed as SLAPP, came from PM’s nephew Dimitriades, his chief of staff when the scandal broke out. Dimitriades did not appear in court.

The mother of a Tempi train accident victim testified in the relevant Parliamentary Committee and spoke the truth to power. You would hardly find her testimony in Greek mainstream media. A day after, Politico revealed that the ND government dismissed a call from the European public prosecutor to take action over the potential criminal liability of two former transport ministers after the deadly train collision.

In a landmark ruling, the European Court for Human Rights condemned Greece for identifying HIV-positive drug addicts accused of being illegal sex workers. Five of these women are long dead. Justice came late. 

Read and share this week's updates on the events and developments in Greece here: https://steadyhq.com/en/athenslivegr/posts/43c0edf0-04ef-447d-8f62-db09916bfe5f

For anyone with a wish or need to follow and to gain an insight into recent events in Greece and to read and support independent and investigative journalism in English, the weekly newsletter from AthensLive should be a core element in the reading flow.

If you want the best overview of the events and developments in Greece right now, this is the place to go. Not the mainstream Greek news, but independent journalism with sharp analysis and links to interesting and important topics from a variety of sources.

Become a member and get the newsletter in your inbox every week here:

https://steadyhq.com/en/athenslivegr/newsletter/sign_up

[aktionfsa-blog-blog]

SLAPP bedroht die Zivilgesellschaft

Angriff auf die demokratische Zivilgesellschaft!

... titelt ATTAC und berichtet uns in einem Brief über die Hetzkampagne von CDU/CSU und Springer-Presse gegen zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen. Den angegriffenen Organisationen wird unterstellt, Teil einer mysteriösen Schattenstruktur zu sein. Im Stil der US-Administration wird so zum Angriff auf die demokratische Zivilgesellschaft geblasen.

Schaut man dagegen in das deutsche Lobbyregister so zählen zu den 100 größten Lobbyakteuren ganze sechs NGOs, beispielsweise das Deutsche Rote Kreuz. Die mit Abstand größte Gruppe stellen dagegen Akteure mit eigenen Wirtschaftsinteressen. Dennoch verbreitet die Union den Eindruck, die größte Gefahr für die Demokratie bestünde im Einfluss von Organisationen, die sich für eine solidarische Gesellschaft engagieren. Diese werden sogar noch zusätzlich eingeschränkt, in dem man ihnen, wie z.B. auch ATTAC die Gemeinnützigkeit entzieht.

SLAPP-Verfahren

Die großen Konzerne profitieren dagegen ungeniert von ihrer Lobbyarbeit und führen aktuell sogar "Schadensersatzprozesse" gegen zivile NGOs, wie z.B. Greenpeace. In dem aktuellen Rechtsstreit zwischen Greenpeace USA und dem Ölkonzern Energy Transfer (ET) um das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung hat eine neunköpfige Jury in Nord-Dakota die Umweltschützer:innen zu einer Zahlung von 666 Millionen US-Dollar verurteilt.

Der Grund: Greenpeace USA hatte sich mit einem Protest von lokalen Gruppen gegen eine Ölpipeline von ET solidarisch erklärt. Das Urteil in dem umstrittenen SLAPP-Verfahren (Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation) kam nach einem dreiwöchigen Prozess zustande. SLAPP-Klagen nutzen rechtliche Mittel wie Schadensersatzforderungen systematisch, um unliebsame Stimmen aus der Öffentlichkeit zu drängen.

Greenpeace schreibt dazu: "Wir sind Zeugen einer katastrophalen Rückkehr zu dem rücksichtslosen Verhalten, das die Klimakrise angeheizt und die Gewinne aus fossilen Brennstoffen über die öffentliche Gesundheit und einen lebenswerten Planeten gestellt hat“, sagte Mads Christensen, Geschäftsführer von Greenpeace International. „Die vorherige Trump-Administration hat vier Jahre damit verbracht, Schutzmaßnahmen für saubere Luft, Wasser und die Souveränität indigener Gemeinschaften abzubauen, und will nun zusammen mit ihren Verbündeten die Arbeit beenden, indem sie den Protest zum Schweigen bringt. Wir werden nicht klein beigeben. Wir lassen uns nicht zum Schweigen bringen.“

Die aktuelle Entwicklung bedroht die freie Meinungsäußerung und macht zivilgesellschaftliche Gruppen mundtot. Wir müssen verhindern, dass sich US-Verhältnisse auch in Europa durchsetzen. Auch auf die von der Ampelregierung versprochenen Änderung der Abgabenordnung zur Verbesserung der Gemeinnützigkeitsregelung warten wir immer noch vergeblich ...

Mehr dazu bei https://www.greenpeace.de/klimaschutz/energiewende/oelausstieg/usa-ein-prozess-gegen-greenpeace-und-die-meinungsfreiheit

Kategorie[17]: Presse Short-Link dieser Seite: a-fsa.de/d/3Ge Link zu dieser Seite: https://www.aktion-freiheitstattangst.org/de/articles/9103-20250327-slapp-bedroht-die-zivilgesellschaft.html

[socialjusticefail]

A comment on this video mentions this is why we should have a national Anti-SLAPP law.

[computer430]

Why Bulk Buying the Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 CPU is a Smart Move for PC Builders

In the ever-evolving landscape of computer hardware, the Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 CPU may seem like a relic from the past. Released in 2008, it was once a powerhouse for budget-conscious builders, offering dual-core performance at an affordable price. Despite its age, bulk buying the E8200 remains a savvy choice for many PC builders today. This article explores the reasons why purchasing this CPU in bulk can be a smart move.

1. Affordability and Cost Savings

One of the most compelling reasons to consider bulk buying the E8200 is cost efficiency. When you purchase in bulk, vendors often offer significant discounts, making each unit more affordable than buying individually. This is particularly beneficial for builders who may be assembling multiple systems, whether for resale, educational purposes, or personal use. The initial investment can be recouped quickly, especially if you plan to sell custom builds or refurbish older systems.

2. Availability of Components

As technology progresses, newer CPU models often lead to older ones being phased out. This can create a scarcity of certain components, making them more expensive. However, buying in bulk allows you to stock up on E8200 CPUs before they become hard to find or prohibitively expensive. This foresight is crucial for businesses that rely on consistent hardware for their builds. By having a reliable supply of E8200 CPUs on hand, builders can avoid interruptions and maintain productivity.

3. Versatility in Builds

The Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 is a versatile CPU that can power a range of systems, from basic desktops to lightweight gaming rigs. It’s particularly well-suited for tasks like web browsing, office applications, and even light gaming with the right GPU. Bulk buying this CPU allows builders to target various markets — whether they’re creating budget-friendly systems for students or entry-level machines for casual gamers.

Moreover, the E8200 is compatible with a wide array of motherboards, making it easier to integrate into existing builds or refurbish older systems. This flexibility ensures that builders can cater to different needs without having to invest in numerous different CPU models.

4. Sustainability and E-Waste Reduction

In an age where sustainability is becoming increasingly important, bulk buying older CPUs like the E8200 contributes to reducing electronic waste. Many PCs that were retired can be revitalized with an E8200, giving them a second life. By purchasing in bulk, builders can effectively refurbish older systems, offering cost-effective solutions to consumers while promoting recycling and sustainability.

This practice not only benefits the environment but also allows builders to provide budget-friendly options to those who might not need the latest technology. As a result, the E8200 can serve as a bridge for users who want decent performance without the hefty price tag of modern CPUs.

5. Overclocking Potential

For enthusiasts, the E8200 has some overclocking potential, allowing tech-savvy builders to push the CPU beyond its stock performance levels. This can provide a significant performance boost for those willing to tinker. Bulk buying means that builders can experiment with multiple units, trying different configurations and settings without worrying about the cost of each individual CPU.

Overclocking can also add value to a custom build, making it more attractive to potential buyers who are interested in performance without a premium price.

6. Building Knowledge and Skill

For new PC builders or those looking to sharpen their skills, working with the E8200 can provide an excellent learning opportunity. Its architecture is simpler compared to modern CPUs, making it easier for beginners to understand how a CPU interacts with other components. Buying in bulk allows novices to experiment freely, making mistakes and learning from them without the fear of wasting high-end, expensive hardware.

7. Community and Support

Despite its age, the Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 still has a community of enthusiasts and support online. Bulk buyers can benefit from the wealth of knowledge available, including guides, forums, and troubleshooting tips. This community support can be invaluable for builders looking to optimize their builds or solve specific issues.

Conclusion

In summary, bulk buying the Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 CPU offers numerous advantages for PC builders. From cost savings and availability to versatility and sustainability, this aging processor still holds value in today’s market. Whether you’re a hobbyist, a small business owner, or an educator, investing in bulk E8200 CPUs can enhance your projects while providing efficient, budget-friendly computing solutions. In a world where high-performance doesn’t always need to come at a high price, the E8200 remains a relevant and smart choice for those looking to maximize their hardware investments.

Looking to buy the SLAPP Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 CPU in bulk FROM VSTL?

If you’re looking to buy the SLAPP Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 CPU in bulk, you’re making a smart choice for budget-conscious PC builds. This reliable processor offers solid performance for everyday tasks and light gaming, making it perfect for refurbishing older systems or creating cost-effective setups. Bulk purchasing not only saves you money but also ensures a steady supply for your projects. With its wide compatibility and proven track record, the E8200 remains a favored option among builders looking to maximize value without sacrificing quality.

[andritambunan]

Latest for The Intercept

Pamela Lopez, a lobbyist in California, poses for a portrait at the California State Capitol on June 12, 2023, in Sacramento, Calif. Pamela says Democratic Assemblyman Matt Dababneh sexually harassed her in 2016 and filed a formal complaint with the state assembly. However, Dababneh sued her for defamation. He has always denied her allegations. Being sued for defamation took an enormous financial and mental toll on Pamela Lopez.

As a lobbyist in California, Pamela Lopez was no stranger to inappropriate behavior. “Sexual harassment was endemic to the political environment,” she said. When she was first starting out in her career, an official at a state agency she needed to speak to on behalf of her clients sent her an email saying he had a foot fetish and would only meet with her if she had lunch with him while wearing open-toed sandals. “Everybody kind of ignored it and looked the other way,” she said.

Then in 2016, she says, Democratic Assembly Member Matt Dababneh followed her into the bathroom at a co-ed bachelor party and masturbated in front of her, demanding that she touch him. She refused. She alleges that he ejaculated into the toilet, and as he left the bathroom, he told her not to tell anyone. “It was just absolutely terrifying,” she said.

At first, Lopez didn’t want anyone to know what had happened to her because she assumed she would be the one who would be punished professionally. “Somehow I will be blamed for this,” she recalled thinking. “I will be slut-shamed, people will not believe me.” That changed as #MeToo started to take off. “There is strength in numbers,” she said. She “wanted to make sure that the person who had hurt me did not potentially go on to hurt others.” She eventually named him in a 2017 Los Angeles Times article and filed a formal complaint with the state Assembly. (An Assembly committee eventually found that he “more likely than not” exposed himself to her). She held a press conference around the same time to announce the complaint.

Nine months later, Dababneh sued her for defamation. (Bryce Covert)

[seolinguk]

Why do you care? Mind your own business. Get lost, okay? Know your place, please. My mom was right, after all. The dog I have been feeding thinks it's human now. You're like my servant, Yu Jeong. So, if you treat me like this...

UNDERCOVER HIGH SCHOOL 언더커버하이스쿨 (2025) Episode 7

[serpentface]

A little horse sample platter. These are all from the regions under Wardi rule.

Horses in this setting are small three toed grazing and foraging ungulates, domesticated primarily for meat, milk, and fur/wool. 

Top left- a sturdy all purpose breed used primarily for meat, developed in the dry scrub and savannah around the city-state of Wardin.

Top right- a hardy wooly breed from Greathill. Their wool grows continuously, but very slowly.  Their tails are usually docked to prevent soiling or fly infestations.

Bottom left- a primarily ornamental breed whose striking coloration is bred in from (now extinct via hybridization) wild horses native to the Jaquin's Boot peninsula. 

Bottom right- Wardin (the city-state)'s most common dairy breed, selected primarily for extreme milk production but prized for their delicate sloping faces.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

David Enrich’s “Murder the Truth”

I'm on a 20+ city book tour for my new novel PICKS AND SHOVELS. Catch me in SAN DIEGO at MYSTERIOUS GALAXY on Mar 24, and in CHICAGO with PETER SAGAL on Apr 2. More tour dates here.

David Enrich's Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful is a brave, furious book about the long-running plan by America's wealthy and corrupt to "open up the libel laws" so they can destroy their critics:

https://www.harpercollins.com/products/murder-the-truth-david-enrich

Enrich is a veteran business reporter at the New York Times; he's reported extensively on high finance and sleaze, and has a knack for piercing the Shield of Boredom that protects finance crimes from scrutiny. His 2017 book The Spider's Web manages the nearly impossible trick of making the LIBOR-rigging conspiracy – which involved trillions, but in ways that were so baroque that hardly anyone noticed – comprehensible:

https://memex.craphound.com/2017/09/24/the-spider-network-a-novelistic-account-of-the-mediocre-rich-men-who-robbed-the-world-with-libor/

In taking on the libel-industrial complex – a network of shadowy, thin-skinned, wealthy litigation funders; crank academics; buck-chasing lawyer lickspittle sociopaths; and the most corrupt Supreme Court justice on the bench today – Enrich is wading into dangerous territory. After all, he's reporting on people who've made it their life's mission to financially destroy anyone who has the temerity to report on their misdeeds.

As such, Enrich's writing is extremely cautious, sometimes comically so, but always intentionally, in a way that highlights the absurd chilling effect his subjects are attempting to induce in all of us.

The book primarily concerns itself with the effort to overturn Sullivan, a 1964 Supreme Court case that established protections for media outlets that report on public figures and commit minor factual errors, provided that the errors were neither negligent nor malicious.

Since Sullivan, media outlets have held the upper hand when reporting on public figures. While Sullivan isn't a license to simply make stuff up about celebrities, politicians and business leaders, it does mean that if a reporter makes a minor misstatement, it's on the subject of the reporting to prove that the error was negligent and/or malicious.

Before Sullivan, most defamation litigation happened in state courts, and southern courts allowed lawmakers and cops to sue newspapers that reported on racial terror campaigns during the civil rights fight. The judgments involved were so large that many media outlets simply gave up on reporting on the intimidation, violence and murder taking place in the Jim Crow south.

True to form, Clarence Thomas has led the charge to dismantle a law that was key to the struggle for rights for Black people and other disfavored minorities. In Enrich's telling, Thomas's animus for Sullivan started during his confirmation hearings, when Anita Hill described his relentless sexual harassment of the lawyers who worked for him, including Hill. Being the subject of a media firestorm that painted him as a disgusting, cruel sex-pest seems to have inspired Thomas in a decades-long campaign to find a case that would let him tear down Sullivan, so that wealthy people could once again intimidate reporters into silence. Of course, Thomas's hatred for Sullivan only grew when Propublica revealed that he had taken numerous "gifts" from wealthy "friends" who had business before the courts, revelations that will forever make Thomas's name a synonym for corruption.

Enrich's cast of characters includes a clutch of whiny, ultra-rich axe-grinders, who finance (often in secret) lawsuits that are designed to chip away at Sullivan. Some are international looters or corrupt ex-Soviet oligarchs, but others are ideologues, committed to the principle of impunity for the powerful.

He also introduces us to the lawyers who wage these battles. As you might imagine, the kind of lawyer who sits up at night figuring out how to help wealthy, powerful people destroy their critics is often a crank themselves, with "colorful" personal relations that Enrich reports on with meticulous prose, including the many denials and non-denials his subjects sent when he sought comment.

As with his LIBOR book, Enrich does yeoman duty here unpacking complex matters that would be dull in a lesser writer's hands. The litigation strategies devised by Sullivan's enemies are always convoluted and are sometimes clever, much like the litigation strategies used to kill campaign finance limits (Citizens United) and abortion rights (Dobbs). Indeed, many of the financiers, think-tanks and lawyers behind those plots are also would-be Sullivan slayers.

The best of these legal gambits are actually rather clever – locating innocent people who've been genuinely wronged by Sullivan (as the saying goes, "hard cases make bad law") and then using them to undermine Sullivan, without actually helping them in any way. It's positively fiendish.

We're in a moment when a lot of powerful people are getting far more powerful, and abusing that power to commit wildly corrupt acts. The only way we'll know about this is if the press can freely report on their misdeeds. Murder the Truth is a vital guide to the next Citizens United, the next Dobbs – a campaign to take away your right to know about the next assault on your rights that plutocrats will launch.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://www.harpercollins.com/products/murder-the-truth-david-enrich

[queersatanic]

The Satanic Temple loses SLAPP libel case against Newsweek

The Satanic Temple is very bad at court cases.

A federal district court judge in New York today sided with the online magazine Newsweek against The Satanic Temple, a tax-exempt church, finding there was no basis by the nontheistic religious organization to continue the defamation case against the publisher.

This should be the end of a case that started either three or five years ago, depending on what you want to start counting by.

The Satanic Temple sued the Newsweek and its reporter Julia Duin in February 2022 in retaliation for Duin writing and Newsweek publishing a critical article about TST in October 2021; that article centered on TST suing four former Washington State members in April 2020. That is, us. The Temple repeatedly lost their lawsuits against us over the next four-plus, the final one ending in October 2024.

More here:

Also, it's not official yet, but "Satanic Temple’s Idaho Abortion Ban Appeal Looks Likely to Fail"

Title comes from this Bloomberg writeup that probably is paywalled, but is pretty negative:

A panel of Ninth Circuit judges on Wednesday appeared unlikely to give the Satanic Temple another shot at suing Idaho over measures that bar it from providing abortion care to members in the state. Questions of the group’s standing to sue—personal, associational, organizational, or otherwise—dominated the oral arguments, with Judge M. Margaret McKeown asking attorneys for both sides to clarify how the Satanic Temple can proceed when it hasn’t named any member who lives in Idaho, is pregnant, and wants to end the pregnancy. It can’t, state’s attorney Alan Hurst told the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. But W. James Mac Naughton, a private practitioner in Newton, N.J., representing the Satanic Temple, said there’s a “statistical probability” that such a person exists. In his analysis, at least three people in Idaho currently are being harmed by laws that prevent the Satanic Temple from setting up a clinic or mailing abortion-inducing pills into the state, he said. Without a name, however, there’s no way to show the Satanic Temple’s claimed harm is anything more that pure speculation, Hurst said. Judge John B. Owens didn’t have any substantive questions for the attorneys, while Judge Ronald M. Gould stayed silent.

It goes on about some more of the background, but you can also just see all of their cases on The.Satanic.Wiki.

This Courthouse news article should be fully accessible and also characterizes it similarly:

“This case is about coerced motherhood and money,” James Mac Naughton, an attorney representing the Satanic Temple, told the court. But before Mac Naughton got too far into his argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Mary McKeown questioned him about the Temple’s standing. “Maybe you can explain to me what have you alleged that give you the predicates of associational standing?” Bill Clinton appointee asked.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ken White for The UnPopulist:

In modern America, defamation cases—like war—are the continuation of politics by other means. The politics in question can be anything from ludicrously petty to historically consequential. Americans use defamation claims to fight everything from social media spats to rap beefs. Increasingly, America’s rich and powerful—especially President Donald Trump—use them to attack political opponents and to litigate political disputes over who won national elections. Notice that I didn’t say we use defamation claims to resolve those disputes. Most defamation claims ultimately fail, and almost none of them reach trial. But winning often isn’t the point. The point is inflicting ruinous expense and suffering on the defendants and soliciting attention, support, and sometimes fundraising for the plaintiffs. It works. That’s why you see rich and powerful people increasingly abusing defamation lawsuits—sometimes dressed up unconvincingly as fraud lawsuits—to harass political enemies. This is a grave threat to free speech and the people who do it—like Donald Trump and Elon Musk—are ascendant. Trump, who has long favored bogus litigation as a weapon against his enemies, has been on a censorial bender. In the last year alone he: sued a pollster for bad poll results; CBS for supposedly editing a Kamala Harris interview to make her look better; and ABC and George Stephanopoulos for bungling a description of E. Jean Carroll’s sexual abuse verdict against him. Musk, meanwhile, has sued both Media Matters and the Center for Countering Digital Hate for reporting about hate speech on X.

The Justice System Is Broken

Political litigation works because the justice system is broken. It’s cheap and easy to file a defamation complaint, even a big splashy one. I could draft one in 20 minutes and file it in state or federal court for less than a thousand bucks. But it’s ruinously expensive to defend a case, even if the claim is bogus. It costs a minimum of tens of thousands and up to hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend a civil suit in America. When Donald Trump was awarded more than $300,000 in attorney fees for defeating Stormy Daniels’ defamation case at an early stage, litigators weren’t surprised. The vast majority of Americans cannot possibly afford to defend themselves if someone sues them for their speech, even if that speech is clearly protected by the First Amendment. This is bad for everyone, not just the folks who get sued. When a lawyer sends you a threatening letter demanding that you take down a Facebook post or retract a letter to the editor or apologize for a comment, giving in may be the only economically rational choice, freedom of expression be damned. It’s cold comfort to know that your free speech rights would be vindicated at trial if it will bankrupt you to get to that stage. Moreover, penury isn’t the only threat. Whether you win a defamation suit or lose, you’ll suffer the whole time. Litigation is humiliating, terrifying, and will destroy your health, your relationships, and your joy in life. I’ve never had a client enjoy litigation. They’re always grateful for it to be over.

[...]

State Anti-SLAPP Statutes Aren’t Enough

Numerous states have followed California’s example and enacted anti-SLAPP statutes. Ohio just passed one this month. Unfortunately, their quality is inconsistent; some states’ statutes protect only a very narrow range of speech or lack the procedural protections that make statutes effective. There’s also a bigger problem: state anti-SLAPP statutes don’t apply to federal claims. Even worse, the different Circuits of the United States Court of Appeals disagree for arcane reasons about whether state anti-SLAPP statutes apply to state claims heard in federal court. Drake sued UMG in federal court in New York, which has a robust anti-SLAPP statute, but UMG won’t get its benefit because federal courts in the Second Circuit don’t apply state anti-SLAPP statutes. The same goes for Texas, within the Fifth Circuit, a popular defamation tourist destination—Trump sued CBS and Musk sued Media Matters there, thwarting defendants’ ability to use state anti-SLAPP laws.

Fortunately, there’s a solution: a federal anti-SLAPP statute that would apply in federal courts across the nation to both federal and state claims heard in federal court. This is the most effective way of thwarting forum-shopping litigants who rush to Texas to suppress speech. It would mean that performative, retaliatory lawsuits like those filed by Trump and Musk would be halted in their tracks and, if meritless, dismissed. The defendants could recover fees and feel justifiably more secure in their speech rights. Plaintiffs without deep pockets would be deterred from filing bogus cases in the first place. Anti-SLAPP statutes have already proven effective in thwarting the powerful—consider Elon Musk’s humiliating loss against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, or Sheldon Adelson’s loss to the National Jewish Democratic Council. In both cases, the defendants prevailed through an anti-SLAPP statute.

Congress has repeatedly considered federal anti-SLAPP statutes, but they’ve never passed one. In December 2024 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle proposed a new one. It has strong and diverse backing. It ought to pass on its merits. After all, both parties pay lip service to free speech and purport to oppose frivolous lawsuits, and there are plenty of nonpartisan stories of financially ruinous and frivolous litigation. This can be spun in a way that appeals to everyone.

Yet the proponents face a grim political reality. Donald Trump has a compliant Republican Congress that is sensitive to his extreme tenderness to offense. Even if backers don’t spin the bill as a rebuke to Trump’s habit of bad-faith litigation, Republicans may perceive the bill as such. Trump himself has a long history of wanting to make it easier, not harder, to sue for defamation, repeatedly saying that he wants to “open up” libel laws to allow aggrieved plaintiffs to “sue them and win money.” The bill’s sponsors need to find a way to frame this fight so that it flatters his ego, or he’ll veto it out of pique.

But nobody promised fighting for free speech would be easy. Anti-SLAPP statutes are so stunningly effective that it’s worth our time to agitate for this one, even under these grim circumstances. The Public Participation Project will continue to promote anti-SLAPP bills in Congress law and provide information about supporting such bills, so follow them. Nobody likes a bully. Bullies like SLAPP suits. Regrettably, America is overrun by bullies—and some of them, like Donald Trump and Elon Musk, have absolutely no scruple about abusing the legal system to punish their political enemies. Support state and federal anti-SLAPP statutes to help stick a thumb in the bullies’ eyes.

Anti-SLAPP laws with real teeth are needed, because malcontents like Elon Musk and MAGA acolytes are using it to silence dissenters against their wicked and Satanic agenda.

[elladastinkardiamou]

This week's newsletter from AthensLive is out:   Excluded from elections: Most parties to ND’s political right

* It’s official: Greece is worse by far as media freedom than Orban’s Hungary  * Who wants the media to be free? Especially during elections  *“Heavy shadows above the ballot box”

- are the main headlines to be found inside this highly informative weekly must-read from and about Greece. Greece ranked 107th in the Reporters Without Borders annual index. With its score deteriorating, the country gained one place mainly due to Chad’s free fall. The government called RSF ‘unreliable.’ Then, the national news agency buried the news. Two of the six journalists moderating the political election debate among party leaders are connected with kinship to ruling ND officials. Debate strict rules were set by an ‘inter-party committee’, with journalists not even allowed a free question. The government’s latest gift to mainstream TV channels was some 9 million euros because… of the Ukraine war. Fourteen out of 50 parties who filed an application to run for elections were either banned from the Top Court or excluded because their application didn’t go through the Singular Logic electronic system, which manages the procedure. Most of them stand politically to the ND right. Also, this is the first time the elections procedure is managed by Singular Logic after the company had been bought by a decades-old friend of the Mitsotakis family, reports note. 

It cannot be recommended strongly enough to read and share this week's updates on the events and developments in Greece here:

https://steadyhq.com/en/athenslivegr/posts/11f18c09-b7fc-44b2-ac1f-7791ac0e1e81

For anyone with a wish or need to follow and to gain an insight into recent events in Greece and to read and support independent and investigative journalism in English, the weekly newsletter from AthensLive should be a core element in the reading flow.

If you want the best overview of the events and developments in Greece right now, this is the place to go. Not the mainstream Greek news, but independent journalism with sharp analysis and links to interesting and important topics from a variety of sources.

Become a member and get the newsletter in your inbox every week here:

http://bit.ly/2GkVuYt

[jt1674]

[socialjusticefail]

This article is talking about all of the things that shows Musk is not a free speech absolutist.

[mcelroyfamilystaff]

If you missed today's Clubhouse, we premiered the return of a classic.