TWITTER IS NOT HERE FOR HATE SPEECH
Much controversy has arisen as of late over Twitter’s little blue checkmark, and exact who and more particularly, who does not receive this illustrious mark of approval from the social media tycoon.
Twitter has not been abundantly clear on exactly how they determine that a user has earned the mark of verifiability, but it is generally recognized as a means of protecting the identities of famous individuals, as to prevent imposters from creating accounts in their name.
Unsurprisingly, when Twitter recently awarded the mark of verification to far-right organizers Jason Kessler, the main coordinator behind the alt-right Charlottesville march and Richard Spencer, infamous ringleader of the far-right movement and creator of Altright.com, users were up in arms. Many felt that through verification, Twitter was placing an insignia of support on the identities of certain controversial individuals. Twitter has subsequently removed verification from several alt- right users such as the above mentioned activists, as well as far-right organizers Laura Loomer, James Allsup, and Tommy Robinson. The company has also removed the account of notorious white-supremacist Twitter user Tim Gionet, better known by his alias “Baked Alaska.”
The removal of verification from, and termination of these users’ accounts came after a recent change Twitter made to it’s user guidelines. These guidelines now state that the company may remove verification on a number of grounds, including “directly attacking or threatening people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or diseases.” Although it seems clear that accounts of individuals endorsing the alt-right ideology, which promotes the propagation of white supremacy and the “ethnic cleaning” of America violate these guidelines, many prominent conservatives are taking Twitter’s actions as an attack on free speech, and fear that less radical, right wing activists may be next.
However, as a private company, Twitter has no obligation to observe free speech protections of its users. In the wake of these events, many conservative users have left Twitter, and migrated to Twitter’s less restrictive competitor, Gab. We can’t say we’re sad to see them go.
Sources:
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/360806-twitter-crackdown-sparks-free-speech-concerns
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/11/15/twitter-updates-terms-of-service-as-conservative-figures-are-purged-from-platform/
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42010139
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/16/twitter-removes-verified-blue-badge-from-far-right-accounts.html
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/15/technology/twitter-verification-remove-new-policy/index.html
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/twitter-verification-crackdown-far-right
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/11/15/twitter-unverifies-prominent-white-nationalists-saying-check-marks-were-not-meant-as-endorsements/?utm_term=.b6b9e332b33c
https://www.fastcompany.com/3065777/inside-gab-the-new-twitter-alternative-championed-by-the-alt-right
Twitter has not been abundantly clear on exactly how they determine that a user has earned the mark of verifiability, but it is generally recognized as a means of protecting the identities of famous individuals, as to prevent imposters from creating accounts in their name.
Unsurprisingly, when Twitter recently awarded the mark of verification to far-right organizers Jason Kessler, the main coordinator behind the alt-right Charlottesville march and Richard Spencer, infamous ringleader of the far-right movement and creator of Altright.com, users were up in arms. Many felt that through verification, Twitter was placing an insignia of support on the identities of certain controversial individuals. Twitter has subsequently removed verification from several alt- right users such as the above mentioned activists, as well as far-right organizers Laura Loomer, James Allsup, and Tommy Robinson. The company has also removed the account of notorious white-supremacist Twitter user Tim Gionet, better known by his alias “Baked Alaska.”
The removal of verification from, and termination of these users’ accounts came after a recent change Twitter made to it’s user guidelines. These guidelines now state that the company may remove verification on a number of grounds, including “directly attacking or threatening people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or diseases.” Although it seems clear that accounts of individuals endorsing the alt-right ideology, which promotes the propagation of white supremacy and the “ethnic cleaning” of America violate these guidelines, many prominent conservatives are taking Twitter’s actions as an attack on free speech, and fear that less radical, right wing activists may be next.
However, as a private company, Twitter has no obligation to observe free speech protections of its users. In the wake of these events, many conservative users have left Twitter, and migrated to Twitter’s less restrictive competitor, Gab. We can’t say we’re sad to see them go.
Sources:
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/360806-twitter-crackdown-sparks-free-speech-concerns
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/11/15/twitter-updates-terms-of-service-as-conservative-figures-are-purged-from-platform/
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42010139
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/16/twitter-removes-verified-blue-badge-from-far-right-accounts.html
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/15/technology/twitter-verification-remove-new-policy/index.html
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/twitter-verification-crackdown-far-right
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/11/15/twitter-unverifies-prominent-white-nationalists-saying-check-marks-were-not-meant-as-endorsements/?utm_term=.b6b9e332b33c
https://www.fastcompany.com/3065777/inside-gab-the-new-twitter-alternative-championed-by-the-alt-right
TO ALL THE #METOOS - THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW
Despite the existence of laws specifically designed to provide a cause of action for employees who make complaints about work practices that they reasonably believe are discriminatory and/or sexually harassing, the majority of employees will not complain. Most will not report discrimination or harassment to management and, if at all possible, will avoid voluntarily testifying to any wrongdoing by their employer.
A number of women have recently come forward with complaints of sexual harassment against those with the power to affect their careers. Countless others are attesting to having experienced the same through social media’s #MeToo on Twitter. In some instances, these women are bringing allegations of sexual assault and abuse that took place several decades ago. Why is this happening?
Some no longer care what their employers think, including those who have retired or moved on to other ventures where they can now speak out fearlessly from a place of emotional confidence and economic security. But this does not explain why their public emergence at this time has significance or is even relevant to the initial claims they made. For many who are coming forward now, the statute of limitations for bringing legal action on their claims has long since passed so they lack a chance at justice for themselves. More important is whether the “#MeToo” campaign can help prove sexual harassment for those whose claims have been timely brought. The simple answer is, it depends on the judge assigned to one’s case and the jurisdiction in which your case is filed, but it likely can be used in some way.
Merely pointing to others who allege past sexual harassment against your employer is not sufficient to prove your own allegations, but the existence of these other women and the descriptions of harassment they provide is relevant to demonstrating a general attitude of disrespect towards women that your employer allows to exist, as well as to giving examples of a specific actor’s sexual objectification of women. That attitude in the workplace is relevant to the question of motive for the employer’s discriminating against you. This is especially true where your employer has retaliated against you for complaining about sexual harassment but denies having taken such action.
There is a chance that the judge could exclude evidence of others’ being harassed because it is more prejudicial than probative but, if allowed, it is powerful evidence that would be difficult for the employer to overcome.
A number of women have recently come forward with complaints of sexual harassment against those with the power to affect their careers. Countless others are attesting to having experienced the same through social media’s #MeToo on Twitter. In some instances, these women are bringing allegations of sexual assault and abuse that took place several decades ago. Why is this happening?
Some no longer care what their employers think, including those who have retired or moved on to other ventures where they can now speak out fearlessly from a place of emotional confidence and economic security. But this does not explain why their public emergence at this time has significance or is even relevant to the initial claims they made. For many who are coming forward now, the statute of limitations for bringing legal action on their claims has long since passed so they lack a chance at justice for themselves. More important is whether the “#MeToo” campaign can help prove sexual harassment for those whose claims have been timely brought. The simple answer is, it depends on the judge assigned to one’s case and the jurisdiction in which your case is filed, but it likely can be used in some way.
Merely pointing to others who allege past sexual harassment against your employer is not sufficient to prove your own allegations, but the existence of these other women and the descriptions of harassment they provide is relevant to demonstrating a general attitude of disrespect towards women that your employer allows to exist, as well as to giving examples of a specific actor’s sexual objectification of women. That attitude in the workplace is relevant to the question of motive for the employer’s discriminating against you. This is especially true where your employer has retaliated against you for complaining about sexual harassment but denies having taken such action.
There is a chance that the judge could exclude evidence of others’ being harassed because it is more prejudicial than probative but, if allowed, it is powerful evidence that would be difficult for the employer to overcome.
Temporary Restraining Orders: Victim Advocacy Coupled with Constitutional Compromise
In response to instances of horrific partner abuse, particularly domestic abuse inflicted against women, many states enacted social policy and legislation beginning in the 1970s focused on protecting women against abusive partners, and expanding legal resources to punish perpetrators. Before the enactment of these legal protections, women suffering domestic violence had virtually no avenues to seek legal redress. In fact, until the legal reforms of the late 1970s, a woman was not able to obtain a restraining order against a violent husband unless she was willing to undergo the arduous process of filing for divorce at the same time.[1] This legislation symbolized a monumental societal shift in the nature of responses to domestic violence. For many years, resolutions to instances of domestic abuse excluded legal intervention, and focused instead on alternative solutions such as family crisis intervention, or counseling for perpetrators with substance abuse issues.[2]
By 1980, forty-seven states, including Washington State had passed domestic violence legislation mandating drastic changes for protection orders, enabling warrantless arrests for misdemeanor assaults.[3] These legislative changes facilitated the ability of a victim of domestic violence to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order, or (TRO), which enables the abuser to be promptly ejected from the household, and often restricts the abuser from interacting with, or even seeing one’s children. Certainly the enactment of protective legislation for victims of domestic violence represents a quintessential step in the right direction for American social policy. Unfortunately, this progress comes with a constitutional price.
Although Temporary Restraining Orders are only effective for a short period of time, 14 days, courts routinely extend them indefinitely with little or no evidence of abuse. The consequence of this trend, is that fathers are being routinely deprived of their parental rights without any procedural safeguards. The law does not provide automatic rights to unmarried fathers regarding their children. These rights often must be established by written agreements through the courts,[4] where as an unmarried mother has automatic custody over her child, regardless of her fitness as a parent.[5]
The reality of a lack of procedural safeguards affording due process to fathers through the issuance of TROs has a detrimental effect on the children caught in the midst of domestic disputes.[6] In association with acceleration of child-custody litigation in the past decade, thousands of children are alienated from their fathers, whose “unfitness” to be involved in the child’s life is often determined solely on the word of the mother. Promoting the constitutional protections of fathers through a more streamlined and structured legal process for granting Temporary Restraining Orders would not in any way let culpable perpetrators of domestic abuse off scot-free, but would rather aid in obtaining justice for loving fathers who desperately wish to be involved in their child’s life.
[1] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (January 1982). Under the Rule of Thumb, Battered Women and the
Administration of Justice. Washington, DC.
[2] Bard, Morton, and Joseph Zacker (1971). "The Prevention of Family Violence: Dilemmas of
Community Interaction." Journal of Marriage and the Family 33:677-682.
[3] Gardner, Richard, “Denial of the Parental Alienation Syndrome Also Harms Women.” The American Journal of Family Therapy, vol. 30, 2002, pp. 191–202.
[4] Cull, L. (2001).Parental responsibility. In P .Foley ,J. Roche, & S. Tucker (Eds.),Children in society: Contemporary theory, policy and practice (pp. 133-141). New York: Palgrave.).
[5] Craig, T.L.(1998).Establishing the biological rights doctrine to protect unwed fathers in contested adoptions. Florida State University Law Review, 25, 391-438.
[6] Gardner, Richard, “Denial of the Parental Alienation Syndrome Also Harms Women.” The American Journal of Family Therapy, vol. 30, 2002, pp. 191–202.
By 1980, forty-seven states, including Washington State had passed domestic violence legislation mandating drastic changes for protection orders, enabling warrantless arrests for misdemeanor assaults.[3] These legislative changes facilitated the ability of a victim of domestic violence to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order, or (TRO), which enables the abuser to be promptly ejected from the household, and often restricts the abuser from interacting with, or even seeing one’s children. Certainly the enactment of protective legislation for victims of domestic violence represents a quintessential step in the right direction for American social policy. Unfortunately, this progress comes with a constitutional price.
Although Temporary Restraining Orders are only effective for a short period of time, 14 days, courts routinely extend them indefinitely with little or no evidence of abuse. The consequence of this trend, is that fathers are being routinely deprived of their parental rights without any procedural safeguards. The law does not provide automatic rights to unmarried fathers regarding their children. These rights often must be established by written agreements through the courts,[4] where as an unmarried mother has automatic custody over her child, regardless of her fitness as a parent.[5]
The reality of a lack of procedural safeguards affording due process to fathers through the issuance of TROs has a detrimental effect on the children caught in the midst of domestic disputes.[6] In association with acceleration of child-custody litigation in the past decade, thousands of children are alienated from their fathers, whose “unfitness” to be involved in the child’s life is often determined solely on the word of the mother. Promoting the constitutional protections of fathers through a more streamlined and structured legal process for granting Temporary Restraining Orders would not in any way let culpable perpetrators of domestic abuse off scot-free, but would rather aid in obtaining justice for loving fathers who desperately wish to be involved in their child’s life.
[1] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (January 1982). Under the Rule of Thumb, Battered Women and the
Administration of Justice. Washington, DC.
[2] Bard, Morton, and Joseph Zacker (1971). "The Prevention of Family Violence: Dilemmas of
Community Interaction." Journal of Marriage and the Family 33:677-682.
[3] Gardner, Richard, “Denial of the Parental Alienation Syndrome Also Harms Women.” The American Journal of Family Therapy, vol. 30, 2002, pp. 191–202.
[4] Cull, L. (2001).Parental responsibility. In P .Foley ,J. Roche, & S. Tucker (Eds.),Children in society: Contemporary theory, policy and practice (pp. 133-141). New York: Palgrave.).
[5] Craig, T.L.(1998).Establishing the biological rights doctrine to protect unwed fathers in contested adoptions. Florida State University Law Review, 25, 391-438.
[6] Gardner, Richard, “Denial of the Parental Alienation Syndrome Also Harms Women.” The American Journal of Family Therapy, vol. 30, 2002, pp. 191–202.
