#first amendment rights | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

odinsblog · 1 year

Text

IN THE FALL OF 2020, GIG WORKERS IN VENEZUELA POSTED A SERIES OF images to online forums where they gathered to talk shop. The photos were mundane, if sometimes intimate, household scenes captured from low angles—including some you really wouldn’t want shared on the Internet.

In one particularly revealing shot, a young woman in a lavender T-shirt sits on the toilet, her shorts pulled down to mid-thigh.

The images were not taken by a person, but by development versions of iRobot’s Roomba J7 series robot vacuum. They were then sent to Scale AI, a startup that contracts workers around the world to label audio, photo, and video data used to train artificial intelligence.

They were the sorts of scenes that internet-connected devices regularly capture and send back to the cloud—though usually with stricter storage and access controls. Yet earlier this year, MIT Technology Review obtained 15 screenshots of these private photos, which had been posted to closed social media groups.

The photos vary in type and in sensitivity. The most intimate image we saw was the series of video stills featuring the young woman on the toilet, her face blocked in the lead image but unobscured in the grainy scroll of shots below. In another image, a boy who appears to be eight or nine years old, and whose face is clearly visible, is sprawled on his stomach across a hallway floor. A triangular flop of hair spills across his forehead as he stares, with apparent amusement, at the object recording him from just below eye level.

iRobot—the world’s largest vendor of robotic vacuums, which Amazon recently acquired for $1.7 billion in a pending deal—confirmed that these images were captured by its Roombas in 2020.

Ultimately, though, this set of images represents something bigger than any one individual company’s actions. They speak to the widespread, and growing, practice of sharing potentially sensitive data to train algorithms, as well as the surprising, globe-spanning journey that a single image can take—in this case, from homes in North America, Europe, and Asia to the servers of Massachusetts-based iRobot, from there to San Francisco–based Scale AI, and finally to Scale’s contracted data workers around the world (including, in this instance, Venezuelan gig workers who posted the images to private groups on Facebook, Discord, and elsewhere).

Together, the images reveal a whole data supply chain—and new points where personal information could leak out—that few consumers are even aware of.

(continue reading)

5K notes · View notes

decolonize-the-left · 6 months

Text

"When the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to block the injunction, it argued that its attempts to influence content moderation were persuasion, not coercion. Government officials were "urging platforms to remove COVID-19 misinformation, highlighting the risk of disinformation from foreign actors, and responding to the platforms' inquiries about matters of public health," the Biden administration said.

[...]"Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today's decision is highly disturbing," Alito's dissent said. A stay requires the government to show that there is "a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay," Alito wrote, arguing that the Biden administration did not clear that bar.

"Instead of providing any concrete proof that 'harm is imminent,' the Government offers a series of hypothetical statements that a covered official might want to make in the future and that, it thinks, might be chilled. But hypotheticals are just that—speculation that the Government 'may suffer irreparable harm at some point in the future,' not concrete proof," Alito wrote.

TLDR:

Biden just gave sites like Facebook and TikTok an order to police their content for "misinformation."

....with him supporting Israel and the globe internationally supporting Palestine online I wonder why he chose to do that.

Keep organizing.

And if you see a drop in content over the next few days just know its state sponsored censorship by a war criminal in blue.

#usa #current events #first amendment rights

82 notes · View notes

contemplatingoutlander · 1 year

Link

Excellent article by Mike McIntire about how (thanks to the conservative SCOTUS willful misinterpretation of the Second Amendment in the Heller and Bruen decisions) “armed speech” can now intimidate and silence “unarmed speech” in the U.S.

IMHO any nation that puts “armed speech” above “unarmed speech” no longer truly values the most important foundations of any democracy--the free and open exchange of ideas and the right to protest peacefully without fear of armed retaliation.

The link above is a “gift link” so readers should have access to the entire article even if they don’t subscribe to the Times. In case the link doesn’t work (or you just want to read highlights) below are some excerpts and selected photos from the article:

Across the country, openly carrying a gun in public is no longer just an exercise in self-defense — increasingly it is a soapbox for elevating one’s voice and, just as often, quieting someone else’s. [...] A New York Times analysis of more than 700 armed demonstrations found that, at about 77 percent of them, people openly carrying guns represented right-wing views, such as opposition to L.G.B.T.Q. rights and abortion access, hostility to racial justice rallies and support for former President Donald J. Trump’s lie of winning the 2020 election. [...] Anti-government militias and right-wing culture warriors like the Proud Boys attended a majority of the protests, the data showed. Violence broke out at more than 100 events and often involved fisticuffs with opposing groups, including left-wing activists such as antifa.

Republican politicians are generally more tolerant of openly armed supporters than are Democrats, who are more likely to be on the opposing side of people with guns, the records suggest. In July, for example, men wearing sidearms confronted Beto O’Rourke, then the Democratic candidate for Texas governor, at a campaign stop in Whitesboro and warned that he was “not welcome in this town.” [...] The occasional appearance of armed civilians at demonstrations or governmental functions is not new....But the frequency of these incidents exploded in 2020, with conservative pushback against public health measures to fight the coronavirus and response to the sometimes violent rallies after the murder of George Floyd. Today, in some parts of the country with permissive gun laws, it is not unusual to see people with handguns or military-style rifles at all types of protests.

For instance, at least 14 such incidents have occurred in and around Dallas and Phoenix since May....In New York and Washington, where gun laws are strict, there were none — even though numerous demonstrations took place during that same period.

Many conservatives and gun-rights advocates envision virtually no limits. When Democrats in Colorado and Washington State passed laws this year prohibiting firearms at polling places and government meetings, Republicans voted against them. Indeed, those bills were the exception.

[emphasis added]

[See more below the cut.]

[...] Beyond self-defense, Mr. Stein [a spokesperson for Gun Owners of America] said the freedom of speech and the right to have a gun are “bedrock principles” and that “Americans should be able to bear arms while exercising their First Amendment rights, whether that’s going to church or a peaceful assembly.”

Others argue that openly carrying firearms at public gatherings, particularly when there is no obvious self-defense reason, can have a corrosive effect, leading to curtailed activities, suppressed opinions or public servants who quit out of fear and frustration.

Concerned about armed protesters, local election officials in Arizona, Colorado and Oregon have requested bulletproofing for their offices.

Armed Speech

[...] The Times’s analysis found that the largest drivers of armed demonstrations have shifted since 2020. This year, protesters with guns are more likely to be motivated by abortion or L.G.B.T.Q. issues. [...] More than half of all armed protests occurred in 10 states with expansive open-carry laws: Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington. Three of them — Michigan, Oregon and Texas — allowed armed protesters to gather outside capitol buildings ahead of President Biden’s inauguration, and in Michigan, militia members carrying assault rifles were permitted inside the capitol during protests against Covid lockdowns.

Beyond the mass gatherings, there are everyday episodes of armed intimidation. Kimber Glidden had been director of the Boundary County Library in Northern Idaho for a couple of months when some parents began raising questions in February about books they believed were inappropriate for children.

It did not matter that the library did not have most of those books — largely dealing with gender, sexuality and race — or that those it did have were not in the children’s section. The issue became a cause célèbre for conservative activists, some of whom began showing up with guns to increasingly tense public meetings, Ms. Glidden said.

“How do you stand there and tell me you want to protect children when you’re in the children’s section of the library and you’re armed?” she asked.

In August, she resigned, decrying the “intimidation tactics and threatening behavior.”

A Growing Militancy

At a Second Amendment rally in June 2021 outside the statehouse in Harrisburg, Pa., where some people were armed, Republican speakers repeatedly connected the right to carry a gun to other social and cultural issues. Representative Scott Perry voiced a frequent conservative complaint about censorship, saying the First Amendment was “under assault.”

“And you know very well what protects the First,” he said. “Which is what we’re doing here today.”

Stephanie Borowicz, a state legislator, was more blunt, boasting to the crowd that “tyrannical governors” had been forced to ease coronavirus restrictions because “as long as we’re an armed population, the government fears us.” [...] Across the country, there is evidence of increasing Republican involvement in militias. A membership list for the Oath Keepers, made public last year, includes 81 elected officials or candidates, according to a report by the Anti-Defamation League. Most of them appear to be Republicans. [...] More than 25 members of the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters have been charged in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Those organizations, along with the Proud Boys and Boogaloo Boys, make up the bulk of organized groups in the armed-protest data, according to The Times’s analysis.

Shootings were rare....But Mr. Jones said the data, which also tracked unarmed demonstrations, showed that while armed protests accounted for less than 2 percent of the total, they were responsible for 10 percent of those where violence occurred, most often involving fights between rival groups.

“Armed groups or individuals might say they have no intention of intimidating anyone and are only participating in demonstrations to keep the peace,” said Mr. Jones, “but the evidence doesn’t back up the claim.”

Competing Rights

In a landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment conveyed a basic right to bear arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense at home. It went further in a decision this June that struck down New York restrictions on concealed-pistol permits, effectively finding a right to carry firearms in public.

But the court in Heller also made clear that gun rights were not unlimited, and that its ruling did not invalidate laws prohibiting “the carrying of firearms in sensitive places.” That caveat was reiterated in a concurring opinion in the New York case.

Even some hard-line gun rights advocates are uncomfortable with armed people at public protests...But groups that embrace Second Amendment absolutism do not hesitate to criticize fellow advocates who stray from that orthodoxy. [...] Regardless of whether there is a right to go armed in public for self-defense, early laws and court decisions made clear that the Constitution did not empower people, such as modern-day militia members, to gather with guns as a form of protest, said Michael C. Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell University who has written about the tension between the rights to free speech and guns.

Mr. Dorf pointed to an 18th-century Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that a group of protesters with firearms had no right to rally in public against a government tax. Some states also adopted an old English law prohibiting “going armed to the terror of the people,” still on the books in some places, aimed at preventing the use of weapons to threaten or intimidate.

“Historically,” said Mr. Dorf, “there were such limits on armed gatherings, even assuming that there’s some right to be armed as individuals.”

More broadly, there is no evidence that the framers of the Constitution intended for Americans to take up arms during civic debate among themselves — or to intimidate those with differing opinions. That is what happened at the Memphis museum in September, when people with guns showed up to protest a scheduled dance party that capped a summer-long series on the history of the L.G.B.T.Q. community in the South.

While the party was billed as “family friendly,” conservatives on local talk radio claimed that children would be at risk (the museum said the planned activities were acceptable for all ages). As armed men wearing masks milled about outside, the panicked staff canceled all programs and evacuated the premises.

Mr. Thompson, the director, said he and his board were now grappling with the laws on carrying firearms, which were loosened last year by state legislators.

“It’s a different time,” he said, “and it’s something we have to learn to navigate.”

[emphasis added]

_______________________

NOTE: Photos 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were slightly modified from their original sources. All photo caption formatting was changed from the original sources. Photos 2 and 7 were moved to be closer to the stories about them than in the original article.

#second amendment (us constitution)#first amendment rights #us gun culture #armed speech limits unarmed speech in the public square #mike mcintire #allie pitchon #at protests guns are doing the talking #the new york times #us politics #my edits

133 notes · View notes

todaysdocument · 2 years

Photo

Complaint in Barnette v. West Virginia Board of Ed (selected pages), 8/19/1942.

The plaintiffs objected to students’ being required to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to compel students to do either.

File Unit: Barnette et al. versus West Virginia State Board of Education, Civil #242, 8/19/1942 - 12/4/1942

Series: Civil Case Files, 1938 - 2003

Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United States, 1685 - 2009

Transcription:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

Charleston Division

WALTER BARNETTE,

PAUL STULL, and

LUCY McCLURE,

Plaintiffs,

THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, composed of HONORABLE W. W. TRENT, President, MARY H. DAVISSON, THELMA B. LOUDIN, RAYMOND BREWSTER, LYDIA C. HERN, W. R. VINEYARD, and MRS. DOUGLAS W. BROWN, and all other boards, officials, teachers and persons subject to the jurisdiction and control of STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendants.

[handwritten] No. 242 [end handwritten]

COMPLAINT

To SAID HONORABLE COURT:

Now come the above named plaintiffs and complain of the above named defendants, and for a cause of action would show:

1. JURISDICTION is based upon existence of a "federal question" irrespective of the amount of money involved, in that this [handwritten open parenthesis] action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and involves purely and solely "civil rights" under and by virtue of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and Section 24 (14) of the Judicial Code [28 U.S.C. 41 (14)], [handwritten close parenthesis] because this is an action brought to redress the deprivation of "civil rights" by persons acting under color of statutes and regulations of a state. The Court also has jurisdiction by virtue of Section 24 (1) of the Judicial Code [28 U.S.C. 41 (1)], in that the cause of action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and that as to each person for whom this action is brought the matter in contro-

[page 2]

flag means, in effect, to participate in a religious "rite" or ceremony and that the one saluting the flag ascribes salvation and protection to the thing or power which the flag stands for and represents, and that since the flag and the government it symbolizes are of the world and not of JEHOVAH GOD, it is wrong only for one in a covenant with JEHOVAH, such as each plaintiff and his children, to salute the flag, and for him to do so constitutes his denial of the supremacy of Almighty God, and contravenes God's express command set forth in Holy Write, which results in everlasting destruction by JEHOVAH of such person's right to life.

6. That plaintiffs and all other of Jehovah's witnesses for whom this action is brought at all times endeavored to instruct and inform their children of the truths including the above commandments set forth in the Word of God, the Bible. They desire to educate their children and bring them up as upright and sincere followers of Jesus Christ, all as it is their right, privilege and duty to do; that said children have been so instructed from an early age and are now and have been at all times material hereto sincere believers in God's commandments written in the Bible and have faithfully endeavored to obey such.

7. Plaintiffs are loyal to the United States and the State of West Virginia and willingly obey its laws, but they nevertheless believe that their first and highest duty is to their God and His commandments and law, and that as true followers of the Lord Jesus Christ they have no alternative except to obey God's commandments and to follow their conscientious convictions. They are willing, in lieu of participating in said flag-salute ceremony, periodically and publicly to subscribe to the following pledge, to wit:

"I have pledged my unqualified allegiance and devotion to Jehovah, the Almighty God, and to His Kingdom, for

[page 3]

pealed by the enactment of said Federal statute. In the event that the Court concludes that said State statutes and regulations have not been entirely annulled and repealed by the passage of said Federal statute, the plaintiffs say that the prescribed flag-salute ceremony for public schools of said State are void because expressly contrary to said Federal statute, which provides that only persons [underline] in uniform [/end underline] (of the United States Army and Navy) are required to give the military salute or engage in the flag-salute ceremony required by said State statutes and regulations thereunder promulgated by defendant-board. Furthermore, said Federal statute does not require a civilian, adult or child, to give any salute whatsoever to the national flag, and specifically does not require the giving of the salute or participation in the ceremony prescribed by the defendant-board. All that may be lawfully required of any civilian, adult or child, is merely "standing at attention", even though a child be in attendance at a public school in said State. That by reason of the foregoing the said State statutes and regulations thereunder promulgated by said defendant-board are void because in conflict with the United States Constitution and the above Federal statute.

26. That the application and enforcement of said State statutes and flag-salute regulations or any of them, against pupils who conscientiously object to participation in such ceremonial, do not instil love of liberty and democratic principles and devotion to country in the minds of the youth. The giving of the salute does not prove loyalty to the nation because any disloyal person can salute the flag so as to hide his disloyalty. The natural tendency of compelling a conscientious objector to give the salute is to hinder and obstruct loyalty to country because of attempted coercion and oppression of conscience. The enforce-

[page 4]

ment of said statutes and regulations in such manner diminishes respect and increases disrespect for flag and country by inspiring acts of lawlessness and violence against persons who lawfully elect to render obesiance and obedience exclusively to Almighty God, and it provides a means to conceal for every adherent of and conniver with the "fifth column" his true identity. See, in further corroboration of the above matters the booklet "God and the State", copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked APPENDIX.

27. That the refusal of children of Jehovah's witnesses to salute the American flag or otherwise participate in the unlawfully and illegally required flag-salute ceremony does not present a clear and present danger against peaceful, lawful, proper and regular operation of any public school in said State, nor does such refusal present a clear and present danger against the peace of the law-abiding teachers and pupils of any such school. That there is no clear and present danger that any other pupils will refuse to salute the flag unless they become Jehovah's witnesses, which is most unlikely because of the extreme unpopularity of and persecution now prevailing against Jehovah's witnesses as result of persistent misrepresentation regarding their loyalty to [underlined] the government. [end underline]

28. That there is nothing in the faith or practices based upon the faith of persons for whom this action is brought that can be claimed to be contrary to morals, health, safety or welfare of the public, the State or the nation.

29. That because constitutionality and validity of State statutes of West Virginia are drawn in question, and because plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction restraining the enforcement of said statutes, plaintiffs are entitled under Section 266 of the Judicial Code (28 U. S. C., Section 380, as

#archivesgov #August 19 #1942 #1940s #SCOTUS #Supreme Court #First Amendment rights #religion #Jehovah's Witnesses #American flag #flag salute #Pledge of Allegiance #Barnette v West Virginia

33 notes · View notes

roughstar · 10 months

Text

In response to the Supreme Court being illegitimate and the government making virtually any meaningful attempt to unfuck itself illegal, I propose that for Q1 2024 we do a quiet strike, nationwide, to really hit them where it hurts. What that means to me is:

1. Quiet quitting of course, do the very basic minimum at work to not get fired and be stringent about only working your required hours, not a minute more.

2. Quiet boycotting, purchase only necessities that you have to like food and gas, but only at certain grocery stores and keep purchases to as local, small businesses as possible.

3. Loud begging, apply for any and all services and programs the government has to offer, even if it doesn't pertain to you. Just try to get them to give out as much money as possible to break their banks.

4. Hopefully if enough people do this, we can start a recession and force the government to change. Other than violence, this is the only way to spark it at this point.

#quiet quitting #boycott #supreme court #student loans #affirmative action #first amendment rights #fuck the government #fuck the bourgeoisie #quiet strike 2024

5 notes · View notes

vizthedatum · 1 year

Text

Necessary disclaimer because I know they will hurt me given the opportunity (and they'll think it was justified)

Please note: I am not communicating with my spouse currently. We are separated, broken up, and "no contact." I am not communicating with them through any third party (except for our lawyers about the PFA (protection from abuse), divorce, and spousal support), as per our PFA agreement. These posts are not at all an attempt to communicate - it is *art* and *expression* and my personal account of what has happened in our relationship. It does reflect reality. And after being gaslit/abused/controlled by their unacknowledged and untreated trauma responses and severe mental health issues, I am expressing what happened to me. I want people to know. It's not just emotional processing for me - I think people need to know what domestic violence looks like. And you should tell your story too - there need to be more examples of all types, in all different relationships.

Future employers and anyone else: I am a queer and trans person of color who is a citizen of the United States of America. I have undergone a lot of abuse, and I am exercising my first amendment rights as a citizen of this country. I am sharing my experiences as authentically and honestly as I can. My training is in healthcare, and if I cannot be honest with who I am then it would be incredibly hypocritical for me to practice epidemiology or clinical data analysis in healthcare. If you choose to discriminate against me based on my identity or my emotional processing of the abuse I have endured (or even the poetry/art/writings I share), then you are willfully denying employment to a battered domestic violence survivor (and I have gone through domestic violence multiple times). I would not work for such an organization anyway. My skills and qualifications speak for themselves, and I will do what I want - and I'll do a good job of it too. Thank you.

#domestic violence #abuse #pfa #employment #declaration #first amendment rights #discrimination #human rights #authenticity #honesty

8 notes · View notes