Tag Archive for: Hate

Pittsburgh Jewish community monitoring hate speech amid trial of synagogue shooting suspect

/in


The head of security for Pittsburgh’s Jewish community says there has been an “uptick in hate speech” on the internet, but no specific threats, in the early stages of the trial of the man accused of killing 11 worshippers at a synagogue here in 2018.

And Jewish leaders say that while the trial is bringing out the worst of extremists in some dark corners of the web, it’s also brought an outpouring of support from the community — ranging from law enforcement agencies helping with security to local food vendors collaborating to bring meals to victims’ families during the trial.

Shawn Brokos, director of community security for the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh, said officials have monitored “general chatter in support of the defendant … and his hateful vitriol” on the internet. The materials “would turn anyone’s stomach,” she said.

Brokos and others spoke Friday at a news conference at the federation’s offices to talk about how the Jewish community has been preparing for the federal trial in the worst antisemitic attack in U.S. history. Jury selection began April 24 and is slated to continue at least into next week, followed by further weeks in which jurors will weigh the defendant’s guilt and potentially a death sentence.

Pittsburgh synagogues and other institutions have received physical improvements in security and have conducted recent training to prepare for security incidents, Brokos said. No threats have been received, but officials are bracing for the possibility that some white-supremacist groups may show up in support of the defendant.

“We’d much rather be in a proactive stance and out in front of any potential threats,” she added.

As the trial moves forward, “we will lean on one another for strength and support, we’ll empower one another to live full Jewish lives, but reinforce to one another that we need to remain continually…

Source…

Try This One Weird Trick Russian Hackers Hate – Krebs on Security

/in


In a Twitter discussion last week on ransomware attacks, KrebsOnSecurity noted that virtually all ransomware strains have a built-in failsafe designed to cover the backsides of the malware purveyors: They simply will not install on a Microsoft Windows computer that already has one of many types of virtual keyboards installed — such as Russian or Ukrainian. So many readers had questions in response to the tweet that I thought it was worth a blog post exploring this one weird cyber defense trick.

The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) more or less matches the exclusion list on an awful lot of malware coming out of Eastern Europe.

The Twitter thread came up in a discussion on the ransomware attack against Colonial Pipeline, which earlier this month shut down 5,500 miles of fuel pipe for nearly a week, causing fuel station supply shortages throughout the country and driving up prices. The FBI said the attack was the work of DarkSide, a new-ish ransomware-as-a-service offering that says it targets only large corporations.

DarkSide and other Russian-language affiliate moneymaking programs have long barred their criminal associates from installing malicious software on computers in a host of Eastern European countries, including Ukraine and Russia. This prohibition dates back to the earliest days of organized cybercrime, and it is intended to minimize scrutiny and interference from local authorities.

In Russia, for example, authorities there generally will not initiate a cybercrime investigation against one of their own unless a company or individual within the country’s borders files an official complaint as a victim. Ensuring that no affiliates can produce victims in their own countries is the easiest way for these criminals to stay off the radar of domestic law enforcement agencies.

Possibly feeling the heat from being referenced in President Biden’s Executive Order on cybersecurity this past week, the DarkSide group sought to distance itself from their attack against Colonial Pipeline. In a message posted to its victim shaming blog, DarkSide tried to say it was “apolitical” and that it didn’t wish to participate in geopolitics.

“Our goal is to make…

Source…

Alabama Lawmakers Think The Time Is Right To Make Assaulting A Cop A ‘Hate Crime’

/in

Another stupid, pointless effort to turn protectors and servants into professional victims is being mounted in Alabama. Cops can barely be bothered to educate themselves on the laws they’re enforcing, but they’re usually all over the ones that allow them to turn things they don’t like into criminal activity.

It’s (yet another) “blue lives matter” law being foisted upon citizens by legislators who are altogether too certain they’re in the right. Here’s the backer of the proposed law that would turn cops into a protected group making a claim that’s proven false before the end of the article at PoliceOne.

“Everyone agrees that it should be a hate crime to shoot a police officer,” said state Sen. Cam Ward, R-Alabaster, and chairman of the Alabama State Senate Judiciary Committee where the hate crime legislation is reviewed. “I don’t know anyone who opposes that. The question is, ‘What gets tacked on?’ Yes, you can find a bipartisan solution.”

Everyone?

[Sen. Vivian] Figures said she favors “of doing everything we can to protect our law enforcement officials.” But she said she’s unsure if a hate crime law is the right vehicle.

The bill, written by Senator Chris Elliott, is his second attempt to push a cop-friendly hate crime bill through the legislature. Elliott possibly figures he’ll have a better chance this year because more cops have been killed in Alabama than usual. There have been six law enforcement officers killed by residents this year, which puts the state towards the top of the killed in the line of duty list.

The senator who spoke for everyone (while being wrong about what “everyone” agreed with) doesn’t want this bill tainted with riders that would provide similar hate crime protections for others more deserving of these protections. Sen. Figures (who does not agree with Ward’s assertion that “everyone agrees”) may have been responsible for the death of Elliott’s previous effort when she added an LGBTQ amendment to his 2018 “blue lives matter” bill. That’s the sort of “tacking on” Ward is hoping to prevent here, in order to give cops more protections while leaving more vulnerable residents less protected.

Adding to the stupidity is the fact that police already benefit from a law that provides an extra deterrent to killing cops.

In Alabama, killing a law enforcement while they are on the line of duty is an aggravating factor that is punishable by the death penalty.

These proposals have made periodic appearances in the years following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The shooting was a flash point in police-community relationships. With the current federal administration strongly pro-law enforcement, state-level legislators perhaps feel emboldened to pursue legislation that does little to protect cops, but everything to put more distance between law enforcement and the people they serve.

These proposals are reactionary in the worst sense of the word. They’re legislative affirmations that might makes right and the people with most might will continue to consolidate power. There’s little evidence that suggests these laws are justified at any level. Most killings of cops are impromptu, not planned assaults inspired by an insatiable hate for law enforcement.

The general public receives zero benefit from these laws. All that happens is a very well-protected group of government employees gets even more protections. The laws become vehicles for abuse and there’s only so much courts can do to protect citizens if their “representatives” decide to serve fellow government employees rather than their constituents.

The upside here is these proposals — at least here in Alabama — can be neutralized by adding amendments that would extend protections to people who don’t wear the blue — especially members of the public that far too many legislators don’t feel are worthy of any protection.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.

Being Designated A ‘Hate Group’ By The SPLC Isn’t Defamation, Says Federal Court

/in

The Southern Poverty Law Center has just escaped from a bogus defamation lawsuit brought against it by yet another displeased recipient of the SPLC’s “hate group” designation. (h/t Adam Steinbaugh)

Back in February, Gavin McInnes — the founder of “western chauvinist” group Proud Boys — sued the SPLC for calling the Proud Boys a hate group. SPLC defended itself by pointing out all the hateful things the Proud Boys have said/done, as well as all the hateful things Gavin McInnes has said/done.

It seems highly unlikely McInnes will prevail in this lawsuit. Unfortunately, the SPLC will still have to defend itself against these bogus claims, and others filed by similar groups that have decided to litigiously object to the SPLC’s assessment of their hate levels.

Coral Ridge Ministries (now Truth In Action Ministries) sued the SPLC in 2017 over its hate group designation, which resulted in Amazon blocking Coral Ridge from receiving charitable donations from its AmazonSmile program. The single claim against Amazon is supposedly related to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Coral Ridge feels Amazon is discriminating against it for its religious beliefs — beliefs that include claiming homosexuality is a lawless abomination. The court points out, towards the tail end of its 141-page decision [PDF], that this claim is implausible, even if one is inclined to read the Act as covering online-only charitable donation platforms.

While Title II “is to be liberally construed and broadly read,” Miller, 394 F.2d at 349, Coral Ridge wants to stretch the statute beyond its breaking point. Perhaps Title II extends beyond physical “place[s],” § 2000a(b), to the internet. Perhaps it protects more than just potential customers seeking goods, services, etc. Perhaps it even recognizes disparate-impact claims. But it does not protect the ability to receive money donations, where such an ability is limited exclusively to § 501(c)(3) organizations and thus not open to the public. And Title II certainly does not entitle to relief a plaintiff who does not plausibly alleged any discrimination whatsoever, whether intentional or by disparate impact.

Coral Ridge cannot force the Amazon defendants to donate money to it. Its Title II claim is due to be dismissed with prejudice.

The defamation claim against SPLC isn’t much more coherent. Coral Ridge decides only one definition of the word “hate group” will do — one that includes membership that advocates for or participates in acts of violence. The court says there are multiple definitions of “hate group” used by entities all over the world and very few of them contain this requirement. More to the point, SPLC’s definition of “hate group” does not contain this stipulation. Asserting facts not in evidence is no way to win a court case.

The court need not accept Coral Ridge’s alleged definition of “hate group” because it is a conclusory allegation. Critically, Coral Ridge fails to plead any facts to support its “generaliz[ed],” “blanket statement[]” about the commonly understood meaning of “hate group.” Roberts, 2013 WL 4046383, at *2. It does not, for example, plead that “hate group” is anywhere defined–whether in a dictionary, or by any other source or entity–to require engaging in or advocating violence or crime. Coral Ridge thus asserts “a factual inference”–the commonly understood meaning of “hate group”–“without stating the underlying facts on which the inference is based.”

The First Amendment is at stake here. And the court isn’t willing to let Coral Ridge leverage the only definition of hate group it finds acceptable into a rights-altering lawsuit win.

If courts considering motions to dismiss were obligated to accept as true plaintiffs’ factually unsupported definitions of words, concepts, and terms, it would make a mockery of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)’s pleading standard.7 Requiring courts to accept as true plaintiffs’ pleaded definitions of words would be particularly inappropriate in public-figure defamation suits such as this one, where “there is a powerful interest in ensuring that free speech is not unduly burdened by the necessity of defending against expensive yet groundless litigation.”

The footnote attached to this paragraph spells it out clearly for Coral Ridge: words have meaning… not just your meaning.

For example, if a plaintiff buyer alleging that a defendant seller fraudulently misrepresented the number of apples in a delivery could successfully plead any definition he wanted of “apples”–such as requiring that they have seeds made of 24-karat gold–then even the most frivolous claim could survive a motion to dismiss.

Coral Ridge doesn’t survive this motion to dismiss. As the court points out, if you’re going to provide citations in support of your single, ultra-thin argument, at least try to include some citations that actually back your claim.

In its amended complaint and briefing, Coral Ridge cites three sources–other than itself and SPLC–of definitions of a “hate group”: (1) judicial opinions, (2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and (3) the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The definitions–or, in the case of the judicial opinions, lack of a definition–of the term “hate group” provided by all of these sources directly contradict Coral Ridge’s allegation that a “hate group is legally and commonly understood as one that engages [in] or advocates crime or violence against others.”

The term Coral Ridge wants to argue about isn’t easily or narrowly defined. The court says there is “no single, commonly understood meaning of the term ‘hate group.'” Since there’s no precise definition, Coral Ridge cannot hope to prove the SPLC’s designation is false, and certainly not that the SPLC knew it was false when it declared Coral Ridge an “anti-LGBTQ hate group.”

Coral Ridge cannot prove the falsity of the “hate group” designation, given that, as the court has found, the designation is not provable as false. Logically speaking, a plaintiff cannot prove what is not provable.

[…]

To find actual malice just because SPLC publicized a meaning of “hate group” that conflicted with the common understanding of the term would severely undermine debate and free speech about a matter of public concern. This is because, even if the term had achieved a commonly understood meaning, that meaning would not be fixed forever, but rather could evolve through public debate. To sanction a speaker for promoting a genuinely held dissenting view of the meaning of “hate group” would be akin to punishing a speaker for advocating new conceptions of terms like “terrorist,” “extremist,” “sexist,” “racist,” “radical left wing,” “radical right wing,” “liberal,” or “conservative.” Punishing speakers to preserve status quo ideas would be anathema to the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects a lot of speech people wish it wouldn’t. It protects Coral Ridge’s anti-LGBTQ statements — ones that include calling homosexuality “vile,” “lawless,” and “an abomination.” Many people would probably like to see speech like this suppressed with “hate speech” laws. It shouldn’t be. But, hypocritically, Coral Ridge wants to call SPLC’s “hate group” designation defamation, removing it from the shelter of First Amendment protections. But it does this while presenting itself as a fierce free speech advocate being unfairly targeted by hate speech law proposals.

The SPLC’s “hate group” work is, at best, questionable. But it’s still protected speech, even if it results in adverse outcomes for those it designates as hateful. The best response is more speech, not lawsuits that threaten the protections the plaintiffs benefit from each and every day.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.