Events/History/Laws/Other Summaries

PDX Facial Recognition Law

In a unanimous decision, the Portland city council banned all use of facial recognition technology by city departments, public businesses, and private businesses in public areas. This is likely the most expansive regulation of facial recognition technology of any city in the United States. The city council worried that the technology is racially biased and that the tool could be used against the citizens it serves to protect. It is feared that facial recognition technology could be used, for example, to surveil and identify protestors, which could have grave consequences for those individuals.

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

In this case, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics forced their way into Bivens' home without a warrant, arrested him in front of his family, and subjected him to a strip search. Bivens sued the agents for $15,000 in damages. The Court ruled that Bivens had the right to get damages for the federal agents' violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

Stellar Wind

"Stellar Wind," a warrantless surveillance program, was created by George Bush after 9/11. The program was intended to search for evidence of terrorist activity. It involved the data-mining of the communications of American citizens. This involved searching through emails, telephone conversations, and financial transactions, often without search warrants. The data was collected from a larger spread of people than covered by the FISA. The program was revealed to the public through a New York Times article in 2004.

Arguments to Reform Section 230

- The Pact Act: force Big Tech companies to be transparent about moderating content and to remove illegal content within 24 hours or lose Section 230 protections. - Remove protections to certain content - Erode 230 a bit and allow companies to take down more hate speech, harassment, etc. - New restrictions on cyberstalking and terrorism

Zuckerberg's thoughts on Online Regulation

- Zuckerberg believes that Facebook has a responsibility to keep people safe on our services which includes deciding what counts as terrorist propaganda and hate speech. "We continually review our policies with experts, but at our scale we'll always make mistakes and decisions that people disagree with." - Facebook is creating an independent body so that people can appeal our decisions (in terms of restrictions). - Facebook publishes transparency reports on how effective they're removing harmful content. Zuckerberg urges every major internet service to do this quarterly. Once we can see the prevalence of the harmful content, it displays where baselines should be set. - Mark Zuckerberg is also in favor of a common global framework (rather than regulation that varies by country and state) that can ensure that entrepreneurs can build products that serve everyone, and everyone gets the same protections.

Inflammatory Language

19 December - "Be there, will be wild." (first notice of DC protest; tweeted by Trump) + "The calvary is coming." (from a member of the Stop the Steal Facebook group; tweeted at Trump → Trump responded "A great honor")

TRAP Laws + North Carolina

A TRAP law is a law designed to place restrictions upon abortion providers in an attempt to shut dow clinics. The laws are generally medically unnecessary and very absurd. They make the abortion process burdensome and nearly impossible to access. North Carolina is the home to many outrageous TRAP laws. One law goes so far as to specify the height of the grass outside an abortion clinic. Another North Carolina law requires the air temperature in a patient recovery room to fall between 75 and 80 degrees, while in procedure rooms the temperature is mandated to be 70 to 76 degrees with a humidity of 50 to 60 percent.

Heckler's Veto

A heckler's veto prohibits an action to prevent the possible response to that action. A common example of this is if a government prohibits a protest in order to prevent the likely negative response to that protest. The Court often strikes down heckler's vetoes because they are not constitutional under the First Amendment.

Surveillance in East Germany

Before new technologies like facial recognition and home security cameras came about, the East German government had one of the biggest mass surveillance systems in the world in the form of the Stasi, the secret police. The Stasi's purpose was domestic political surveillance and foreign espionage, and kept files on over a third of the population. These files could contain anything from photos of an individual's workplace to a recording of their own bedroom. The surveillance group had tools like special letter openers, disguises, and hidden cameras. The Stasi spies and informants could be anyone. This knowledge frightened the East German public. Citizens could never be too careful about what they said-there was no one they could fully trust.

Surveillance of Muslims in NY

Following 9/11, the New York Police Department began monitoring Muslim individuals, trying to identify terrorists and places where they could blend into society. The NYPD went so far as spying in Muslim communities and monitoring Muslim students. Agents recorded information ranging from important gathering places for Muslims to individuals' names and how many times they prayed each day. The NYPD even accompanied 18 Muslim students on a rafting trip in order to record their names and personal information. The students came from schools all over the Northeast such as Yale, Queens College, St. John's University, and many other colleges even outside of New York.

How Trump supporters planned for 1/6

For weeks, President Trump and his supporters were planning for January 6: a day they believed would save America. On December 19, Trump tweeted "Big protest in D.C. on January 6. Be there, will be wild!" The Stop the Steal group on Facebook promoted the event, and shared pictures of the weapons they would be bringing.

Ron Wyden

In 1996, Ron Wyden (current Oregon senator, former representative) co-created Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The section held that internet service providers and platform's can't be held civilly liable for content posted by their users. This has proved to be crucial for the very existence of sites that rely on third-party content, like YouTube and Facebook. Section 230 is currently facing backlash from Republicans, as they are threatening to take away its protections from companies that don't treat liberal and conservative speech equally. While trying to defend Section 230, privacy-oriented Wyden is also fighting for the Mind Your Own Business Act, which he introduced in 2019. This act would set more privacy and security standards for tech companies, and would give consumers the ability to opt out of having their data sold and shared.

Middlebury Controversial Speech

In 2017, Dr. Charles Murray was invited by a student group to speak at Middlebury College. Murray has a number of controversial views, including that people are more or less intelligent based on their race. When he tried to give his lecture at Middlebury, he was disrupted by chants and boos by liberal students. Eventually, Dr. Murray was made to do a live-streamed discussion with Middlebury's Professor Stanger so that he wouldn't be disrupted. When they left the building, protesters surrounded them. Stanger tried to protect Murray, but had her neck twisted by a student and had to get a neck brace. When Murray tried to leave in his car, students rocked his car back and forth, and tried to prevent him from leaving by placing large signs in front of the car. Colleges like Middlebury have a right to apply their own ideological standards as to who can speak on their campus. They chose to allow Murray to visit and took extraordinary measures so that he could speak. The liberal side of campus was then a part of so much counter speech that he wasn't allowed to speak and was forced to leave the building. Middlebury policy states that "Middlebury College does not allow disruptive behavior at community events or on campus." This means that many of the students that protested Murray's speech violated that policy. The administrators at Middlebury felt obliged to protect the rights of small or unpopular minorities to bring in speakers of their choice. They believe that denying those groups that right comes too close to allowing progressive students to veto what a conservative student can say.

Porn Warning Labels

In April 2020, a Utah statute requiring one-sentence warning labels on pornography became law. The labels must warn against the harmful effects pornography can have, particularly on minors. If producers fail to comply, they can face a $2,500 fine. The law intends to manage the widespread availability of porn online. Critics argue that this law targets legal porn and would unfairly force porn producers to represent themselves in court. The judge would have the final decision if the porn is obscene or not, but if the porn producers show that they applied a warning to their content a majority of the time, they could escape the penalty.

Lafayette Square Protests

In June, a group of people was peacefully protesting police brutality in Lafayette Square, in front of the White House. But just before 7 p.m., police officers, along with National Guard units, warned the protestors to disperse before the city curfew, then hit them with explosions and tear gas, as threatened by President Trump. Why did this happen? It was so Trump could take a picture holding a Bible in front of the gates of the nearby St. John's church, which had recently been damaged by fires. President Trump's Actions sparked large controversy after the incident. People argued that the violent clearing of protesters was an abuse of his power. The bishop of the church said that Trump was making the Bible into a political prop and the former defense secretary said never in the nation's history have we had a president who tries to divide the nation. Several protesters and the DC Chapter of Black Lives Matter sued President Trump and other officials over a violation of their First Amendment rights to Speech and Assembly and their Fourth Amendment right protecting them from unreasonable seizures. The case was assigned to a Trump appointee in the DC federal court.

Hate Speech in France

In June, the French Constitutional Council struck down parts of a law attempting to limit hate speech. The law said that online platforms must take down posts flagged by users as being hateful within 24 hours. If the platform failed to do so, it would face serious fines. The Council struck this part of the law down because it was solely based on what users think is hateful, rather than a judge of some sort. Additionally, the time frame of 24 hours was deemed to be too short for platforms to take the time to determine which content is actually hateful. This law, the Council said, encourages online platforms to indiscriminately remove flagged content. France is known for its many strict anti-hate speech laws, but despite this, people across the country were happy with this decision.

Legal Impact of BLM

In addition to the nation-wide protests, Americans have also voted for system change this election. In Oakland, California, and Columbus, Ohio amendments were passed that created a general inspectors office to review police misconduct. In San Diego, voters supported a commission with the power to subpoena power and investigate police misconduct to replace the police review board. Portland, Oregon, which has been the home of protests every night for months passed a controversial measure that created a police oversight board. Portland police disagreed with this decision saying it was "flawed" and argued that the city should have talked to the department first. Another main issue on the ballot this election was drug laws. Oregon voted to decriminalize small amounts of drugs like cocaine and heroin, while New Jersey, Arizona, Montana, and South Dakota legalized cannabis. Change didn't happen all around the county though. Many conservative sheriffs were reelected in places like Florida and Michigan. However, voters in Michigan also brought a "progressive prosecutor" into office. These prosecutors (who have been elected all over the country in recent years) use their platforms to attempt to make changes such as the elimination of cash bail, curtailment of marijuana prosecutions, and fight against death sentences. One such prosecutor is José Garza in Texas, who wants to try to make his community more safe with his new position. These nationwide elections demonstrate open-mindedness towards criminal justice and law enforcement, and are giving activists hope for change.

Boston Tea Party/BLM Protests

In early American history, looting was frequently used as a form of protest. This tactic was best displayed at the Boston Tea Party, when colonists famously dumped 45 tons of British tea into Boston Harbor. At the time, many wondered whether the looting was a "high-handed riot," as the Massachusetts governor claimed, or a mere act of protest. Questions like this still arise today amid the Black Lives Matter protests, as the tactic of looting reemerges. Many perceive this looting, as well as other protest tactics, as necessary means of protest, while others believe protesters have crossed the line between fighting for their rights and pure destruction. But much like the Boston Tea Party, only time can tell which position history will favor.

Appropriation of Name or Likeness

In most states, you can be sued for appropriating another person's name or likeness. This refers to when an individual uses another's name and/or likeness without their consent for personal and/or commercial benefit. This is categorized under the right of publicity, which is the right for individuals to control the commercial use of their identity. This right is driven by state statutes and case law, as it is a state right, not a federal right.

Airports

In order to ensure the safety of passengers aboard a plane, people's belongings are searched without probable cause for weapons, explosive materials, or anything else of that nature. This helps prevent potentially life-ending situations like the hijacking of a plane or terrorism, and is considered a reasonable search. Therefore, it follows that the seizure of any dangerous materials would also be reasonable, as it protects passengers and employees. Additionally, no one is forcing you to go to the airport; it is optional, meaning that it searches without warrants are permissible.

Prosecution of James Callender

James Callender was a controversial political pamphleteer in his homeland of Scotland, and later, in America. Thomas Jefferson was a long-time supporter of Callender's works (which tended to praise Jefferson), and eventually began to fund his writings. Soon, he used Callender's writings against John Adams, which culminated during the campaigning for the presidential election of 1800. Calendar published an Anti-Federalist book promoting Jefferson and shaming Adams, which led to his conviction from a Federalist jury.

Zenger Trial

John Peter Zenger was a printer in New York who had a publication called the New York Weekly Journal. He frequently wrote pieces criticizing the actions of the governor, and was accused of seditious libel, meaning the publication of content opposed to the government, whether true or false. The trial's judge thought it would be an easy decision, after all, Zenger admitted to writing the pieces. However, the jury sided with Zenger and engaged in jury nullification. By this time, the right to freedom of the press was not universally acknowledged, but this was an important step in making printers feel more free to print their honest thoughts.

Digital Footprints of Insurrectionists

Many of the January 6 protesters have been shocked by how easily identifiable they are by government officials. However, this should come as no surprise because these people essentially brought it upon themselves by posting pictures and videos of themselves on social media, and by not wearing masks, making it much easier for facial recognition technology to identify them. They felt so confident that what they were doing was right that they didn't bother to conceal their identities. For example, the man who famously sat in Nancy Pelosi's chair and put his feet on her desk publicly bragged about what he had done, and was therefore easily identified. So far, about 70 people have been charged in federal court for activities connected to January 6. Mainstream social media platforms have indicated they will cooperate with law enforcement during the investigations. Facebook and Twitter have both been working closely with law enforcement and federal government partners to expedite law enforcement requests. Letters have been sent to major communications tech companies, such as Verizon and At&T, but so far, none have responded. In addition to social media and wireless data, the use of the controversial facial recognition technology named Clearview AI has also aided in law enforcement's search for the Capitol rioters. It is controversial because Clearview has a database of more than 3 billion photos collected from social media platforms, not governmental photos, drawing further attention to the amount of personal information available digitally.

Prosecution of Matthew Lyon

Matthew Lyon, a Republican member of Congress from Vermont, was charged for writing a letter to the editor of the Vermont Journal that criticized the president. He claimed John Adams was in "a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice." The jury convicted Lyon, saying that he acted in opposition to the president, and that the purpose of his letter was to defame both John Adams and the U.S. government. Lyon was eventually released from prison to a parade in his honor. Republican leaders made a fund to pay the fine (which Lyon himself could not afford).

Residential Picketing

Over time, there has been an ongoing debate about how the right to assemble should be balanced against the right to privacy. Nowhere is this argument more intense than in the question of whether individuals can and should be able to participate in residential picketing. Recently, this picketing has become widespread as individuals protest in front of government officials' homes in response to their handling of the Black Lives Matter protests. The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the past, stating that state and local government may limit or ban residential picketing as long as the regulations apply equally to all protesters and as long as they can still protest in residential neighborhoods (as opposed to in front of a specific house). For example, in a 1988 case, the Court upheld a Wisconsin ban on picketing "''focused on, and taking place in front of, a particular residence.''

Facial Recognition and Protesters

Police and investigators are beginning to use facial recognition technology to identify protesters, which is raising a variety of concerns about the potential "chilling effect" it could have on the First Amendment. The National Capital Region Facial Recognition Investigative Leads System (NCRFRILS) has received criticism for misidentifying minorities at higher rates. This leads to substantial civil rights concerns about the technology, along with the fear of a potential lack of privacy and anonymity. However, major companies like Amazon and Microsoft have stopped selling their face recognition technology to law enforcement in order to help mitigate some of these consequences. People defend the use of facial recognition technology saying it has benefited the community, and is better than resorting back to eyewitnesses. Last year, investigators were able to track down a robbery suspect using an image from surveillance cameras, and when a man posted suicidal comments on a Facebook page, the technology allowed law enforcement to identify and refer him to mental health treatment.

Automobile Permitted Warrantless Searches

Police may search automobiles without a warrant because the items in question could be easily removed before the police are able to get a warrant. The Supreme Court has also ruled that there is a diminished expectation of privacy in automobiles, as their purpose is for transportation, not the storage of property. In Wyoming v. Houghton, the Court ruled that if an officer has probable cause that there is an illegal substance within the car, they may search all containers within the car, up to and including a passenger's purses and bags.

Speech in Thailand

Thailand makes lèse-majesté (which means "to do wrong to majesty") illegal, meaning that it is against the law to defame, insult, or threaten a part of the royal family. This law has been in place since 1908, and is known to be the harshest lèse-majesté law in the world because of the lengthy imprisonment times (3-15 years).

Virginia Resolutions

The Alien and Sedition Acts essentially used the French threat as an excuse to punish individuals who criticized the government. The Virginia Resolutions, written by James Madison and approved in 1798 by the Virginia Legislature, protested the infringements on freedom of speech and freedom of the press that the Alien and Sedition Acts allowed. Madison (along with Jefferson, who wrote the Kentucky Resolutions) argued that the states were able to declare acts of the federal government unconstitutional. The Acts expired before they were tested under the Supreme Court, but later, in 1803, the case Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, which allows the Court to declare federal laws and statutes to be unconstitutional.

California Consumer Privacy Act

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) gives individuals more control over what data companies receive and how it can be used. It applies to for-profit companies that do business in California. The act gives consumers the right to know what information a company is collecting about them and how they use it, the right to delete information that is collected about them, and the right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information. Finally, it says that citizens cannot be discriminated against regarding the rights outlined in this act.

Electronic Communications Privacy Act

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) protects wire, oral, and electronic communications while being made, while in transit, or while being stored on a computer. It also set a much stricter standard for government officials to get a warrant in cases involving this kind of data.

Unlawful Assembly

The First Amendment protects "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." It does not outline any unlawful assembly, so why is it that police keep using this term in the context of peaceful protests? Assembly is often viewed within the context of speech, which according to the Brandenburg test can only be punished by the government if it is "directed to and likely to cause imminent lawless action." Peacefully blocking streets is generally agreed to not be serious enough to be considered under this standard, yet police officers still claimed that John Lewis' march on Selma was unlawful. Many scholars have argued that assembly should not be considered unlawful unless they are violent and refuse to disperse after a warning. Unlawful assembly has become synonymous with inconvenient assembly as people become evermore suspicious of protests.

FACT Act

The author of this article claims that California's Reproductive FACT Act does not violate the 1st Amendment. Crisis pregnancy centers are known to deter individuals from getting an abortion, and even provide false medical information. The author argues that the Act ensures that patients are well-informed, and does not force healthcare facilities to provide abortions, refer patients to an abortion clinic, or advocate for abortion in any way. The FACT Act only requires crisis pregnancy centers to post a notice that explains what medical treatments are available to patients.

Ring/Nest Privacy Concerns

With Ring and Nest devices in people's homes, owners of the technology have begun to invade others' privacy, watching people on the home cameras without letting them know. But this problem has become even more severe, with hackers taunting children and police officers asking people for videos of their neighbors. Even Ring employees have been accused of abusing users' data. What was originally a technology to check in on pets and deliveries has become a technology that encroaches upon privacy and is used to spy on others. Ring and Nest technology has also turned harmless moments into ones perceived as being dangerous, like when a man stood in front of his former house, reminiscing, but was perceived as being suspicious.

First Earth Day

With the 1960's came a huge environmental movement, as people began to realize the effect they had on the planet. Originally, much of the movement focused on protecting nature and wildlife, but the first Earth Day in 1970 made people aware of the harms of pollution, and that the environment was also a public safety concern. On the first Earth Day, millions of people around America participated in peaceful marches, which proved to be instrumental in raising awareness about environmental issues. In New York City, even major areas like 5th Avenue and Central Park were shut down so citizens could march that day.

Particularity Requirement

The particularity requirement requires that a warrant must specifically describe the place that law enforcement wants to search and what evidence or people should be seized. This is important, as it means that people's property cannot be arbitrarily searched. Providing limits as to what officers can search and seize grants individuals a certain level of privacy when it comes to their possessions.

BLM Protests Violations

Throughout the Portland protests, federal police officers have been arresting individuals, often without any probable cause, which is a crucial part of a legal arrest as defined by the 4th Amendment. The word "arrest" is critical in defining various constitutional protections, as consensual and non-coercive interactions do not count as a seizure, and therefore do not fall under the 4th Amendment. The federal officers also apprehended many protesters in white vans, taking them away for questioning. This counts as an arrest, but the officers did not have the probable cause needed to just take someone off the street. One can't be detained simply because people around them may be breaking the law, probable cause is needed.