On Web, a Fine Line on Free Speech Across the Globe

The following is an excerpt from an article in:


The New York Times
Monday, September 17, 2012

On Web, a Fine Line on Free Speech Across the Globe

By SOMINI SENGUPTA

SAN FRANCISCO — For Google last week, the decision was clear. An anti-Islamic video that provoked violence worldwide was not hate speech under its rules because it did not specifically incite violence against Muslims, even if it mocked their faith.

The White House was not so sure, and it asked Google to reconsider the determination, a request the company rebuffed.

Although the administration’s request was unusual, for Google, it represented the kind of delicate balancing act that Internet companies confront every day.

These companies, which include communications media like Facebook and Twitter, write their own edicts about what kind of expression is allowed, things as diverse as pointed political criticism, nudity and notions as murky as hate speech. And their employees work around the clock to check when users run afoul of their rules.

Google is not the only Internet company to grapple in recent days with questions involving the anti-Islamic video, which appeared on YouTube, which Google owns. Facebook on Friday confirmed that it had blocked links to the video in Pakistan, where it violates the country’s blasphemy law. A spokeswoman said Facebook had also removed a post that contained a threat to a United States ambassador, after receiving a report from the State Department; Facebook has declined to say in which country the ambassador worked.

“Because these speech platforms are so important, the decisions they take become jurisprudence,” said Andrew McLaughlin, who has worked for both Google and the White House. Most vexing among those decisions are ones that involve whether a form of expression is hate speech. Hate speech has no universally accepted definition, legal experts say. And countries, including democratic ones, have widely divergent legal approaches to regulating speech they consider to be offensive or inflammatory.

Europe bans neo-Nazi speech, for instance, but courts there have also banned material that offends the religious sensibilities of one group or another. Indian law frowns on speech that could threaten public order. Turkey can shut down a Web site that insults its founding president, Kemal Ataturk. Like the countries, the Internet companies have their own positions, which give them wide latitude on how to interpret expression in different countries.

Although Google says the anti-Islamic video, “Innocence of Muslims,” was not hate speech, it restricted access to the video in Libya and Egypt because of the extraordinarily delicate situation on the ground and out of respect for cultural norms.

Google has not yet explained why its cultural norms edict applied to only two countries and not others, where Muslim sensitivities have been demonstrably offended.

For more, visit www.yahoo.com.

Twitter’s Chief Lawyer Defends Free Speech With Revenue in Mind

The following is an excerpt from an article in 

The New York Times
Monday, September 03, 2012

Twitter’s Chief Lawyer Defends Free Speech With Revenue in Mind

By SOMINI SENGUPTA

SAN FRANCISCO — Alexander Macgillivray, Twitter’s chief lawyer, says that fighting for free speech is more than a good idea. He thinks it is a competitive advantage for his company.

That conviction explains why he spends so much of Twitter’s time and money going toe to toe with officers and apparatchiks both here and abroad. Last week, his legal team was fighting a court order to extract an Occupy Wall Street protester’s Twitter posts. The week before, the team wrestled with Indian government officials seeking to take down missives they considered inflammatory. Last year, Mr. Macgillivray challenged the Justice Department in its hunt for WikiLeaks supporters who used Twitter to communicate.

“We value the reputation we have for defending and respecting the user’s voice,” Mr. Macgillivray said in an interview here at Twitter headquarters. “We think it’s important to our company and the way users think about whether to use Twitter, as compared to other services.”

It doesn’t always work. And it sometimes collides awkwardly with another imperative Twitter faces: to turn its fire hose of public opinion into a profitable business. That imperative will become far more acute if the company goes public, and Twitter confronts pressures to make money fast and play nice with the governments of countries in which it operates; most Twitter users live outside the United States and the company is already opening offices overseas.

That transformation makes his job all the more delicate. At a time when Internet companies control so much of what we can say and do online, can Twitter stand up for privacy, free expression and profitability all at the same time?

“They are going to have to monetize the data that they have and they can’t rock the boat maybe,” said Ryan Calo, a law professor at the University of Washington. “I don’t predict Twitter is going to lose its way, but it’s a moment to watch.”

Jonathan Zittrain, one of his former professors at Harvard Law School, called it both a challenge and opportunity for Mr. Macgillivray, widely known as @amac, his handle on Twitter, and one that could influence the Internet industry at large.

“If @amac can help find a path through it, it may serve as a model for corporate responsibility for an Internet where more and more code and content is governed by corporate gatekeepers,” Mr. Zittrain said via e-mail.

He added that the challenge for Mr. Macgillivray “is not only to pioneer a wise way through this thicket, but to implement it as Twitter’s use continues to explode: it’s complex maintenance on a jet engine while the plane is in flight.”

For more, visit www.nytimes.com.

News Release from the FBI, Kansas City Division

Owner, Managers of Sedalia Firm Indicted for Defrauding Customers by Selling Immigration Forms Available for Free from the Government

U.S. Attorney’s Office February 21, 2012

Western District of Missouri (816) 426-3122

— filed under: Fraud, Press Release

JEFFERSON CITY, MO—Beth Phillips, United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, announced today that the owner and two managers of a Sedalia, Mo., business have been indicted by a federal grand jury for their roles in a conspiracy to defraud consumers who purchased immigration forms that were available at no charge from the federal government.

Thomas Joseph Strawbridge, 49, Thomas Barret Laurence, also known as Thomas Barnes, Thomas Laurente and Thomas Johnson, 30, and Elizabeth Lindsey Meredith, 24, all formerly of Sedalia, were charged in a 14-count indictment returned under seal by a federal grand jury in Jefferson City, Mo., on Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012. That indictment was unsealed and made public today upon Strawbridge’s arrest and initial court appearance.

According to the federal indictment, Strawbridge founded and owned Immigration Forms and Publications (IFP) in Sedalia. Laurence managed the day-to-day operations of IFP and Meredith assisted Laurence.
The indictment alleges that, from March 2009 to April 2011, Strawbridge, Laurence and Meredith participated in a conspiracy to defraud consumers who were seeking assistance with immigration-related matters by inducing them to purchase government immigration forms that were available from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) at no charge. They allegedly gave consumers the false impression that the company was affiliated with the federal government and that sales representatives were government agents.
IFP advertised immigration services on the Internet, the indictment says, particularly through search engines such as Google. Websites directed consumers to call a toll-free number, where they were connected to IFP sales representatives, including Laurence and Meredith. IFP sales representatives allegedly answered calls by saying “agent” followed by their first name. IFP employees, in subsequent conversations with customers, allegedly referred to a sales representative as an “immigration agent.”

Sales representatives spoke with potential customers and attempted to determine which government form best matched each caller’s immigration situation. According to the indictment, these sales representatives had no particular expertise in immigration matters and sometimes sent customers the wrong form for their situation. Other customers allegedly received none of the promised assistance from IFP in completing their immigration forms.

IFP sales representatives, including Laurence and Meredith, allegedly made materially false statements to customers, including claims that IFP handled excess call volume related to immigration matters for USCIS, that fees paid to IFP included government application and processing fees, and that forms purchased through IFP would be processed more quickly than if customers dealt directly with USCIS.

According to the indictment, IFP sales representatives explained that the company would send the forms via FedEx to the customer’s address and help the customer correctly fill out the forms. The customer would pay IFP up front by giving a money order to FedEx upon receipt of the forms. IFP sales representatives allegedly quoted prices for the various immigration forms that were the same or similar to government processing fees for the same forms. For example, the USCIS fee to process an Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card (I-90 form) was $290. IFP charged $290 to send customers an I-90 form, according to the indictment.
Many customers who sent their forms to USCIS were surprised to learn that the fees they already paid IFP did not cover government processing charges. None of the money that customers sent to IFP went toward government processing fees, the indictment says, and IFP sales representatives did not inform consumers that USCIS routinely charged processing fees, which they would be required to pay in addition to IFP charges.
In addition to the conspiracy, Strawbridge, Laurence and Meredith are charged with six counts of mail fraud and seven counts of wire fraud.

The indictment also contains a forfeiture allegation, which would require Strawbridge, Laurence and Meredith to forfeit to the government any property derived from the proceeds of the alleged violations.

Phillips cautioned that the charges contained in this indictment are simply accusations, and not evidence of guilt. Evidence supporting the charges must be presented to a federal trial jury, whose duty is to determine guilt or innocence.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony P. Gonzalez and Trial Attorneys Alan Phelps and Adrienne Fowler of the U.S. Department of Justice Consumer Protection Branch. It was investigated by the FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Missouri Secretary of State Corporate Division, the Missouri Secretary of State Securities Division and the Missouri Attorney General’s Office.

News Release from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Release Date: Feb 21, 2012Contact: 888-249-NEWS

---

U.S. Chamber Applauds Announcement of U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement Implementation

WASHINGTON D.C.—The U.S. Chamber of Commerce applauded the administration and the U.S. Trade Representative today for their announcement that the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) will enter into force on March 15, 2012.  The landmark trade agreement that would support more than 70,000 export-related jobs was ratified last October through a bipartisan vote in Congress.

“The U.S. business community commends our negotiators for staying the course on implementing a groundbreaking trade deal with South Korea that will create American jobs and boost American competitiveness,” said Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber. “We will now be able to play on a level playing field in South Korea’s dynamic market and start creating tens of thousands of new jobs here at home.”

Upon entry into force, tariffs will be eliminated on nearly 80% of U.S. exports of industrial products and nearly two-thirds of U.S. exports of agricultural products to South Korea.  It will also break down non-tariff barriers and strengthen transparency and intellectual property protections in South Korea so that American companies can compete fairly in the South Korean market.

“It is now up to the business community, including the hundreds of thousands of small and medium sized enterprises that make up the backbone of the U.S. economy, to take full advantage of this agreement to grow American exports,” Donohue said. “This agreement is the foundation for moving bipartisan, job-creating policies forward, and we urge the administration to build on the positive momentum of the South Korea trade agreement to continue opening up markets abroad.”

The Chamber is continuing to advocate for implementation of the trade agreements with Colombia and Panama on a commercially sound basis as soon as possible.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations.

Self-Insurance Complicates Deal on Birth Control

Excerpt from an article in The New York Times
Thursday, February 16, 2012

Self-Insurance Complicates Deal on Birth Control 

By KATIE THOMAS

The Obama administration thought it had found a way to ease mounting objections to a requirement in the new health care act that all employers — including religiously affiliated hospitals and universities — offer coverage for birth control to women free of charge.

It would make the insurers cover the costs, rather than the organizations themselves.

But the administration announced the compromise plan before it had figured out how to address one conspicuous point: Like most large employers, many religiously affiliated organizations choose to insure themselves rather than hire an outside company to assume the risk.

Now, the organizations are trying to determine how to reconcile their objections to offering birth control on religious grounds with their role as insurers — or whether there can be any reconciliation at all. And the administration still cannot put the thorny issue to rest.

“We’re all kind of waiting and seeing,” said Jim Liske, chief executive of the Prison Fellowship, a Christian charity that insures itself and objects to offering the morning-after pill to its employees.

The administration has remained mostly silent on how self-insured institutions will be treated, other than to say that the details will be worked out in meetings with religious leaders in the days and weeks to come.

“This policy will be developed collaboratively so that the ultimate outcome works for religious employers, their workers and the public,” an administration official said Wednesday.

But some expressed skepticism that any satisfactory solution could be reached. “That’s quite a trick,” said Richard M. Doerflinger, associate director of “pro-life activities” at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has been among the most vocal critics of the birth control mandate.

“Putting the obligation on the insurer and not the employer doesn’t help much if they are the same person,” he said.

Interview w/ Arthur Brooks, President, American Enterprise Institute

This morning Arthur Brooks, President, American Enterprise Institute, was interviewed on CNBC's Squawk Box.  Mr. Brooks discussed how and why the American Enterprise Institute was founded in 1938.

It seems that when a nation gets a little extra wealth on its hands, there is a natural tendency to put in place or strengthen a social safety net.  There is a natural tendency to shift toward a European-style social democracy, in which the State has a great deal to say about how things are done.

We tend to think that the Free Enterprise system is self-correcting, but, in reality, if the free enterprise system is not defended, it will slip away and be replaced by social democracy.  Those who believe in free enterprise need to defend it, not just as the best way to make money, but as the system that imparts the greatest amount of well-being to its members.

Mr. Brooks discusses the two possible definitions of fairness.  Different people have different ideas about what fairness is.  Does fairness mean equality or does fairness mean meritocracy?  How we as a country answer that question will determine the direction of this nation.

To see a video of the interview, click the link below:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000072477