The Freedom Bulletin

Photo by International Monetary Fund via Flickr

They have got to be kidding.

The people who launched a petition demanding that Dominique Strauss-Kahn be uninvited from giving an economic speech at Cambridge University have now invited the lawyer for the hotel maid who is suing him to give a speech the same day. And, apparently unwilling to turn down any opportunity to harass his victim, he accepted.

At the invitation of the Cambridge University Students’ Union Women’s Campaign, Douglas H. Wigdor will be speaking at 1:00 on Friday, March 9 about “how legal systems can systemically disadvantage both women and immigrants.” Strauss-Kahn is scheduled to speak about the financial crisis at 7:30. But naturally, not before the Women’s Campaign stages a protest against his speech at 5:30.

Wigdor said, ”I was really stunned that such a prestigious institution as the Cambridge Union would let itself be used by Strauss-Kahn’s team to resurrect his image.” Actually, Katie Lam, the president of the Union, has said that she invited Strauss-Kahn because he is a fascinating figure with exceptional knowledge of the economy, and in fact has been inviting him since 2010. What gives Wigdor the right to say what the Union’s motives are, more than the Union members themselves? Clearly, he disagrees with their choice of speaker, but he should at least acknowledge that those who disagree with him might be freely, thoughtfully making the decision to disagree with him, instead of assuming that anyone who disagrees with him is being “used” or manipulated.

I am all for free speech, but there is a difference between speech whose intention is simply to express an opinion and speech whose intention is to harass, intimidate, and bully others from expressing their opinions. Inviting Wigdor or his even more obnoxious law partner, Kenneth Thompson, to give a speech on any day but March 9 would be one thing. But for the speech to be on the same day as Strauss-Kahn’s is designed not merely to present an alternative viewpoint but to harass him.

There is nothing feminist about assuming that all men who are accused of rape are guilty, and there is nothing brave about denying the presumption of innocence. For 700 + people to gang up on a 62-year-old economist who has been abandoned by almost all of his friends, has suffered horribly, and has no political future, is simply mean.

I wish strength and courage to Mr. Strauss-Kahn.

Photo by International Monetary Fund via Flickr

Former chief of the International Monetary Fund and former French Finance Minister Dominique Strauss-Kahn is scheduled to give a speech about the financial crisis on March 9th at Cambridge University. Not surprisingly but still wrongly, self-proclaimed “feminists” are protesting his visit because, in addition to his many legitimate and very impressive accomplishments, he was also accused of attempted rape two times, but beat both cases because there was not sufficient evidence that he had done anything wrong.

There are still many, many people who treat Strauss-Kahn as if he is guilty and who are now criticizing the Cambridge Union Society for inviting him. The Cambridge University Students’ Union Women’s Campaign, for example, launched a petition calling for DSK to be uninvited. In their letter, they write that DSK’s speech would show an “abhorrent disregard” for the rights of sexual assault survivors, which, throughout the letter, they seem to assume are all women. The way I see it, this attitude is not feminist but quite the contrary. By assuming that sexual assault is always committed by men against women, you are not treating both genders equally but treating women as inherently weak and vulnerable and men as inherently aggressive. And by assuming, whenever a woman accuses a man of a sex crime, that he is guilty, you are choosing to believe one person and disbelieve another based on their gender. Not too feminist in my opinion.

The Women’s Campaign also misinterprets the Union’s motives for inviting DSK, accusing them of having “a callous desire to exploit gender crime allegations in the service of controversy.” Later they demand that the Union cancel DSK’s speech in order to demonstrate that ”sexual violence is not ‘racy’ material with which to pull in the crowds.” It’s awfully far-fetched to assume that inviting one of the world’s best economists to give a speech about the economy is an attempt to be “racy.” In fact, the Union has been inviting DSK to speak for a while, and understandably he only now has the free time to accept the invitation.

They also write that DSK ”has been able, because of institutional sexism in the legal system, to evade court,” having “benefitted from a concerted media character assassination” of one of his accusers. This makes me wonder, what newspapers have these people been reading?? Apparently they missed the dozens of New York Daily News articles that branded DSK as “Le Perv,” as well as the growing number that refer to him as the “rutting chimpanzee.” They also missed the glee with which nearly every publication (that I have seen, at least) plastered DSK’s perp-walk pictures on their front pages, crowing about how great a country America is for arresting him right away and refusing him bail, wringing their hands about why powerful men behave so badly, criticizing the culture of France, insulting DSK for being French, condemning his sex life, and generally portraying his accuser, Nafissatou Diallo, as a saint. For anyone who likes statistics, according to my calculations, out of 19 times the case made the New York Post’s front page, 9 were anti-DSK and only 7 were even remotely pro-DSK. It was only when Diallo’s numerous lies emerged that the media coverage changed somewhat in DSK’s favor, but certainly not to the degree needed to make up for the brutal treatment that they subjected him to and continue to subject him to today. Yes, there has been some media coverage that is critical of Diallo, but the victim of a “concerted media character assassination” is undoubtedly Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

And they describe DSK as a “rich, white, powerful man” who has been ”given a platform mostly denied to survivors of sexual violence.” Really? They seem to have forgotten that Diallo gave very high-profile interviews to Newsweek and ABC, and almost certainly turned down offers from other, equally prestigious media outlets. Plus, there is the fact that although DSK used to be powerful, he has now, because of the allegations against him, lost not only his job as chief of the IMF, but also his reputation, his friends, his privacy, his bodily integrity, and seemingly any hope of a political future. It is dubious to describe any individual who has had to face off against a government determined to put him or her in jail as “powerful,” and in this case truly betrays an abhorrent disregard for what DSK has suffered.

In addition to the Women’s Campaign letter, an anonymous ex-president of the Union Society said, “Offering the opportunity to speak to someone who has admitted committing criminal sexual aggression and has evaded the courts for two further charges of rape is seriously damaging.” First, it is simply false that DSK admitted to criminal sexual aggression, as I explained before. Second, it is objectionable to speak of someone “evading the courts” when there was not evidence to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is not a flaw but a fundamental part of the American legal system. Why does this person not mention anything about Diallo “evading” charges of perjury after she lied to a grand jury?

On the other hand, everything that Katie Lam, the president of the Union Society, has said during this controversy has been completely reasonable. ”The purpose of the Union is to provide a neutral platform for free speech,” she explained. “Anyone can speak here, and we use no selection criteria when inviting speakers other than that they are interesting people whom the membership would want to hear speak and would like a chance to question and challenge.” She also pointed out that Strauss-Kahn is “exceptionally well-qualified” to speak about the economy and is also simply a fascinating person.

Kudos to Lam and her organization for their brave, intelligent decision to allow DSK to speak despite his vocal detractors. The so-called feminists, on the other hand, have been anything but brave and intelligent in this matter. It is sad that over 600 people think they are helping women’s rights by depriving a man who has lost nearly everything, and who is tentatively attempting to make a comeback on the lecture circuit, of an opportunity to give an economic speech. In my opinion, the creators and signers of the petition are nothing more than bullies. That might sound like a strange word to use for college students who are protesting against a 62-year-old former banker, but the essence of bullying is the ganging up of a group of like-thinking people against an unpopular individual. This is exactly what is being done to DSK.

WikiLeaks has started releasing emails from Texas-based private intelligence company Stratfor, revealing how it conducts surveillance on private individuals by paying government and diplomatic sources for information. According to WikiLeaks, its secret clients include Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, other private companies, as well as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Marines, and U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. WikiLeaks has 5 million emails from 2004-2011, which reportedly were obtained by members of the hacktivist group, Anonymous.

WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange explained the importance of the documents in a press conference, which you can watch a portion of above or on YouTube.

Here are just a few of the interesting things that have been revealed so far:

• A grand jury issued a sealed indictment for Assange over a year ago, which the government has been sitting on since. A vice-president at Stratfor describes his strategy against WikiLeaks in creepy and insulting terms: “Take down the money. Go after his infrastructure…Big Brother owns his liberal terrorist arse…Move him from country to country to face various charges for the next 25 years. But, seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki.” He even wrote that Assange ”needs his head dunked in a full toilet bowl at Gitmo.”
• An officer at Stratfor has a friend who knows one of the women who accused Assange of sexual assault. The friend told him, ”there is absolutely nothing behind it other than prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves.”
• The Department of Homeland Security conducted surveillance on the Occupy Wall Street movement, analyzing their tweets and writing of the ”increasingly heavy burden on law enforcement and movement organizers to control protesters.”
• Dow Chemical Co. tracked the activities of people who protested the company’s role in a gas disaster in Bhopal, India, in 1984, and Coca Cola similarly monitored PETA activists

An index of all the Stratfor emails (so far) can be found here.

Julian Assange did a great interview with Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone magazine in its issue to be released next month. He talks about his legal problems in Sweden and potentially the U.S., alleged WikiLeaks source Pvt. Bradley Manning, who recently had a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to court-marshal him, the mainstream media, the military-industrial complex, crazy stalkers, and more.

My favorite part of the interview is when Assange was asked who his most important supporters are. He responded:

“John Pilger, the Australian journalist, has been the most impressive. And the other is Dan Ellsberg … Ron Paul did come out and make an impassioned and rational speech. It has not been the soft liberal left, the pseudo left that has defended us. In fact, they have run a mile. It has been strong activists who have a long record of fighting for what they believe in, both on the libertarian right and on the left.”

It’s great to see that these two defenders of liberty respect and support each other. And it’s great, after WikiLeaks has too often been lumped into the same category as Democrats and liberals, to see Assange associate himself with libertarianism. To read the rest of the interview, click here.

In the past few days, the Stop Internet Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) have gone from looking like they had a good chance of passing to, at least for now, quite the contrary. Both SOPA in the House and PIPA in the Senate would target foreign websites accused of enabling piracy by forbidding advertisers and payment processors from doing business with them, as well as allowing Internet service providers to block access to them. SOPA would require search engines not to list such sites, while PIPA would allow copyright holders to request court orders shutting down access to websites accused – without proof – of hosting pirated content.

Big business groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce support the two bills, while major websites, understandably, tend to oppose them, as do libertarian-leaning people.

On Wednesday numerous websites, including Wikipedia, Google, Craigslist, Reddit, Amazon, WordPress, Mozilla, and Wired, went dark (to various extents) to protest the bills. Various public figures, including 83 of the original architects of the Internet, expressed their opposition to SOPA and PIPA. The outrage spread throughout social media, to the streets, and to congressional offices’ phone lines and inboxes, thanks to the protests organized by tech companies and websites dedicated to Internet freedom, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, NetCoalition, Black Out SOPA, Stop American Censorship, and more.

But some more unlikely people stood up for Internet freedom as well. Earlier in the week, the White House expressed its opposition to the bills in a press release, saying, ”any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity.” Additionally, at least 10 senators and 20 representatives publicly announced their opposition to the legislation, some of whom were previously co-sponsors. They include senators Jim DeMint (R-SC), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Marco Rubio (R-FL), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and John Boozman (R-AK), as well as Representatives Rick Larsen (D-WA), Ben Quayle (R-AZ), Dennis Ross (D-FL), and Lee Terry (R-NE). Verizon, Netflix, GoDaddy, and Verizon also withdrew their support.

Furthermore, all four candidates in last night’s Republican presidential debate said they opposed SOPA and PIPA. Rick Santorum was the least enthusiastic, expressing his opposition to the bills as written but saying, “The Internet is not a free zone where people can do anything they want to do and trample the rights of other people.” Newt Gingrich called the proposed laws “exactly the wrong thing to do,” and Mitt Romney called them “too intrusive” and said, “I’m standing for freedom.” Ron Paul said he was the first house Republican to oppose the laws and added, “The Republicans, unfortunately, have been on the wrong side of this issue.”

This means that SOPA, at least for now, will not face a vote in the House. The Senate is still planning to vote on PIPA on Tuesday, but they may not have the necessary 60 votes, and any bill that passes may well be vetoed by Obama.

Having been in the pro-liberty minority many times on various issues, I think it’s great to see so many mainstream websites and organizations, and the public at large, take the right side (in my opinion) in this debate on Internet freedom. The New York Times called it “a moment when the new economy rose up against the old.” USA Today says, “Score one for tech geeks up in arms.” And Ron Paul proclaimed during the debate, “Freedom and the Constitution bring coalitions together, and this is a good example.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The day after widespread protests against overzealous anti-piracy bills (which I will blog about in detail tomorrow), seven of the owners and operators of popular file-storage site MegaUpload.com were indicted on federal charges of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and money laundering. According to Reuters…

“Although the sites they operate advertised that they provide personal storage for users’ content, the indictment claims they actually trafficked in hosting television shows and movies — often offering them to users before their official release.

‘Members of the Mega Conspiracy are aware of the way that their sites are actually used by others; have themselves used the systems to upload, as well as reproduce and distribute, infringing copies of copyrighted content; and are aware that they have financially benefited directly from the infringement of copyrighted works that they are in a position to control,’ the indictment reads.”

It seems like the owners of the site were targeted not just because their site poses opportunities for copyright infringement by users, but because they themselves committed copyright infringement. But it is still a bad thing for liberty when a site that is popular and useful to law-abiding people is now shut down because of federal law enforcement. Anonymous, apparently, agrees with me on this point. The anti-authoritarian hackers’ group took down the U.S. Department of Justice website for a while tonight and, it seems, the FBI, RIAA, and MPAA websites as well.

On Thursday, a federal court in Virginia ruled that Twitter had to turn over users’ private information to a grand jury investigating possible federal crimes involving WikiLeaks. This ruling affirmed a magistrate judge’s decision in March, which WikiLeaks volunteers Birgitta Jonsdottir, Jacob Appelbaum, and Rop Gonggrijp appealed, with help from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union.

It is unclear exactly what data people will no longer have the right to keep private, but it most likely includes IP addresses, email and mail addresses, login and logout times, and possibly private messages. The federal government now, according to Judge Liam O’Grady’s ruling, has the right to access this information without a warrant by issuing what is called a 2703 order. These orders have a lower standard of proof  than probable cause: the government must only have “reasonable grounds” that the information is “relevant and material” to an investigation. The judge’s reasoning was that the WikiLeakers had agreed to Twitter’s privacy policy, which warns that the site could turn over data to law enforcement.

The court also ruled that the 2703 orders can remain secret, denying the WikiLeakers’ request to unseal these documents so that they can find out which other websites, in addition to Twitter, have received similar orders.

It’s not a good thing for freedom when a court rules that people’s private information cannot remain secret, but government orders for people’s private information can. I couldn’t have said it better than Jonsdottir, who called the ruling “a huge backward step for the United States’ legacy of freedom of expression and the right to privacy.”

In somewhat related news, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s mother, Christine Assange, spoke to Green Left Weekly about her son’s legal trials and tribulations, alleged WikiLeaks source Private Bradley Manning, the relationship between Australia and the US, and her plans to protest President Obama’s visit to the Australian parliament. I really admire how she is so outspoken and supportive of her son.

Read the full ruling (PDF)