buzzfeed--2020-06-04--A Legal Doctrine That Protects Cops In Court Is Getting Fresh Attention As Videos Surface Showing Po

A Legal Doctrine That Protects Cops In Court Is Getting Fresh Attention As Videos Surface Showing Police Violence

WASHINGTON — The videos documenting police violence during anti-racist demonstrations last weekend ricocheted online .
Officers in New York driving SUVs into a crowd , and spraying pepper spray after pulling down a young man ’ s face mask .
Officers in Minneapolis firing paint canisters at people filming them from their porch .
Officers in Atlanta tasing two college students in a car .
The drumbeat of voices calling for greater police accountability after George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis a week ago has only gotten louder .
A legal doctrine known as qualified immunity that has long shielded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is getting fresh attention .
State officials and prosecutors have vowed to investigate police abuses during protests , as well as to take on uses of force that disproportionately affect people of color .
The outcomes of those investigations are largely out of the hands of the people impacted on the ground , however .
Individuals can take police officers to court , but justice in these cases can be slow , complicated , and sometimes nonexistent .
Federal law allows individuals to bring civil lawsuits against government officials , including law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The US Supreme Court and federal courts have ruled , however , that officers can claim immunity if they didn ’ t violate “ clearly established ” laws or constitutional rights that a “ reasonable ” officer would be aware of at the time .
Even in cases where judges concluded that what officers did was unconstitutional , they ’ ve still granted immunity because the violation wasn ’ t “ clearly established ” at the time .
In 2018 , for instance , the 9th Circuit ruled that it was “ not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to point a loaded gun at an unarmed man ’ s head while the man was sitting “ calm and compliant ” under the watch of another armed deputy .
But the officers accused of being involved in the incident were still entitled to immunity , the court held , because “ the law was not clearly established at the time.
” The 11th Circuit ruled in 2017 that a police officer accused of throwing an explosive device , known as a “ flashbang , ” into a bedroom where two people were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unconstitutional use of excessive force .
One person was badly burned .
But the court ruled that the officer was entitled to immunity because the “ contours of the right ” to be free from that kind of police force were not “ clearly established.
” Federal courts have grappled for decades with how to apply immunity to cops accused of abuses of power in practice .
A Reuters investigation earlier this year found that in cases accusing police of excessive force , courts since 2005 increasingly have ruled in favor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the end result of our culture of near-zero accountability for law enforcement , ” said Jay Schweikert , a policy analyst on criminal justice issues at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute , who has organized efforts to end qualified immunity .
“ There are lots of complex causes of that culture , but in my view , the most significant is qualified immunity , because that is the doctrine that is undermining what is supposed to be the official means of ensuring accountability.
” An ideologically diverse coalition of elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want the Supreme Court to revisit qualified immunity and limit it , or get rid of it altogether .
The justices have already declined to hear a handful of qualified immunity cases this term — one case involved police in Fresno , California , who were granted immunity despite allegations that they stole hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and rare coins when they executed a search warrant .
There are 10 remaining cases that deal with qualified immunity ( not all involve police ) that the court is deciding whether to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t made a decision as of Monday , when the court released the latest list of orders .
These cases include allegations that a deputy sheriff in Coffee County , Georgia , shot a 10-year-old child who was lying on the ground while the deputy was trying to shoot the family ’ s dog ; that two officers in Nashville used a police dog against a suspect who had surrendered ; and that officers in Caldwell , Idaho , made a house uninhabitable when they shot tear gas inside even after they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases waiting for action before the Supreme Court involve police encounters with demonstrators , but the same qualified immunity principles apply when protesters take law enforcement to court .
These cases can get even more complicated when judges also have to decide if the protest activity at issue was protected by the First Amendment .
Last year , a federal judge in Washington , DC , denied qualified immunity to police officers accused of using excessive force against protesters during President Donald Trump ’ s inauguration in January 2017 .
The judge ruled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , the plaintiffs had at least alleged that police surrounded protesters — a tactic known as kettling that police appeared to use in DC on Monday night — and indiscriminately arrested people without probable cause that they ’ d committed a crime .
But the judge dismissed a separate claim that accused police of retaliating against people for exercising their First Amendment rights .
She wrote that simply stating in a lawsuit that protesters were arrested during a demonstration wasn ’ t enough — the plaintiffs had to present factual evidence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment–protected activity .
The case is pending .
The reason it ’ s more critical now than ever that the Supreme Court review and revisit the rule of qualified immunity is both to ensure ... that the police are accountable for the horrific unprovoked violence that suspects , and particularly individuals of color , have experienced both recently and for a long time , and also so that demonstrators ’ rights are protected and police know that they have to toe the constitutional line , ” said Scott Michelman , legal director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who is involved in one of the cases pending before the Supreme Court as well as the inauguration protest case .
Law enforcement groups generally defend qualified immunity as necessary to make sure cops have the ability to respond to dangerous and fast-moving situations without fear of a lawsuit later .
There are exceptions to that — a group that includes police and other law enforcement representatives has joined amicus , or friend of the court , briefs arguing against qualified immunity submitted to the Supreme Court by the Cato Institute .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in on the cases pending before the Supreme Court , and a DOJ spokesperson did not return a request for comment .

WASHINGTON — The videos documenting police violence during anti-racist demonstrations last weekend ricocheted online. Officers in New York driving SUVs into a crowd, and spraying pepper spray after pulling down a young man’s face mask. Officers in Minneapolis firing paint canisters at people filming them from their porch. Officers in Atlanta tasing two college students in a car.
The drumbeat of voices calling for greater police accountability after George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis a week ago has only gotten louder. A legal doctrine known as qualified immunity that has long shielded cops from liability for using excessive force is getting fresh attention.
State officials and prosecutors have vowed to investigate police abuses during protests, as well as to take on uses of force that disproportionately affect people of color. The outcomes of those investigations are largely out of the hands of the people impacted on the ground, however. Individuals can take police officers to court, but justice in these cases can be slow, complicated, and sometimes nonexistent.
Federal law allows individuals to bring civil lawsuits against government officials, including law enforcement officers, for civil rights violations. The US Supreme Court and federal courts have ruled, however, that officers can claim immunity if they didn’t violate “clearly established” laws or constitutional rights that a “reasonable” officer would be aware of at the time.
Even in cases where judges concluded that what officers did was unconstitutional, they’ve still granted immunity because the violation wasn’t “clearly established” at the time.
In 2018, for instance, the 9th Circuit ruled that it was “not objectively reasonable” for a police officer to point a loaded gun at an unarmed man’s head while the man was sitting “calm and compliant” under the watch of another armed deputy. But the officers accused of being involved in the incident were still entitled to immunity, the court held, because “the law was not clearly established at the time.”
The 11th Circuit ruled in 2017 that a police officer accused of throwing an explosive device, known as a “flashbang,” into a bedroom where two people were sleeping without first inspecting the room was an unconstitutional use of excessive force. One person was badly burned. But the court ruled that the officer was entitled to immunity because the “contours of the right” to be free from that kind of police force were not “clearly established.”
Federal courts have grappled for decades with how to apply immunity to cops accused of abuses of power in practice. A Reuters investigation earlier this year found that in cases accusing police of excessive force, courts since 2005 increasingly have ruled in favor of police.
“What you see now is the end result of our culture of near-zero accountability for law enforcement,” said Jay Schweikert, a policy analyst on criminal justice issues at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, who has organized efforts to end qualified immunity. “There are lots of complex causes of that culture, but in my view, the most significant is qualified immunity, because that is the doctrine that is undermining what is supposed to be the official means of ensuring accountability.”
An ideologically diverse coalition of elected officials and legal and political advocacy groups want the Supreme Court to revisit qualified immunity and limit it, or get rid of it altogether. The justices have already declined to hear a handful of qualified immunity cases this term — one case involved police in Fresno, California, who were granted immunity despite allegations that they stole hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and rare coins when they executed a search warrant.
There are 10 remaining cases that deal with qualified immunity (not all involve police) that the court is deciding whether to take up. The justices hadn’t made a decision as of Monday, when the court released the latest list of orders. These cases include allegations that a deputy sheriff in Coffee County, Georgia, shot a 10-year-old child who was lying on the ground while the deputy was trying to shoot the family’s dog; that two officers in Nashville used a police dog against a suspect who had surrendered; and that officers in Caldwell, Idaho, made a house uninhabitable when they shot tear gas inside even after they had permission to enter.
None of the cases waiting for action before the Supreme Court involve police encounters with demonstrators, but the same qualified immunity principles apply when protesters take law enforcement to court. These cases can get even more complicated when judges also have to decide if the protest activity at issue was protected by the First Amendment.
Last year, a federal judge in Washington, DC, denied qualified immunity to police officers accused of using excessive force against protesters during President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2017. The judge ruled that at that early stage of the case, the plaintiffs had at least alleged that police surrounded protesters — a tactic known as kettling that police appeared to use in DC on Monday night — and indiscriminately arrested people without probable cause that they’d committed a crime.
But the judge dismissed a separate claim that accused police of retaliating against people for exercising their First Amendment rights. She wrote that simply stating in a lawsuit that protesters were arrested during a demonstration wasn’t enough — the plaintiffs had to present factual evidence that they were arrested specifically because of First Amendment–protected activity. The case is pending.
The reason it’s more critical now than ever that the Supreme Court review and revisit the rule of qualified immunity is both to ensure ... that the police are accountable for the horrific unprovoked violence that suspects, and particularly individuals of color, have experienced both recently and for a long time, and also so that demonstrators’ rights are protected and police know that they have to toe the constitutional line,” said Scott Michelman, legal director of the ACLU of the District of Columbia, who is involved in one of the cases pending before the Supreme Court as well as the inauguration protest case.
Law enforcement groups generally defend qualified immunity as necessary to make sure cops have the ability to respond to dangerous and fast-moving situations without fear of a lawsuit later. There are exceptions to that — a group that includes police and other law enforcement representatives has joined amicus, or friend of the court, briefs arguing against qualified immunity submitted to the Supreme Court by the Cato Institute.
The Justice Department hasn’t weighed in on the cases pending before the Supreme Court, and a DOJ spokesperson did not return a request for comment.


buzzfeed--2020-06-05--The Trump Administration Said It Didn’t Change Policy To Deny Housing Loans To DACA Recipients. Emai

The Trump Administration Said It Didn’t Change Policy To Deny Housing Loans To DACA Recipients. Emails Show Otherwise.

The Trump administration changed housing policy to deny federally backed housing loans to young undocumented immigrants while repeatedly telling Congress there were no changes made , according to internal emails and other documents from the federal housing agency .
Though the practice of denying federally backed home loans to recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program had been going on for months before , officials with the Housing and Urban Development Department made a specific internal decision by August 2018 to exclude them from the program , according to the emails and internal memos .
The documents were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Information Act request and provided to BuzzFeed News .
Democracy Forward wrote a letter , which is expected to be submitted Friday , calling for HUD Inspector General Rae Oliver Davis to open an investigation into whether the agency violated federal law by changing its policy without allowing for a public notice and comment period and by failing to disclose the change to Congress and the public .
DACA recipients , loan officers , realtors , and industry associations told BuzzFeed News in December 2018 that federal housing officials were telling them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federal Housing Administration ’ s home loan program after years of being told they were eligible .
Housing Secretary Ben Carson denied that there was any shift in how DACA recipients were being treated , and HUD did not publicly admit it was denying these loans until June 2019 .
During public testimony to congressional committees and in private meetings with members of Congress following BuzzFeed News ’ initial reporting , Carson and other HUD staffers repeatedly said there was no policy change .
Carson went so far as to say he “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ No one was aware of any changes that had been made to the policy whatsoever .
I ’ m sure we have plenty of DACA recipients who have FHA-backed loans , ” he said during a congressional hearing in April 2019 after being asked by Rep. Pete Aguilar of California about BuzzFeed News ’ reporting .
The newly obtained emails show that HUD officials were telling lenders not to approve FHA-backed loans from at least early 2018 , and that they had made a specific decision by that August to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to DACA recipients to justify excluding them , though it ’ s not clear why that category was considered disqualifying .
That decision was communicated to staff during an internal credit policy conference call on Aug. 30 , 2018 .
The general consensus that HUD officials formed in their internal emails was that “ lawful residency , ” which is required to qualify for the loans , was the same as “ lawful status ” ; this disregards that while federal immigration authorities say DACA “ does not confer lawful status , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States .
DACA status is not directly addressed in the FHA single-family housing handbook , the document lenders refer to for rules on government-backed housing loans .
The handbook says only that an Employment Authorization Document — which DACA recipients have — is necessary “ to substantiate work status ” for noncitizens .
The internal HUD documents show that officials made the decision to start telling lenders that the specific type of EAD that DACA recipients have , a C-33 EAD , was no longer valid for government-backed loans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assessment of who was eligible for the loans in the years since DACA was implemented in 2012 .
“ Although our policy has always been that they must have lawful residency to qualify for an FHA mortgage , we never used the category codes on the EAD card to determine this and I think everyone just assumed that they had lawful status if they had an EAD card ( Makes sense — why would USCIS issue a card if the person wasn ’ t lawfully allowed in the country ?
? )
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcing using the category code , ” Deanna DiMarino , a staffer in the office of FHA Commissioner Brian Montgomery , wrote in an email to colleagues on Nov. 28 , 2018 .
She wrote in the same email that HUD needed to “ be sure we can back up the lawful residency piece via USCIS , which has been a major challenge to do.
” Internal guidance from HUD ’ s Escalation Review Committee on Nov. 27 , 2018 , again reinforced the agency ’ s change in policy to use the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ confirming that DACA recipients do not meet FHA ’ s lawful residency requirements.
” The loans provided by the FHA are designed to be more accessible to buyers with low incomes .
They require a lower down payment than most conventional mortgages .
Because they ’ re insured by the government , they provide assurance for lenders in case the borrower defaults on payments .
The loans are not restricted to US citizens or permanent residents — some people on temporary work visas , for example , can qualify .
People working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noticed the change in guidance after President Donald Trump first unsuccessfully moved to rescind the program .
The emails come as the Supreme Court is set to soon decide on the fate of the DACA program , which allows hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants to live and work in the US .
Former president Barack Obama instituted the program in 2012 to protect from deportation those who came to the US as children .
The Trump administration moved to close down the program in 2017 , but that decision was later blocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court later took up the arguments , and the conservative justices appeared to side with the administration 's case to rescind the protections .
Advocates have argued that such a decision would violate the Administrative Procedure Act , and the administration did not offer a full explanation for attempting to shut the program down .
A decision on the future of the program is expected this summer , during the height of the presidential campaign .
Trump has made restricting immigration a hallmark of his tenure and candidacy .
“ The Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deny DACA recipients federal home loan eligibility hurt DACA recipients and lenders and created uncertainty in the home mortgage market .
It was an administrative trainwreck — and yet another example of what happens when the Trump administration ’ s disregard for immigrants and inability to govern collide , ” said Robin Thurston , senior counsel for Democracy Forward .

The Trump administration changed housing policy to deny federally backed housing loans to young undocumented immigrants while repeatedly telling Congress there were no changes made, according to internal emails and other documents from the federal housing agency.
Though the practice of denying federally backed home loans to recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program had been going on for months before, officials with the Housing and Urban Development Department made a specific internal decision by August 2018 to exclude them from the program, according to the emails and internal memos.
The documents were obtained by Democracy Forward through a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to BuzzFeed News. Democracy Forward wrote a letter, which is expected to be submitted Friday, calling for HUD Inspector General Rae Oliver Davis to open an investigation into whether the agency violated federal law by changing its policy without allowing for a public notice and comment period and by failing to disclose the change to Congress and the public.
DACA recipients, loan officers, realtors, and industry associations told BuzzFeed News in December 2018 that federal housing officials were telling them to shut DACA recipients out of the Federal Housing Administration’s home loan program after years of being told they were eligible.
Housing Secretary Ben Carson denied that there was any shift in how DACA recipients were being treated, and HUD did not publicly admit it was denying these loans until June 2019. During public testimony to congressional committees and in private meetings with members of Congress following BuzzFeed News’ initial reporting, Carson and other HUD staffers repeatedly said there was no policy change.
Carson went so far as to say he “asked around” after reading the story. “No one was aware of any changes that had been made to the policy whatsoever. I’m sure we have plenty of DACA recipients who have FHA-backed loans,” he said during a congressional hearing in April 2019 after being asked by Rep. Pete Aguilar of California about BuzzFeed News’ reporting.
The newly obtained emails show that HUD officials were telling lenders not to approve FHA-backed loans from at least early 2018, and that they had made a specific decision by that August to use an employment authorization category that only applies to DACA recipients to justify excluding them, though it’s not clear why that category was considered disqualifying. That decision was communicated to staff during an internal credit policy conference call on Aug. 30, 2018.
The general consensus that HUD officials formed in their internal emails was that “lawful residency,” which is required to qualify for the loans, was the same as “lawful status”; this disregards that while federal immigration authorities say DACA “does not confer lawful status,” its recipients are “lawfully present” in the United States.
DACA status is not directly addressed in the FHA single-family housing handbook, the document lenders refer to for rules on government-backed housing loans. The handbook says only that an Employment Authorization Document — which DACA recipients have — is necessary “to substantiate work status” for noncitizens.
The internal HUD documents show that officials made the decision to start telling lenders that the specific type of EAD that DACA recipients have, a C-33 EAD, was no longer valid for government-backed loans, something they had never included in their assessment of who was eligible for the loans in the years since DACA was implemented in 2012.
“Although our policy has always been that they must have lawful residency to qualify for an FHA mortgage, we never used the category codes on the EAD card to determine this and I think everyone just assumed that they had lawful status if they had an EAD card (Makes sense — why would USCIS issue a card if the person wasn’t lawfully allowed in the country??). … [W]e are now enforcing using the category code,” Deanna DiMarino, a staffer in the office of FHA Commissioner Brian Montgomery, wrote in an email to colleagues on Nov. 28, 2018.
She wrote in the same email that HUD needed to “be sure we can back up the lawful residency piece via USCIS, which has been a major challenge to do.”
Internal guidance from HUD’s Escalation Review Committee on Nov. 27, 2018, again reinforced the agency’s change in policy to use the employment authorization to exclude DACA recipients — “confirming that DACA recipients do not meet FHA’s lawful residency requirements.”
The loans provided by the FHA are designed to be more accessible to buyers with low incomes. They require a lower down payment than most conventional mortgages. Because they’re insured by the government, they provide assurance for lenders in case the borrower defaults on payments. The loans are not restricted to US citizens or permanent residents — some people on temporary work visas, for example, can qualify.
People working with DACA recipients on housing say they noticed the change in guidance after President Donald Trump first unsuccessfully moved to rescind the program.
The emails come as the Supreme Court is set to soon decide on the fate of the DACA program, which allows hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants to live and work in the US. Former president Barack Obama instituted the program in 2012 to protect from deportation those who came to the US as children.
The Trump administration moved to close down the program in 2017, but that decision was later blocked by the federal courts. The Supreme Court later took up the arguments, and the conservative justices appeared to side with the administration's case to rescind the protections. Advocates have argued that such a decision would violate the Administrative Procedure Act, and the administration did not offer a full explanation for attempting to shut the program down.
A decision on the future of the program is expected this summer, during the height of the presidential campaign. Trump has made restricting immigration a hallmark of his tenure and candidacy.
“The Trump administration’s unacknowledged, unlawful decision to deny DACA recipients federal home loan eligibility hurt DACA recipients and lenders and created uncertainty in the home mortgage market. It was an administrative trainwreck — and yet another example of what happens when the Trump administration’s disregard for immigrants and inability to govern collide,” said Robin Thurston, senior counsel for Democracy Forward.


buzzfeed--2020-06-05--People Are Saying Police Brutality Protesters Are Being Paid, But They’re Citing A Satirical Website

The myth that protesters , no matter the cause , are secretly being paid by some powerful entity has circulated for years , but it has spread with renewed vigor as anti–police brutality demonstrations have ignited across the United States .
Citing debunked images and a satirical website , users on social media have suggested that people showing up in the streets are being financed by a third party .
There ’ s no shortage of online posts or videos promoting the claim that protesters are being paid — but over the weekend , some social media users turned their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ProtestJobs.com .
“ Exposed !
!
!
!
!
!
!
Protesters for hire , ” wrote one person on Facebook who shared the website three months ago .
“ Are we awake now because this takes the motherfuking cake , ” wrote another who shared it last week .
In reality , the cake is a lie .
According to new research conducted by the Digital Forensic Research Lab ( DFRLab ) , an organization that tracks online disinformation , people have shared the site on Facebook Groups and pages , claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constituted proof of staged demonstrations .
The site carries an explicit disclaimer — '' Real : 100,000+ Americans are dead .
Fake : This website '' — and offers such tongue-in-cheek services like “ Free National Parks tweet comparing the size of your protest to the inauguration ” and “ Car/Dumpster fire upgrade option available.
” BuzzFeed News spoke to the site 's creator , who requested anonymity because he has “ seen what happens to people ” who become targets of online harassment .
He ’ s a US citizen who created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his friends .
He forgot about it until last weekend , he said .
“ I put it together and I thought it was funny , ” he said .
“ I shared it with a couple of friends and we got a good laugh out of it.
” Then he put it out of his mind until a fact-checker recently contacted him .
“ I didn ’ t expect this to happen , ” the website 's creator said .
DFRLab found that the site was shared over 30,000 times on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million visitors , as of May 28 .
Although there was some activity on Twitter , Google Analytics information shared with BuzzFeed News by the site ’ s owner showed that over 95 % of the traffic flowed through Facebook .
“ I never looked at it .
I never touched it .
I never had any alerts set up , ” the creator said .
“ To have it go from zero [ views ] to a million is quite shocking.
” He said he made the website as a response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesters , and he never expected the site would be used to denounce protests .
Jean le Roux , the research associate who conducted the analysis , told BuzzFeed News that the site was an ideal illustration of how even well-intentioned satire could be taken out of context .
“ It 's a very fine line between disinformation and an actual , established literary device , ” he said .
Sometimes , politicians or blogs claim they were joking after spreading disinformation , le Roux said , but that ’ s not what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in a weird , ironic twist , is being used as proof that these protesters are being paid , ” he said , “ despite the fact that it 's actually satire about people thinking that protesters are being paid.
” Le Roux ’ s analysis showed small but clear spikes in traffic correlating with protests .
One spike was in February , during protests against the development of a pipeline on Indigenous land in Canada .
Another , bigger spike correlates with the US protests that began last weekend .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegitimize protests all over the place , ” le Roux said .
“ Most of the people who were sharing it were convinced that it was real.
” After realizing its popularity , the website 's owner added a disclaimer , which has n't seemed to deter people from sharing it , although traffic ultimately dwindled .
He said he worried that taking it down would fuel conspiracies about why it disappeared .

The myth that protesters, no matter the cause, are secretly being paid by some powerful entity has circulated for years, but it has spread with renewed vigor as anti–police brutality demonstrations have ignited across the United States. Citing debunked images and a satirical website, users on social media have suggested that people showing up in the streets are being financed by a third party.
There’s no shortage of online posts or videos promoting the claim that protesters are being paid — but over the weekend, some social media users turned their attention to a very real website, ProtestJobs.com.
“Exposed!!!!!!! Protesters for hire,” wrote one person on Facebook who shared the website three months ago. “Are we awake now because this takes the motherfuking cake,” wrote another who shared it last week.
In reality, the cake is a lie.
According to new research conducted by the Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab), an organization that tracks online disinformation, people have shared the site on Facebook Groups and pages, claiming the site, which is satire, constituted proof of staged demonstrations.
The site carries an explicit disclaimer —"Real: 100,000+ Americans are dead. Fake: This website" — and offers such tongue-in-cheek services like “Free National Parks tweet comparing the size of your protest to the inauguration” and “Car/Dumpster fire upgrade option available.”
BuzzFeed News spoke to the site's creator, who requested anonymity because he has “seen what happens to people” who become targets of online harassment. He’s a US citizen who created the website in 2017 as a joke for his friends. He forgot about it until last weekend, he said.
“I put it together and I thought it was funny,” he said. “I shared it with a couple of friends and we got a good laugh out of it.”
Then he put it out of his mind until a fact-checker recently contacted him.
“I didn’t expect this to happen,” the website's creator said.
DFRLab found that the site was shared over 30,000 times on Facebook, which translated to nearly a million visitors, as of May 28. Although there was some activity on Twitter, Google Analytics information shared with BuzzFeed News by the site’s owner showed that over 95% of the traffic flowed through Facebook.
“I never looked at it. I never touched it. I never had any alerts set up,” the creator said. “To have it go from zero [views] to a million is quite shocking.”
He said he made the website as a response to unsubstantiated claims circulating in 2017 of paid protesters, and he never expected the site would be used to denounce protests.
Jean le Roux, the research associate who conducted the analysis, told BuzzFeed News that the site was an ideal illustration of how even well-intentioned satire could be taken out of context.
“It's a very fine line between disinformation and an actual, established literary device,” he said.
Sometimes, politicians or blogs claim they were joking after spreading disinformation, le Roux said, but that’s not what happened in this case.
“Satire, in a weird, ironic twist, is being used as proof that these protesters are being paid,” he said, “despite the fact that it's actually satire about people thinking that protesters are being paid.”
Le Roux’s analysis showed small but clear spikes in traffic correlating with protests. One spike was in February, during protests against the development of a pipeline on Indigenous land in Canada. Another, bigger spike correlates with the US protests that began last weekend.
“This whole site was being used to delegitimize protests all over the place,” le Roux said. “Most of the people who were sharing it were convinced that it was real.”
After realizing its popularity, the website's owner added a disclaimer, which hasn't seemed to deter people from sharing it, although traffic ultimately dwindled. He said he worried that taking it down would fuel conspiracies about why it disappeared.


buzzfeed--2020-06-05--News O'Clock: Trump Thinks The Protests Will Help Him Win Like Nixon. That’s Unlikely.

George Floyd ’ s memorial was held in Minneapolis today , and all four former officers involved in his death have now been charged with crimes .
The cast of Brooklyn Nine-Nine has donated $ 100,000 to help bail out people arrested for protesting police brutality .
K-pop stans are fighting for good , yet again .
And we have the New York Times ’ Jamelle Bouie with us to discuss why the protests on the streets don ’ t mean it ’ s 1968 again — and why the comparison doesn ’ t work the way Trump wants it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tom Cotton 's very controversial op-ed . )
You can listen to today 's News O'Clock above , or also on : Or wherever else you listen to your favorite podcasts .
Lastly , if you have thoughts on Trump 's response to protests , or want to share your favorite K-pop tweet , or have anything at all that you want to tell us , feel free to send us an email : newsoclock @ buzzfeed.com !
You can either write down your brilliant opinion OR , even better , record it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email it to us or DM us on Twitter — we ’ re @ NewsOClock .

George Floyd’s memorial was held in Minneapolis today, and all four former officers involved in his death have now been charged with crimes.
The cast of Brooklyn Nine-Nine has donated $100,000 to help bail out people arrested for protesting police brutality.
K-pop stans are fighting for good, yet again.
And we have the New York Times’ Jamelle Bouie with us to discuss why the protests on the streets don’t mean it’s 1968 again — and why the comparison doesn’t work the way Trump wants it to. (Oh, and also Tom Cotton's very controversial op-ed.)
You can listen to today's News O'Clock above, or also on:
The iHeartRadio app
Apple Podcasts
Spotify
Google Podcasts
Or wherever else you listen to your favorite podcasts.
Lastly, if you have thoughts on Trump's response to protests, or want to share your favorite K-pop tweet, or have anything at all that you want to tell us, feel free to send us an email: newsoclock@buzzfeed.com! You can either write down your brilliant opinion OR, even better, record it as a voice memo. You can email it to us or DM us on Twitter — we’re @NewsOClock.


buzzfeed--2020-06-05--Black Lives Matter Is Suing Trump And The Federal Government Over Force Used Against Protesters Outs

Black Lives Matter Is Suing Trump And The Federal Government Over Force Used Against Protesters Outside The White House

Police clear demonstrators from Lafayette Park near the White House just before President Donald Trump walked through the area for a photo op , June 1 .
WASHINGTON — The DC chapter of the Black Lives Matter movement filed a lawsuit on Thursday accusing federal law enforcement officers of violating the constitutional rights of peaceful demonstrators who were forcibly cleared from a park north of the White House so President Donald Trump could walk through for a photo op earlier this week .
The lawsuit accuses officers of attacking the demonstrators without warning and using excessive force — including deploying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas , smoke canisters , pepper balls , and rubber bullets .
“ This case is about the President and Attorney General of the United States ordering the use of violence against peaceful demonstrators who were speaking out against discriminatory police brutality targeted at Black people , ” the complaint , filed in federal court in Washington , DC , begins .
It ’ s the first lawsuit filed over the events in Lafayette Square on June 1 , and one of the first cases seeking to hold city , state , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during protests nationwide that have led to more than 11,000 arrests .
Besides the local chapter of the Black Lives Matter movement , the plaintiffs in the DC case include a woman who was in the park with her 9-year-old child and other protesters from DC and Maryland who said they were injured and feared going back out to exercise their free speech rights .
They are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of DC and the Washington Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs .
A crowd of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday in the late afternoon as Trump prepared to deliver remarks from the Rose Garden at the White House .
The US Park Police and other federal law enforcement officers in the park suddenly deployed smoke canisters and chemical irritants and charged into the crowd , the sounds of which could be heard from the White House as Trump spoke .
The Park Police were joined by officers from the US Secret Service , the DC National Guard , the Arlington County police , and the US Army military police , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit notes that the incident took place before the city ’ s 7 p.m. curfew .
It soon became clear that officers had cleared the park to allow Trump to walk from the White House to St. John ’ s Episcopal Church , where he stood for photographs holding a Bible .
The church had been burned the weekend before and was boarded up at the time .
The US Park Police released a statement that claimed demonstrators near the park had thrown bricks , frozen water bottles , and “ caustic liquids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given three warnings over a loudspeaker before taking action , but BuzzFeed News and other media outlets on the ground reported that the protesters were peaceful .
One of the plaintiffs heard an officer make an announcement over a megaphone about the city ’ s 7 p.m. curfew and “ simultaneously ” heard explosions , according to the lawsuit .
The agency also disputed the characterization of the irritants as “ tear gas , ” saying officers used “ smoke canisters and pepper balls.
” Pepper balls are projectiles filled with chemicals designed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mouth , and throat , which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has generally described as types of “ tear gas.
” The lawsuit cites a tweet from a local reporter who said TV crews had collected canisters of tear gas from the scene .

WASHINGTON — The DC chapter of the Black Lives Matter movement filed a lawsuit on Thursday accusing federal law enforcement officers of violating the constitutional rights of peaceful demonstrators who were forcibly cleared from a park north of the White House so President Donald Trump could walk through for a photo op earlier this week.
The lawsuit accuses officers of attacking the demonstrators without warning and using excessive force — including deploying incendiary devices such as flashbangs, tear gas, smoke canisters, pepper balls, and rubber bullets.
“This case is about the President and Attorney General of the United States ordering the use of violence against peaceful demonstrators who were speaking out against discriminatory police brutality targeted at Black people,” the complaint, filed in federal court in Washington, DC, begins.
It’s the first lawsuit filed over the events in Lafayette Square on June 1, and one of the first cases seeking to hold city, state, and federal law enforcement liable for alleged misconduct during protests nationwide that have led to more than 11,000 arrests. Besides the local chapter of the Black Lives Matter movement, the plaintiffs in the DC case include a woman who was in the park with her 9-year-old child and other protesters from DC and Maryland who said they were injured and feared going back out to exercise their free speech rights. They are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of DC and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.
A crowd of demonstrators had gathered in Lafayette Square on Monday in the late afternoon as Trump prepared to deliver remarks from the Rose Garden at the White House. The US Park Police and other federal law enforcement officers in the park suddenly deployed smoke canisters and chemical irritants and charged into the crowd, the sounds of which could be heard from the White House as Trump spoke.
The Park Police were joined by officers from the US Secret Service, the DC National Guard, the Arlington County police, and the US Army military police, according to the lawsuit and media reports. The lawsuit notes that the incident took place before the city’s 7 p.m. curfew.
It soon became clear that officers had cleared the park to allow Trump to walk from the White House to St. John’s Episcopal Church, where he stood for photographs holding a Bible. The church had been burned the weekend before and was boarded up at the time.
The US Park Police released a statement that claimed demonstrators near the park had thrown bricks, frozen water bottles, and “caustic liquids,” and maintained that officers had given three warnings over a loudspeaker before taking action, but BuzzFeed News and other media outlets on the ground reported that the protesters were peaceful.
One of the plaintiffs heard an officer make an announcement over a megaphone about the city’s 7 p.m. curfew and “simultaneously” heard explosions, according to the lawsuit.
The agency also disputed the characterization of the irritants as “tear gas,” saying officers used “smoke canisters and pepper balls.” Pepper balls are projectiles filled with chemicals designed to irritate people’s eyes, mouth, and throat, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has generally described as types of “tear gas.” The lawsuit cites a tweet from a local reporter who said TV crews had collected canisters of tear gas from the scene.


buzzfeed--2020-06-05--Homeland Security’s Inspector General Is Opening A Review Of The Department’s Treatment Of Pregnant

Homeland Security’s Inspector General Is Opening A Review Of The Department’s Treatment Of Pregnant Detainees

An immigrant from El Salvador , 7 months pregnant , she said , stands next to a Border Patrol truck after turning herself in to border agents near Rio Grande City , Texas , Dec. 7 , 2015 .
Following a complaint filed on behalf of a pregnant woman who said she had given birth in a border patrol station , the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security will conduct a review of the incident and a broader audit of the medical treatment of pregnant people in US Customs and Border Protection custody .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Liberties Union and first reported by BuzzFeed News in April , says that the woman and her family had entered the country seeking asylum from Guatemala and were taken to a border patrol station near San Diego .
The woman repeatedly told CBP officers she was in pain and asked for help but was ignored and told to wait to be processed , according to the complaint .
Shortly afterward , she gave birth to her child while standing up , holding onto a trash can , still wearing her pants .
DHS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review in a letter to thirteen Democratic senators this month , which was obtained by BuzzFeed News .
It is a response to a request sent by the senators , led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal , on April 8 in conjunction with the ACLU , demanding an investigation into the woman ’ s complaint , as well as a broader investigation into the treatment of pregnant people in immigration custody , and an overhaul of DHS policies on the detainment of pregnant people .
“ We are reviewing the specific circumstances surrounding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave birth at the Chula Vista Border Patrol Station that you referenced in your letter , ” Inspector General Joseph V. Cuffari wrote in the letter , dated Tuesday .
Cuffari also said his office is conducting an audit of detention facility policies and processes to determine whether CBP properly “ safeguards ” people in their custody who have “ serious medical conditions … including pregnancy , ” the letter reads .
Once the work is complete , the DHS OIG will report its findings publicly , the letter concluded .
The letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This response is way long overdue and frustratingly short and cursory , ” Blumenthal told BuzzFeed News .
“ But it is an advance because it indicates that they are going to include treatment of pregnant women and while in custody in an audit of detention facility policies relating to medical issues generally.
” In December of 2017 , the Trump administration quietly implemented a new policy allowing for the detention of pregnant women not in their third trimesters .
This was a reversal of an Obama-era policy of telling federal immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in extreme circumstances or in rare circumstances of expedited deportation .
Months later , in the summer of 2018 , BuzzFeed News reported on several cases of pregnant people saying they were mistreated by CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement .
Five women told BuzzFeed News that they were denied care when they asked for it , and in some cases said they were physically abused and shackled around the belly .
Three of them said they miscarried while in custody .
Following this report , several members of Congress , including Sens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called for investigations into the mistreatment of pregnant people in CBP and ICE custody , and Sen. Patty Murray introduced legislation to address the issue ( the bill has not been brought up for a vote in the Republican-controlled ) .
Since then , members of Congress , including Blumenthal , have written several more letters to DHS requesting investigations into the issue .
According to another letter obtained by BuzzFeed News , the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties wrote to the ACLU in April , shortly after the complaint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation into the treatment of pregnant people in DHS custody .
However , Tuesday ’ s letter is the first response from the OIG , the DHS watchdog , that Blumenthal ’ s office or the ACLU is aware of on this issue .
The DHS OIG did not immediately respond to BuzzFeed News ’ request for comment .
“ We welcome the review into our client 's treatment by CBP while she was forced to give birth at the Chula Vista Station , ” Monika Langarica , the ACLU attorney representing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ But we continue to urge OIG to call on CBP to adopt the recommendations laid out in our complaint.
” These recommendations include immediately transporting pregnant people to a local hospital for evaluation , instead of to a border patrol station for processing , which can sometimes take hours or days .
The ACLU ’ s complaint also recommends the prompt release of any person forced to give birth while in custody , as well as access to basic postpartum necessities , including a shower and blankets for the newborn , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical procedures .
According to the ACLU complaint , their client received none of this treatment .
In their conversations with BuzzFeed News , Langarica and Blumenthal emphasized that this investigation has become even more important due to the acute threat of the coronavirus to anyone in detention , especially to medically vulnerable populations like pregnant women .
“ At a time when we 're worried about a highly contagious disease , detention facilities themselves are problematic , ” Blumenthal .
Blumenthal told BuzzFeed News that he plans to respond to the letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , requesting more information about the scope and timeline of the audit .

Following a complaint filed on behalf of a pregnant woman who said she had given birth in a border patrol station, the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security will conduct a review of the incident and a broader audit of the medical treatment of pregnant people in US Customs and Border Protection custody.
The complaint, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and first reported by BuzzFeed News in April, says that the woman and her family had entered the country seeking asylum from Guatemala and were taken to a border patrol station near San Diego. The woman repeatedly told CBP officers she was in pain and asked for help but was ignored and told to wait to be processed, according to the complaint. Shortly afterward, she gave birth to her child while standing up, holding onto a trash can, still wearing her pants.
DHS Inspector General Joseph V. Cuffari announced the review in a letter to thirteen Democratic senators this month, which was obtained by BuzzFeed News.
It is a response to a request sent by the senators, led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, on April 8 in conjunction with the ACLU, demanding an investigation into the woman’s complaint, as well as a broader investigation into the treatment of pregnant people in immigration custody, and an overhaul of DHS policies on the detainment of pregnant people.
“We are reviewing the specific circumstances surrounding the treatment of the eight-month pregnant woman who gave birth at the Chula Vista Border Patrol Station that you referenced in your letter,” Inspector General Joseph V. Cuffari wrote in the letter, dated Tuesday.
Cuffari also said his office is conducting an audit of detention facility policies and processes to determine whether CBP properly “safeguards” people in their custody who have “serious medical conditions … including pregnancy,” the letter reads.
Once the work is complete, the DHS OIG will report its findings publicly, the letter concluded. The letter is less than a page long.
“This response is way long overdue and frustratingly short and cursory,” Blumenthal told BuzzFeed News. “But it is an advance because it indicates that they are going to include treatment of pregnant women and while in custody in an audit of detention facility policies relating to medical issues generally.”
In December of 2017, the Trump administration quietly implemented a new policy allowing for the detention of pregnant women not in their third trimesters. This was a reversal of an Obama-era policy of telling federal immigration officers not to detain pregnant people except in extreme circumstances or in rare circumstances of expedited deportation.
Months later, in the summer of 2018, BuzzFeed News reported on several cases of pregnant people saying they were mistreated by CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Five women told BuzzFeed News that they were denied care when they asked for it, and in some cases said they were physically abused and shackled around the belly. Three of them said they miscarried while in custody.
Following this report, several members of Congress, including Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, called for investigations into the mistreatment of pregnant people in CBP and ICE custody, and Sen. Patty Murray introduced legislation to address the issue (the bill has not been brought up for a vote in the Republican-controlled).
Since then, members of Congress, including Blumenthal, have written several more letters to DHS requesting investigations into the issue. According to another letter obtained by BuzzFeed News, the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties wrote to the ACLU in April, shortly after the complaint was submitted, committing to a general investigation into the treatment of pregnant people in DHS custody. However, Tuesday’s letter is the first response from the OIG, the DHS watchdog, that Blumenthal’s office or the ACLU is aware of on this issue. The DHS OIG did not immediately respond to BuzzFeed News’ request for comment.
“We welcome the review into our client's treatment by CBP while she was forced to give birth at the Chula Vista Station,” Monika Langarica, the ACLU attorney representing the woman, told BuzzFeed News Thursday. “But we continue to urge OIG to call on CBP to adopt the recommendations laid out in our complaint.”
These recommendations include immediately transporting pregnant people to a local hospital for evaluation, instead of to a border patrol station for processing, which can sometimes take hours or days. The ACLU’s complaint also recommends the prompt release of any person forced to give birth while in custody, as well as access to basic postpartum necessities, including a shower and blankets for the newborn, as well as respect and privacy during invasive medical procedures. According to the ACLU complaint, their client received none of this treatment.
In their conversations with BuzzFeed News, Langarica and Blumenthal emphasized that this investigation has become even more important due to the acute threat of the coronavirus to anyone in detention, especially to medically vulnerable populations like pregnant women.
“At a time when we're worried about a highly contagious disease, detention facilities themselves are problematic,” Blumenthal.
Blumenthal told BuzzFeed News that he plans to respond to the letter from the OIG as soon as possible, requesting more information about the scope and timeline of the audit.


buzzfeed--2020-06-05--Black People Are Tired Of Inaction Against Police Brutality. They’re Watching Biden To See If He’ll

Black People Are Tired Of Inaction Against Police Brutality. They’re Watching Biden To See If He’ll Turn The Tide.

As America reckons with historic protests against police brutality , violent law enforcement retaliation , and eerie curfews , Black activists and strategists are closely watching Joe Biden .
The nationwide protests that began after George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis police custody offer Biden a chance to signal to Americans how things might change under his administration , if he wins the presidency in November .
It ’ s a pivotal moment for the campaign that could help Biden bring younger , skeptical voters into his coalition .
And the moment is giving him airtime to break through in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to in months , as people look for coherent national leadership while coping with two immense crises at the same time .
Criminal justice activists and Democratic strategists who spoke to BuzzFeed News said this is a critical moment for Biden to build real enthusiasm with young people and maintain his support with Black voters , and to move past his record of work in the late ‘ 80s and ‘ 90s on legislation that expanded police powers and resulted in the mass incarceration of Black people in America .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He can rise to the level of leadership and meet the moment and truly be an alternative to Trump and inspire and build trust and inspiration in this moment , ” Aimee Allison , the founder of She the People , a political network of women of color , told BuzzFeed News .
“ He can ’ t dismiss how younger people , and not just young Black people who largely didn ’ t vote for him in the primary — he doesn ’ t have those voters on lock — for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of whom are people of color , this is an important critical issue , ” she added .
“ There ’ s an opportunity for him to talk about this and set a new standard and new intention for this country that ’ s in this moment.
” On Tuesday , nearly a week after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police and days after he made short and unspecific remarks , Biden gave the first signs that the mass protests are pushing him to consider more concrete and progressive police reforms than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decadeslong career .
“ The country is crying out for leadership .
Leadership that can unite us .
Leadership that can bring us together .
Leadership that can recognize the pain and deep grief of communities that have had a knee on their neck for too long , ” Biden said in his Tuesday address , which was broadcast live by most major television networks .
He outlined four specific policies he ’ s backing now which go further than his original criminal justice reform plan : a national use of force standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of misconduct , an end to the militarization of police forces , and a national ban on chokeholds .
Democratic activists and strategists see this kind of detailed approach to change as key for actually getting people out of their homes to vote , especially if voting this November is complicated by people contending with multiple national crises , including a pandemic .
“ The question around turnout for Joe Biden isn ’ t whether Black people are trying to decide between him and Donald Trump , ” said one strategist who previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked to speak on background so they could speak candidly .
“ This is about if it ’ s raining on Election Day — somewhere around this country it ’ s going to be raining and there will be 50-mile-per-hour winds .
Are they going to be willing to mussy up their hair , and miss dinner , and be late to pick up their kids , and be late to work to vote for Joe Biden ?
That ’ s the question !
It ’ s about inspiring people enough to want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also not lost on strategists that Black Democrats were largely responsible for handing Biden the party ’ s presidential nomination in the first place .
This is a time for Democrats to make sure voters of color aren ’ t turned off in the lead-up to November , advocates said .
`` Many of these folks are asking what is the point of voting since politicians all seem to perpetuate a broken system … We need them to see voting as meaningful , and for them to see voting as meaningful they need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real choice , ” Chiraag Bains , the director of legal strategies at Demos , told BuzzFeed News .
That means not just returning to “ the pre-Trump period , ” he said , “ because things were broken then . ''
Bains is also a member of a “ unity task force ” on criminal justice reform composed of allies of both Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders with the goal of devising policy for the Democratic Party ’ s platform .
Bains said he ’ s hopeful the group will be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systemic change like clearer accountability standards for police forces and ending mandatory minimums , and that although the group is not directly forming the campaign ’ s policies , those recommendations could inform how a Biden presidency handles criminal justice reform .
“ If all we end up with is more police training , or a new task force in the new administration , then we will not have fixed anything , ” he said .
“ We , the broader public , need to be demanding specifics from anyone who is asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Another member of the task force , Stacey Walker , said the mass public outcry against police brutality could make broader reforms more politically feasible than they have been in the past .
“ We know that we are at a global moment where extraordinary reform not only seems reasonable , but it is necessary if we ever hope to be a peaceful and functioning society , ” he said .
He said he ’ s encouraged that some of the ideas being discussed by reform advocates are now getting more attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way police forces function , like replacing most police with unarmed community relations officers who work to prevent people from reaching crisis points .
“ Another important initiative that ’ s being floated is the idea of making negotiations with police bargaining units public , ” he said , also raising making body cameras mandatory and granting police citizen review committees with more power “ so there ’ s an actual consequence of negative review from these independent bodies.
” “ This issue has captured the eyes of the world , and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half measures , ” said Walker .
Activists said that while Biden ’ s rhetoric is a nice gesture and the more detailed proposals this week were appreciated , they want to see his campaign solidify plans that have been informed by the work that many have been pushing toward since the 2013 protests after George Zimmerman ’ s acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin and the Ferguson , Missouri , protests in August 2014 after Michael Brown ’ s death .
“ I don ’ t think protesters , especially people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about platitudes and speeches right now .
They don ’ t care , ” the strategist who worked for a rival campaign told BuzzFeed News in a phone call after Biden ’ s initial , short remarks on the protests last Friday .
“ I think what they ’ re looking for , actually , is the opposite of the speeches .
They want to know when this happens , because this will inevitably happen again — when this happens and he is president — what is that change going to look like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Biden can offer is some sort of reassurance that when this happens again that it won ’ t just be on them , that it won ’ t just be on them to carry it , ” the strategist added .
Activists said they ’ re not asking for Biden to come up with new solutions — detailed proposals for police reform already exist , for example , in the Movement for Black Lives ’ platform and former presidential candidate Julián Castro ’ s plan , which eight youth-led activist groups including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Movement asked Biden to adopt into his policy platform in a recent letter .
“ I think it ’ s really important that he ’ s now taking action towards those words that we were so heartened to hear [ on Friday ] , ” said Daud Mumin , a student leader for March for Our Lives in Utah .
But , he added , the group wants Biden to adopt Castro ’ s police reform plan in its entirety because “ Every single part in that bill plays towards racial justice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s address on Tuesday , Castro publicly endorsed Biden for the first time .
Biden responded in a tweet saying he was “ grateful ” for Castro ’ s support .
Some activists and reporters took that to mean that Castro was being brought onto the campaign as an adviser in some official capacity and that he would hold some sway over how the campaign deals with criminal justice issues .
On Wednesday , Castro told BuzzFeed News that though he is endorsing Biden , he hasn ’ t been asked to join @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had not yet spoken to Biden directly about criminal justice reform , though their teams have been in touch .
“ I have no formal role .
I have not been asked to do anything specifically , so I ’ ll just say generally that what I 've been encouraged by is the vice president ’ s specificity on policy reforms , ” he said .
Castro ’ s in-depth police reform platform goes much further than Biden has gone to this point , including measures like ending protections for violent police officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ database of decertified and fired police officers , and federally banning stop-and-frisk and racial profiling .
“ There are a whole range of policies that we should implement at the local level and the national level to reduce the use of excessive force and ensure that no matter who you are , you ’ re treated the same by police , ” Castro said .
The Biden campaign did not respond to questions about Castro ’ s role on the campaign moving forward .
Biden ’ s past , though , has worried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ push for police reform .
One major issue for some is Biden ’ s involvement in the 1994 Crime Bill , and whether he ’ s willing to acknowledge his part in the way policing currently works .
The crime bill has loomed over Biden ’ s career for many activists and younger voters who think that he hasn ’ t come to terms with the bill ’ s intended and unintended consequences on Black communities .
Biden has often championed his role in crafting and enacting the bill , which perpetuated over-policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incarceration of Black people .
The law resulted in more funding for states to build prisons , funding to encourage an increase in drug-related arrests , and funding for 100,000 new police officers .
It also included measures like the Violence Against Women Act , which Biden and Democrats take pride in .
Biden has long defended the 1994 law and has argued as recently as last month that Hillary Clinton was “ wrong ” to lament the crime bill ’ s effects on the Black community in 2015 .
“ What happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime bill .
It was the drug legislation .
It was the institution of mandatory minimums , ” Biden told Breakfast Club host Charlamagne tha God .
Biden , though , had cosponsored the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 , which created sentencing disparities between crack and cocaine , and backed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 , which strengthened prison sentences for drug possession .
Biden called the 1988 law a `` big mistake '' last year and said it `` should be eliminated . ''
Activists have grown weary of Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1994 law in a critical way and say that doing so would be the first step in acknowledging his implicit role in over-policing which they say contributed to more interactions with the police and increased the likelihood of police shootings .
“ There ’ s no way to avoid being accountable to the fact that you made a decision that led to these types of unintended consequences , ” the Democratic strategist told BuzzFeed News .
“ Hyper-policing and over-policing in Black communities is the reason why these sorts of things are happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and uniquely responsible for an increase in policing.
” Jennifer Epps-Addison , co-executive director for the Center for Popular Democracy , which endorsed Bernie Sanders in the primaries , said the only way for Biden to really make amends is to build specific solutions to the problems the 1994 law caused into his platform .
“ An apology is not restitution , ” she said .
Activists , though , acknowledge how different the conversation around police reform is now then it was even four years ago .
“ It ’ s sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve come and how far we have to go , ” said Epps-Addison .
She referenced the repeated Black Lives Matter protests at Hillary Clinton and Sanders campaign events in 2016 , and how long it took for Clinton to actually explicitly say , “ Black lives matter.
” But , she said , Black activists have seen this cycle of protests , platitudes , and then minimal or nonexistent systemic change before .
Reform advocates and community organizers say they will continue scrutinizing whether there is substance behind the public statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden campaign did not directly respond to a question about which , if any , groups and individual advocates it is engaging with to inform its response to the current crisis after multiple deaths involving police officers and the underlying issues of criminal justice reform .
They pointed to Biden ’ s visit to a Black church in Maryland on Monday , where he spoke with local leaders .
Phil Agnew , a senior adviser to Bernie Sanders ’ campaign and an activist who cofounded Dream Defenders after Trayvon Martin was killed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Biden–Sanders task force on reform could inform real policy shifts , especially if that means reversing the effects of the 1994 crime law .
“ To me that is the best-case scenario and a really frankly comeback story that we love in American politics , ” he said .
But the task force ’ s scope does seem limited in that it isn ’ t directly shaping Biden ’ s policy plans , said Epps-Addison , and because it ’ s missing a crucial perspective in this conversation : “ There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that task force.
” Agnew says he doesn ’ t think Biden will engage with the most progressive criminal justice reform ideas , like the abolition of police forces and prisons .
But he echoed Walker 's sense that this national outpouring of support for police reform gives Democrats and Biden the room to start engaging with more radical ideas .
If he doesn ’ t , “ it 's the equivalent of not wanting to address sea-level rise and then it raining for 70 days straight , and everybody in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everywhere .
Maybe we should do something about it , ' ” Agnew said .
“ It ’ s the perfect time to come out and say , 'It ’ s the time to make some real change . '
”

Another member of the task force, Stacey Walker, said the mass public outcry against police brutality could make broader reforms more politically feasible than they have been in the past.
“We know that we are at a global moment where extraordinary reform not only seems reasonable, but it is necessary if we ever hope to be a peaceful and functioning society,” he said.
He said he’s encouraged that some of the ideas being discussed by reform advocates are now getting more attention, particularly ideas that would change the way police forces function, like replacing most police with unarmed community relations officers who work to prevent people from reaching crisis points.
“Another important initiative that’s being floated is the idea of making negotiations with police bargaining units public,” he said, also raising making body cameras mandatory and granting police citizen review committees with more power “so there’s an actual consequence of negative review from these independent bodies.”
“This issue has captured the eyes of the world, and I don’t think anyone will accept half measures,” said Walker.
Activists said that while Biden’s rhetoric is a nice gesture and the more detailed proposals this week were appreciated, they want to see his campaign solidify plans that have been informed by the work that many have been pushing toward since the 2013 protests after George Zimmerman’s acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin and the Ferguson, Missouri, protests in August 2014 after Michael Brown’s death.
“I don’t think protesters, especially people on the ground, give a shit about platitudes and speeches right now. They don’t care,” the strategist who worked for a rival campaign told BuzzFeed News in a phone call after Biden’s initial, short remarks on the protests last Friday. “I think what they’re looking for, actually, is the opposite of the speeches. They want to know when this happens, because this will inevitably happen again — when this happens and he is president — what is that change going to look like?”
“The most important thing that Biden can offer is some sort of reassurance that when this happens again that it won’t just be on them, that it won’t just be on them to carry it,” the strategist added.
Activists said they’re not asking for Biden to come up with new solutions — detailed proposals for police reform already exist, for example, in the Movement for Black Lives’ platform and former presidential candidate Julián Castro’s plan, which eight youth-led activist groups including March for Our Lives and the Sunrise Movement asked Biden to adopt into his policy platform in a recent letter.
“I think it’s really important that he’s now taking action towards those words that we were so heartened to hear [on Friday],” said Daud Mumin, a student leader for March for Our Lives in Utah. But, he added, the group wants Biden to adopt Castro’s police reform plan in its entirety because “Every single part in that bill plays towards racial justice, Black liberation.”
Soon after Biden’s address on Tuesday, Castro publicly endorsed Biden for the first time. Biden responded in a tweet saying he was “grateful” for Castro’s support. Some activists and reporters took that to mean that Castro was being brought onto the campaign as an adviser in some official capacity and that he would hold some sway over how the campaign deals with criminal justice issues.
On Wednesday, Castro told BuzzFeed News that though he is endorsing Biden, he hasn’t been asked to join the campaign in any official capacity and had not yet spoken to Biden directly about criminal justice reform, though their teams have been in touch.
“I have no formal role. I have not been asked to do anything specifically, so I’ll just say generally that what I've been encouraged by is the vice president’s specificity on policy reforms,” he said.
Castro’s in-depth police reform platform goes much further than Biden has gone to this point, including measures like ending protections for violent police officers under qualified immunity, setting up a database of decertified and fired police officers, and federally banning stop-and-frisk and racial profiling.
“There are a whole range of policies that we should implement at the local level and the national level to reduce the use of excessive force and ensure that no matter who you are, you’re treated the same by police,” Castro said.
The Biden campaign did not respond to questions about Castro’s role on the campaign moving forward.
Biden’s past, though, has worried some of the Democrats hoping for a push for police reform.
One major issue for some is Biden’s involvement in the 1994 Crime Bill, and whether he’s willing to acknowledge his part in the way policing currently works. The crime bill has loomed over Biden’s career for many activists and younger voters who think that he hasn’t come to terms with the bill’s intended and unintended consequences on Black communities.
Biden has often championed his role in crafting and enacting the bill, which perpetuated over-policing in communities of color and the mass incarceration of Black people. The law resulted in more funding for states to build prisons, funding to encourage an increase in drug-related arrests, and funding for 100,000 new police officers. It also included measures like the Violence Against Women Act, which Biden and Democrats take pride in.
Biden has long defended the 1994 law and has argued as recently as last month that Hillary Clinton was “wrong” to lament the crime bill’s effects on the Black community in 2015. “What happened was, it wasn’t the crime bill. It was the drug legislation. It was the institution of mandatory minimums,” Biden told Breakfast Club host Charlamagne tha God. Biden, though, had cosponsored the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which created sentencing disparities between crack and cocaine, and backed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which strengthened prison sentences for drug possession. Biden called the 1988 law a "big mistake" last year and said it "should be eliminated."
Activists have grown weary of Biden’s unwillingness to talk about the 1994 law in a critical way and say that doing so would be the first step in acknowledging his implicit role in over-policing which they say contributed to more interactions with the police and increased the likelihood of police shootings.
“There’s no way to avoid being accountable to the fact that you made a decision that led to these types of unintended consequences,” the Democratic strategist told BuzzFeed News. “Hyper-policing and over-policing in Black communities is the reason why these sorts of things are happening, and the crime bill was specifically and uniquely responsible for an increase in policing.”
Jennifer Epps-Addison, co-executive director for the Center for Popular Democracy, which endorsed Bernie Sanders in the primaries, said the only way for Biden to really make amends is to build specific solutions to the problems the 1994 law caused into his platform.
“An apology is not restitution,” she said.


buzzfeed--2020-06-05--Facebook Will Begin Labeling Posts From State-Controlled Media

Facebook will label pages , posts , and ads from some state-controlled media outlets as `` partially or wholly under the editorial control of a state , '' the company said on Thursday as it comes under pressure to control state-led propaganda campaigns that aim to influence the upcoming US presidential election .
RT and Sputnik will be among those news outlets that will be labeled , along with Chinese state broadcaster CCTV and the Xinhua News Agency .
“ We ’ re providing greater transparency into these publishers because they combine the influence of a media organization with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we believe people should know if the news they read is coming from a publication that may be under the influence of a government , ” the company said on its website .
Facebook also said it would start blocking ads from state-controlled media outlets in the US starting later this summer “ out of an abundance of caution.
” The move comes three years after rival platform Twitter banned ads from Russian-backed outlets RT and Sputnik .
Facebook first indicated it planned to use the labels last October .
The company said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editorial control of a news outlet , as well as “ country-specific factors , ” such as the level of press freedom .
This suggests Facebook heard the complaints of some organizations , like Al Jazeera , which protested the potential application of the label .
Al Jazeera is backed by the government of Qatar but maintains it has editorial independence .
RT criticized the decision by Facebook as `` censorship . ''
“ A US company long in bed with the US establishment , telling the entire rest of the world what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the definition of a technological dictatorship , '' RT said .
Organizations have the ability to appeal their label .
Facebook ’ s announcement comes during a week when the company has come under fire for leaving up a post from President Donald Trump that said , in relation to protests against police brutality , “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts.
” Twitter attached a warning label to the post , saying it violated a rule against glorifying violence .
Facebook chose not to take down the post or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also bans calls for violence on its platform .

Facebook will label pages, posts, and ads from some state-controlled media outlets as "partially or wholly under the editorial control of a state," the company said on Thursday as it comes under pressure to control state-led propaganda campaigns that aim to influence the upcoming US presidential election.
RT and Sputnik will be among those news outlets that will be labeled, along with Chinese state broadcaster CCTV and the Xinhua News Agency.
“We’re providing greater transparency into these publishers because they combine the influence of a media organization with the strategic backing of a state, and we believe people should know if the news they read is coming from a publication that may be under the influence of a government,” the company said on its website.
Facebook also said it would start blocking ads from state-controlled media outlets in the US starting later this summer “out of an abundance of caution.” The move comes three years after rival platform Twitter banned ads from Russian-backed outlets RT and Sputnik.
Facebook first indicated it planned to use the labels last October.
The company said it will factor in both financial and editorial control of a news outlet, as well as “country-specific factors,” such as the level of press freedom.
This suggests Facebook heard the complaints of some organizations, like Al Jazeera, which protested the potential application of the label. Al Jazeera is backed by the government of Qatar but maintains it has editorial independence.
RT criticized the decision by Facebook as "censorship."
“A US company long in bed with the US establishment, telling the entire rest of the world what it can and cannot say, is the definition of a technological dictatorship," RT said.
Organizations have the ability to appeal their label.
Facebook’s announcement comes during a week when the company has come under fire for leaving up a post from President Donald Trump that said, in relation to protests against police brutality, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
Twitter attached a warning label to the post, saying it violated a rule against glorifying violence. Facebook chose not to take down the post or apply a similar label, although it also bans calls for violence on its platform.


buzzfeed--2020-06-07--I Was Almost Arrested For Covering A Protest. My Press Badge Shouldn’t Have Had To Save Me.

On Tuesday night , I was reporting on the protests against police brutality and racism in New York City when an NYPD officer threatened to arrest me .
It was a couple hours after the city ’ s newly established curfew , and a colleague and I were trying to figure out what was happening at the Manhattan Bridge .
Thousands of nonviolent protesters who ’ d marched from Brooklyn were now being barred entrance into Manhattan by lines of officers in riot gear .
All of Confucius Plaza was crawling with police , while a low-flying helicopter buzzed ominously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boxed in and shouting to be freed .
It was one of the most surreal scenes I ’ ve ever seen , in the city I call my home or anywhere .
My colleague Tilli and I were standing with a group of onlookers who were chanting “ Let them go !
” across from the entrance to the bridge when cops suddenly started pushing us back .
We thought they might be about to start kettling the protesters , forming a circle in which to trap and potentially arrest them ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been using this week to round up people deliberately protesting after the citywide curfew .
As I tried to get closer to the crowd on the bridge , I showed an officer my press pass , but he barked that it wasn ’ t NYPD certified .
“ You ’ re in violation of the curfew , ” he said .
“ If you don ’ t go home now , expect to be arrested.
” The kettling never came to pass .
Eventually the protesters were encouraged to turn around and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the bridge — where a huge police presence awaited them .
Some protesters were placed into police custody while most were allowed to march on unimpeded after more than an hour trapped in terrifying limbo .
That incident would ironically end up being one of the more peaceful encounters documented between police and protesters in New York City this week .
Residents fighting for their right to peaceful assembly — or else simply doing their jobs , as reporters or delivery drivers or legal observers or healthcare providers — have been routinely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ en masse , and , due to a judge ’ s recent ruling , detained for 24 hours or more in the city ’ s coronavirus-infested jails .
Not only do the president and his supporters deride the media as the “ enemy of the people ” and gleefully advocate for our destruction on a daily basis ; we ’ re now seeing police officers across the country blatantly violate journalists ’ First Amendment rights , as well as our classifications as essential workers who are supposed to be exempt from curfews in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new analysis by the Guardian and Bellingcat , an investigative journalism website specializing in open-source intelligence , there have been at least 148 instances of journalist arrests or attacks during coverage of these protests — they ’ ve been “ blinded , beaten , maced and arrested by police in numbers never before documented in the US.
” Mayor Bill de Blasio , who had seemingly avoided watching any of the other hundreds of stomach-churning viral videos of police brutality against protesters and essential workers , finally spoke up on Thursday night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an arrested delivery worker .
“ Food delivery is essential work and is EXEMPTED from the curfew , ” he tweeted .
“ Same goes for journalists covering protests out doing their jobs .
They are essential workers , too.
” It remains to be seen whether the NYPD will heed the mayor ’ s words , but all evidence indicates that yet again , “ essential workers ” during the coronavirus pandemic aren ’ t being paid or treated as though they ’ re really so essential .
When I was able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return safely to my home , I thought about how ridiculous — and how troubling — it was that even my supposedly protected status as a reporter almost didn ’ t protect me after all , as has been the case for multiple colleagues of mine this week .
Though de Blasio ’ s press secretary has indicated reporters shouldn ’ t need official NYPD-certified press passes to do their jobs at the protests this week , that hasn ’ t filtered down to police on the ground .
Those passes are notoriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working at name-brand news outlets , let alone for freelance and citizen journalists .
A detective told me the department isn ’ t even processing press cards until further notice “ due to the current situation.
” It ’ s disconcerting that the police are tasked with deciding which journalists can move freely on the streets when the question of their own brutality is currently the biggest story in the world .
But I feel even more uncomfortable with the idea that I ’ ve been afforded any special status at all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ out in an excellent Twitter thread , “ police have been blatantly ignoring the First Amendment rights of protesters — responding to their constitutionally protected speech with state violence — for years , ” and “ journalists are not a specially protected class of 1st Amend users .
It is no *more* outrageous for a reporter to be targeted with tear gas or rubber bullets or arrest than it is for a citizen peacefully assembling & chanting ( no matter how angry ) to be met with that same force.
” And yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who haven ’ t experienced discrimination , from the police or otherwise , due to their race or gender or socioeconomic status — are all too eager to rail against journalist suppression while downplaying or even championing police efforts to harass or arrest protesters .
The National Press Club earlier this week penned an open letter , signed by 28 press organizations , calling “ for police nationwide to halt use of violence , arrests against journalists covering protests , ” but made sure to clarify their “ utmost respect ” for law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being asked to do is difficult and requires extraordinary courage and discipline and we can see that most of you are working diligently to restore a sense of peace and calm to your cities , ” the letter begins .
“ Thank you for your best efforts.
” Press freedom is , of course , essential and worth fighting for , but that so many journalism groups would lend their names to a letter commending “ most ” cops for restoring “ peace and calm ” when hundreds of protesters are being brutalized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to me , of an industry in great and terrible crisis .
For one thing , to advocate for journalists ’ rights without doing so just as passionately for the rights of protesters — which are , again , enshrined in the same constitutional amendment — is to deny that , as Wesley Morris wrote this week for the New York Times , “ the most urgent filmmaking anybody ’ s doing in this country right now is by black people with camera phones.
” In the United States and around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record the abuses and brutalities they ’ ve faced while fighting for a better future have exposed long-standing injustices like police violence to communities who ’ d been previously sheltered from it , and therefore inured .
A new study from Monmouth University released this week found that 57 % of Americans believe police are more likely to use excessive force against black people , compared to 34 % in 2016 .
It was citizen journalists and other social media users who made Ferguson “ America ’ s Arab Spring , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since .
Nothing about police behavior has fundamentally changed — white people are now just seeing more of it , and are now more likely to actually believe what black people have been telling us for decades .
Whether or not reporters with a piece of employer-issued plastic around our necks are on the ground , witnessing and documenting the atrocities or experiencing them ourselves , the ever-mounting video evidence from anyone with a smartphone is increasingly impossible to ignore .
When Gov .
Andrew Cuomo falsely claims that NYPD haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combination of journalist and protester videos can prove him wrong .
The George Floyd demonstrations are just the latest and most incendiary events to trouble the boundaries between journalists and the activists on whom we ’ re reporting .
More reporters are realizing that they need not — and should not — always take law enforcement at their word .
In the horrifying incident of Buffalo officers shoving an elderly white man to the ground , where they left him bleeding from the head , police originally said he “ tripped and fell.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the officers involved to be suspended and investigated , having previously ignored every other appalling video of brutality against Black and brown bodies at the hands of his officers .
( The entire Buffalo riot squad has since resigned from the team , though not their jobs , in solidarity with their disgraced colleagues . )
Every night we witness brutality and abuse just to wake up to our elected officials denying what we ’ ve seen with our own eyes .
On Friday , de Blasio even accused WNYC radio host @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for accurately summarizing police activity in New York this week .
Luckily , we ’ re equipped to report the facts .
And if officers are harassing and arresting even the people they aren ’ t “ supposed ” to , from journalists to lawmakers , what might they be getting up to in the marginalized communities they ’ ve been over-policing for decades now ?
Especially when the evidence isn ’ t captured on video , police testimony puts people in jail every day .
“ One reason journalists are conditioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of protesters being violated by the gov is cause they ’ re scared that would be inappropriate ‘ activism , ’ ” Lowery noted in his thread , “ while advocating loudly for their *own rights* is seen as necessary and noble.
’ ” That ’ s why some newsroom leadership — including my own — have discouraged their staffers from contributing to bail funds to free arrested protesters and workers , arguing as Business Insider editor-in-chief Nich Carlson did recently that those donations “ call into question our credibility in covering the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report on employee outcry , the company clarified the editor ’ s comments , referring to the policy as a mere guideline to use “ best judgment.
” ) Most news outlets have ethics guidelines that discourage journalists from donating to “ political ” causes — the question newsroom leaders face is whether supporting the release of protesters from police custody for exercising their First Amendment rights , as they likely would for journalists , is really a “ political ” cause rather than one of free speech and human rights .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavily on journalists of color , in particular Black journalists , during the 2020 protests and long beforehand .
Karen Attiah of the Washington Post recently noted , “ This is another problem with the lack of diversity in our newsrooms .
Too many … treat serious life or death issues as their fodder for intellectual calisthenics , while many of us and our communities are literally under siege from dangerous rhetoric and racist policies.
” In the past week a wave of Black journalists at the New York Times , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condemned an opinion piece by Sen. Tom Cotton , which called for a military crackdown on protesters .
It was a protest that felt both unprecedented and inevitable — just one of the long-strained dams finally broken during These Extraordinary Times .
Not only does the Times have a strict social media policy about criticizing colleagues in public ; journalists of color have described being prohibited or discouraged from calling out racism in the industry and beyond it for fear they ’ ll be labeled biased activists .
At least one New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalists have seized the moment to dig in their heels about “ safetyism , ” quelling “ bad opinions , ” and the “ free exchange of ideas ” , ” delegitimizing and insulting their Black peers in the process .
But the shakeup at the Times over publishing a fascist op-ed offers us the tiniest window into a potential future of journalism that doesn ’ t have to submit to bothsidesism .
Newsroom leaders often seem more concerned about conservatives perceiving them as biased than they are concerned about the prejudice and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that include their own employees .
In prioritizing false equivalences over truth , these journalists are in dereliction of their duty to their readers and to each other .
Months into the coronavirus pandemic , when antiracist protests have swelled to hearteningly staggering levels — and police crackdowns have responded in kind — journalism is just one of many industries that will have to make a case for itself in whatever world we build out of all this .
I hope white journalists can use the opportunity to finally stand in solidarity with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and with all workers against state-sanctioned violence .
It ’ s our job to hold abusers of power to account .
We can ’ t stop now .
●

On Tuesday night, I was reporting on the protests against police brutality and racism in New York City when an NYPD officer threatened to arrest me. It was a couple hours after the city’s newly established curfew, and a colleague and I were trying to figure out what was happening at the Manhattan Bridge. Thousands of nonviolent protesters who’d marched from Brooklyn were now being barred entrance into Manhattan by lines of officers in riot gear. All of Confucius Plaza was crawling with police, while a low-flying helicopter buzzed ominously overhead, illuminating the protesters who were boxed in and shouting to be freed. It was one of the most surreal scenes I’ve ever seen, in the city I call my home or anywhere.
My colleague Tilli and I were standing with a group of onlookers who were chanting “Let them go!” across from the entrance to the bridge when cops suddenly started pushing us back. We thought they might be about to start kettling the protesters, forming a circle in which to trap and potentially arrest them; it’s a tactic that the NYPD has been using this week to round up people deliberately protesting after the citywide curfew. As I tried to get closer to the crowd on the bridge, I showed an officer my press pass, but he barked that it wasn’t NYPD certified. “You’re in violation of the curfew,” he said. “If you don’t go home now, expect to be arrested.”
The kettling never came to pass. Eventually the protesters were encouraged to turn around and try their luck on the Brooklyn end of the bridge — where a huge police presence awaited them. Some protesters were placed into police custody while most were allowed to march on unimpeded after more than an hour trapped in terrifying limbo. That incident would ironically end up being one of the more peaceful encounters documented between police and protesters in New York City this week. Residents fighting for their right to peaceful assembly — or else simply doing their jobs, as reporters or delivery drivers or legal observers or healthcare providers — have been routinely rounded up, beaten bloody, arrested en masse, and, due to a judge’s recent ruling, detained for 24 hours or more in the city’s coronavirus-infested jails.


buzzfeed--2020-06-06--There Was A Pretty Loud Fart Noise During A Joe Biden Livestream

In the first week of this hell month , we heard someone flushing a toilet during a live hearing of @ @ @ @ @ now May is ending with a large fart noise .
A livestreamed campaign video chat @ @ @ @ @ Biden and Pennsylvania Gov .
Tom Wolf on Wednesday was briefly muffled by the sound @ @ @ @ @ a very wet fart .
Biden was asking about what `` the human cost '' @ @ @ @ @ more federal money does n't arrive to help with the coronavirus economic recovery when the @ @ @ @ @ appeared to lean back in his chair at the same time as the noise , @ @ @ @ @ and shake his head shortly after .

In the first week of this hell month, we heard someone flushing a toilet during a live hearing of the Supreme Court. And now May is ending with a large fart noise.
A livestreamed campaign video chat between presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf on Wednesday was briefly muffled by the sound of what appeared to be a very wet fart.
Biden was asking about what "the human cost" looks like in Pennsylvania if more federal money doesn't arrive to help with the coronavirus economic recovery when the toot rang out.
He appeared to lean back in his chair at the same time as the noise, while Wolf appeared to blink and shake his head shortly after.