Donald Trump isn’t known for being nice on social media. If fact, his unapologetic take-no-prisoners approach to attacking anyone and everyone online is now arguably legendary.

Still, despite having ample likes and retweets, there’s an outspoken hive of opponents who loathe Trump’s online presence. In an effort to end Trump’s tweeting once and for all, one man is taking aim at his account.

Erick Sanchez, of Washington D.C., started a Change.org petition calling for Twitter to delete the presumptive presidential nominee’s page on the grounds that is hate speech and therefore should be banned in accordance with Twitter’s general policies.

In the petition, Sanchez cites Twitter’s policies listed under “hateful conduct,” which read:

You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories.

Based on said policy, Sanchez reasons that it is Twitter’s responsibility to delete Trump’s account.

Mr. Trump, in under (and over) 140 characters, has exhibited conduct that runs contrary to these rules, and the signers of this petition humbly ask for Twitter’s consideration in the deletion of his account. This is not a matter of stifling his first amendment rights, unlike how he has impeded on the first amendment by revoking the access of media outlets to his events.

In the past Twitter has labeled itself a champion of free speech, however, in 2015 the social network adjusted its policies in order to snuff out abusive and hateful speech. Now Twitter no longer promises uncensored service for its users.

The petition, which as of Monday had over 230 supporters, needs roughly 270 more cosigners to reach its goal.

This isn’t Sanchez’s first petition against Trump. He previously launched a campaign urging restaurateur and chef José Andrés, who is of Spanish decent, to “dump Trump” following the candidate’s insensitive remarks against Mexican immigrants. At the time, Andrés was set to join the billionaire in a luxury hotel venture in Washington D.C. Less than a week later, the celebrity chef pulled out of the development.

It’s hard to imagine that this petition will have the same outcome–barring a major politician from social media is unprecedented. Even so, Twitter should take policing its own policies seriously, especially when it comes to spreading hate speech online.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Petition Demands Twitter Delete Trump’s Account for Hate Speech appeared first on Law Street.

A recent leak of a seventy-page pdf document has caused quite a stir at the American University Campus in Washington DC. This document presents a series of emails and text messages exchanged by the brothers of the Epsilon Iota fraternity, containing explicit racist, sexist, and homophobic content. A Tumblr page (The Fratergate AU) has been created with the intent of displaying a censored version of the the leaked document.

According to the Fratergate AU, “EI is an unrecognized fraternity at American University in Washington, D.C. The group lost their charter after an alleged date rape scandal in 2001, but continue to operate on our campus”– thus some feel more than simply shock at the situation. The creators of this Tumblr page claim to be pursuing some level of disciplinary action against Epsilon Iota, and this pursuit is picking up steam.

AU students have started a virtual petition tiltled, “I Will Not Be Silent” on change.org, with a host of demands they would like to see from the University administration. Chief among their immediate demands is the expulsion of the Epsilon Iota members involved, on the grounds of, “condoning sexual violence, assault, battery, slander and all other actions relevant to physical, sexual, emotional and all other forms of abuse.”

In this article, I have zero ambition to condone the actions of these students. However, it is worth addressing what I see as four major problems with calling for their expulsion on the grounds of a sexual transgression. (It is worth noting that there may be other violations, such as the continued underground operation of a disbanded fraternity chapter, that allow for expulsion, but I will only be addressing the sexual grounds.)

1. There is no admission of guilt within the documents present on the Fratergate AU Tumblr.

I have read through all of the emails and texts that the Fratergate page has published, and I have yet to find any instance where the EI students admit to committing any crimes. There is only one circumstance where there may be an instance of admission, but it is unclear as to how seriously we can evaluate the text. One student wrote the following, “she was not beaten. she assaulted us repeatedly alongside with calling the entire brotherhood a rape gang and worthless piece of shit after what she eventually got slapped back very softly, slipped and fell in the bushes (she was perfectly fine by the way).” This is the closest case in the document to any claim of wrongdoing. The DCist reports this as an ‘alleged slapping’ when they summarize the document contents as follows, “in censored emails[…] Epsilon Iota discuss the alleged slapping of a woman, routinely describe women as ‘bitches’, seek drugs, use racial slurs, and strategize about how to make women feel comfortable at their parties, despite an alleged sexual assault.”

2. These emails do not conform to the definition of sexual assault in the AU handbook

Many are claiming that the EI students who authored these emails have engaged in a sexual transgression, specifically sexual assault. However, the nature of the conversation and context of these comments make it difficult to define it as such. The American University Handbook says that, “what constitutes sexual harassment […] may be described generally as: unwelcome sexual advances; requests for sexual favors; and other oral, written, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” Unfortunately, the definition provided is very opaque, and states that, “the determination of what constitutes sexual harassment will vary with particular circumstances.” It is hard to say exactly how these originally ‘private’ exchanged emails that were not directed towards a victim will fit the schools weak definition of sexual harassment.

3. There is nothing about Petitions in the AU Handbook

While I personally applaud the creation of a petition to show support for student opposition to the horrific nature of the leaked documents, it may have little to no impact on how the AU administration handles the situation. The AU University Codes, Policies, and Guidelines has a specific section titled Sexual Assault Reporting Procedures for Students, which outlines how to report and process cases of alleged sexual violence, assault, and harassment. Unfortunately for the 1600 plus students who have already signed, there is no mention of a petition as part of the processing procedure.

4. AU has policies that protect Freedom of Speech

In the section of the AU handbook titled, Freedom of Expression Guidelines, it is clearly stated that every AU student has the right to freedom of speech and expression as defined by the law. Simply, each individual has the right to make their own disclosure in anyway they please. Freedom of speech does have its limits, but only if what is said or written qualifies as legal obscenity. Unfortunately, it is not clear that the EI emails and texts qualify due to the fact that these messages were private and not intended for the public. Historically, in cases like Miller v. California, we have seen legal obscenity most often applied in circumstances where an obscene text or speech is being sold to the public.

[The Fratergate AU]

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured image courtesy of [Jake Waage via Flickr]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 4 Reasons Why Secret AU Frat Might Avoid Trouble appeared first on Law Street.