Your Right to Hold Government Accountable is Under Attack in Arkansas

A special legislative session this week will attempt to gut the law that protects our right to know what our government is doing.

Arkansans don’t put up with secretive politicians. Our Natural State is skepticism (pun intended). It’s why we spent the past year filling purposefully small rooms for school board meetings and finding ways into unadvertised “town halls.” When public officials try to keep something in the dark, we show up with spotlights.

Our opposition to opaqueness is codified into state law. The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is described by the state attorney general’s office as “one of the most comprehensive and strongest open-records and open-meetings laws in the country.”

It was passed in 1967, a few months after the federal FOIA, and is widely regarded as a superior defense of the public’s right to know. The Arkansas law requires the government to answer citizens’ information requests faster with fewer exemptions, and builds in an appeals process that is punitive toward government agencies that try to skirt the law.

The promotion and preservation of Arkansas’ FOIA is a partnership between our government and its citizens. The attorney general’s office collaborates with the Arkansas Press Association and Arkansas Broadcasters Association to publish a FOIA handbook and distribute it to anyone interested in learning how to attend government meetings or request public records. A Freedom of Information Task Force, created by state law in 2017, evaluates any legislative proposals that would affect the state’s FOIA. It consists of members appointed by government leaders, press associations and civic organizations.

We’re serious about sunshine around here. Which is why we’re calling all hands on deck to prevent the governor from curtailing our ability to hold our leaders accountable.

“They don’t care about transparency,” Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said of people “weaponizing” FOIA to investigate her administration. “They want to waste taxpayer dollars, slow down our bold conservative agenda and frankly put my family’s lives at stake.”

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders announces a special legislative session in a press conference on Sep. 8, 2023 (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Thomas Metthe)

Sanders has called a special session of the Arkansas legislature this week focused, in part, on “streamlining state government.” She’s referring to House Bill 1003, designed to add new exemptions to the state’s FOIA and all but eliminate the ability to recover expenses from having to sue a government agency that refuses to comply.

The most impactful new exemption would allow state agencies to hide records related to the “deliberative process” of government. The purposefully vague clause could restrict the public from seeing a wide range of communications that reveal, well, anything but the final product officials choose to make public.

“If this exemption becomes law, Arkansans will overnight go from the strongest open records law in the country to the weakest,” Fort Smith attorney Joey McCutchen told Talk Business & Politics.

Sanders’ office has framed the amendment as a way to align Arkansas’ FOIA more closely with the federal version. It’s a sharp departure from the governor’s typical anti-Washington brand of Arkansas exceptionalism, instead advocating to lower her state’s standards to mirror that of a secretive “deep state.”

Sanders’ belief that government expediency is more important than the public’s right to know what that government is doing defies the core of conservatism and the political spirit of the state she serves.

“Weakening the FOIA isn’t the conservative move,” an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editorial asserted. “It’s very much a leap into theory, throwing away a tradition that Arkansas has of being one of the best states in the nation when it comes to government transparency.”

But what of the task force? Sanders bypassed it* by advancing the measure as an emergency. Why? At last the real reason we’re here – a local blogger and FOIA aficionado, Matt Campbell, has been trying to figure out why the governor is such a frequent flyer on a taxpayer-funded state police jet, and who is joining her on some flights that seem strangely crowded (including an 11-minute flight from Fayetteville to Rogers, towns separated by about 20 miles of interstate).

*Update: The FOIA task force met Monday morning and voted unanimously to strongly oppose the bill. The rushed timing preventing proper review was one of the stated reasons for opposition.

Flight records obtained by Matt Campbell (Twitter/@BlueHogReport)

Sanders claims being able to use FOIA for this rather routine purpose threatens the safety of her children. Thus, action must be taken immediately in a special session. It’s unclear how retroactively hiding information dating back to Jan. 1, 2022 fits under an emergency need to conceal her future whereabouts.

Republicans hold every statewide office in Arkansas and a supermajority in the legislature. What the governor wants, she gets. But this time, traditional conservatives are pushing back against a distinctly authoritarian measure (curated by my UCA colleague Rich Shumate on the platform formerly known as Twitter).

Republican committees in Pulaski and Saline counties (that’s Little Rock and suburbs) have each published statements opposing the bill, the latter excoriating its sponsoring legislators by citing their own party platform back to them:

“We firmly support transparency and openness at every level of government. Those elected, appointed, and employed in government work for the taxpayers and must provide public information when requested, in line with Arkansas’s Freedom of Information Act.”

Americans for Prosperity, the conservative political action committee founded by the Koch brothers, stated they were “deeply concerned” about the proposed FOIA changes, reminding members that “transparent government is a cornerstone of democracy.”

Self-described conservative local news startup Conduit has also come out against Sanders, calling her measure “the career-ending FOIA bill.”

I teach aspiring journalists who will use FOIA to serve the public interest. It’s a real point of pride to show them how our state rises above the politics of the moment to protect a right fundamental to our democracy. I implore Arkansas lawmakers to do the right thing, rebuff the governor, and demand that we remain an example of government transparency and accountability to the rest of the nation.

If you live in Arkansas and would like to contact your legislators, a list can be found here.

Is there an (((echo))) in here? Hate speech, social media and the marketplace of ideas

Hate and harassment on social media is driving users away. The difficulty of exposing hate, protecting victims, and limiting censorship.

Any corner of the Internet that facilitates anonymity is going to attract trolls. Twitter is no different. Recently, you might have noticed users placing their names in multiple (((parentheses))). It all traces back to anti-Semitic groups. Members place this parenthetical “echo” around Jewish people or businesses when attacking them on social media, giving compatriots an easy way to search for the target and join in on the harassment. There was even a now-removed Google Chrome plugin that made echoing easy, by cross-referencing text against a database of Jews. Here’s what it looked like in action:

echo_sample
Tomorrow Comes Today // Tumblr

Vox has an explainer if you want to read more about how the echo was used, as well as how it and the Chrome plugin were discovered by the rest of us.

Point is, once the echo was exposed, Twitter users, Jewish or not, began putting the echo around their names and other content. Not only a symbolic stand, it also undermined the beacon system being used by the hate groups.

The echo was defeated by the rest of the social media community. But that also involved Google taking down the plugin, which violated its terms forbidding “promotions of hate.” And it involved Twitter banning a number of users who “promote violence against or directly attack or threaten” other users.

Facebook, Twitter, Google, and the like all have different policies on dealing with harassment and hate speech, as well as the ways in which they curate content. They range from Google’s broad ban on hate code to Twitter’s fairly specific ban on direct, violent threats. A few weeks ago, all three agreed to adhere to the European Union’s “code of conduct on illegal online hate speech,” which requires resolution of hate speech reports within 24 hours, be it by removing or restricting the content or the user responsible.

However, speech laws are more restrictive in the E.U. than in the U.S., and vary by country. It’s the service provider’s job to figure out if a particular post fails to meet legal standards in those various jurisdictions. Much like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which YouTube already lets rightsholders wildly abuse, companies face penalties for failing to suppress content, but suffer no consequence for blocking everything in sight just to catch a small number of actual offenders.

It’s easy to see how the social media platforms could lean on the side of heavy censorship.

Continue reading “Is there an (((echo))) in here? Hate speech, social media and the marketplace of ideas”

Reviling racism and protecting free speech: PR, education, and the First Amendment in Oklahoma’s SAE controversy

There will never be a n*gger at SAE
There will never be a n*gger at SAE
You can hang him from a tree
But he’ll never sign with me
There will never be a n*gger at SAE

Some ignorant frat guys from the University of Oklahoma sang this on a bus. It was filmed and shared online. Within 24 hours, the university severed ties with the fraternity and shut down their campus house. Within 36 hours, two students appearing to lead the song had been expelled.

They deserve it. The existence of this line of thinking, much less the existence of a welcoming audience for such a message, makes me angry.

They deserve it. But they cannot be expelled, because it runs counter to the purpose of institutions of higher education and foundational American beliefs about expression.

Continue reading “Reviling racism and protecting free speech: PR, education, and the First Amendment in Oklahoma’s SAE controversy”

Chick-fil-A, the First Amendment, and the drawing out of a public relations firestorm

Since Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy’s comments on same-sex marriage one week ago, folks on both sides of the debate have been speaking out. Opinion leaders have publicly shown their support for the fast-food chain, like former Arkansas governor and current talk show host Mike Huckabee, who is orchestrating a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. Opinion leaders have publicly denounced the fast-food chain, like the Henson Company, which announced its Muppets characters would no longer be tied to Chick-fil-A promotions. As I wrote last Thursday, choosing a side on a hot-button issue is not going to come without repercussions. From a purely business perspective, the hard-line stance could only harm Chick-fil-A’s bottom line by offending some and turning a trip to the drive-thru into a moral dilemma.

[RELATED: Chick-fil-A on public relations tightrope after latest Cathy same-sex marriage comments]

But in recent days, Chick-fil-A has received some unexpected help in its public relations quagmire from an opposition that has lost its mind and its constitutional principles.

Continue reading “Chick-fil-A, the First Amendment, and the drawing out of a public relations firestorm”

How Google (and maybe Wikipedia) won the anti-SOPA/PIPA campaign for the Internet

I tend to check at least one Wikipedia page per blog post. It’s a simple way to double-check the little pieces of information that make a post come together.

I use Google more times a day than I’d ever care to count.

Today, two of the most-visited sites on the Internet have gone black – one symbolically, the other quite literally – in the most publicized opposition to date of anti-piracy legislation SOPA and PIPA.

A visit to any English-language Wikipedia page today was met with a rapid redirect to a black screen with a brief paragraph not-so-subtly suggesting that your favorite open-source encyclopedia could one day be blocked by some overzealous federal button masher:

Continue reading “How Google (and maybe Wikipedia) won the anti-SOPA/PIPA campaign for the Internet”