Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Courts News

Substack Says It'll Legally Defend Writers 'Targeted By the Government' (theverge.com) 55

Substack has announced it will legally support foreign writers lawfully residing in the U.S. who face government targeting over their published work, partnering with the nonprofit FIRE to expand its existing Defender program. The Verge reports: In their announcement, Substack and FIRE mention the international Tufts University student who was arrested by federal agents last week. Her legal team links her arrest to an opinion piece she co-wrote for the school's newspaper last year, which criticized Tufts for failing to comply with requests to divest from companies with connections to Israel. "If true, this represents a chilling escalation in the government's effort to target critics of American foreign policy," Substack and FIRE write.

The initiative builds on Substack's Defender program, which already offers legal assistance for independent journalists and creators on the platform. The company says it has supported "dozens" of Substack writers facing claims of defamation and trademark infringement since it launched the program in the US in 2020. It has since brought Substack Defender to writers in Canada and the UK.

Substack Says It'll Legally Defend Writers 'Targeted By the Government'

Comments Filter:
  • It wont help (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 01, 2025 @08:59PM (#65275197) Homepage

    What good is a lawyer filing a writ in court on your behalf when you have already been renditioned to a prison in a foreign country?

    • Re:It wont help (Score:5, Informative)

      by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 01, 2025 @09:35PM (#65275235) Homepage

      Note: referencing the case of Abrego Garcia who was accidentally sent to El Salvador -the US government has admitted in court that it was an "administrative error", but said "it's not like we can get him back".

      • Note: referencing the case of Abrego Garcia who was accidentally sent to El Salvador -the US government has admitted in court that it was an "administrative error", but said "it's not like we can get him back".

        So far El Salvador has been pretty accommodating to this Administration. I imagine if the U.S. simply asked, El Salvador would return him -- but that would require slightly more effort than shrugging it off.

      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        In error. Not accidentally.

      • Oh they can *definately* get him back.

        The range of enforcement options the United States has is vast and terrifying.

        What they meant to say was they dont *want* to get him back.

        Judges have a few enforcement options too. Be interesting to see how all this contempt of court lasts before the judge starts sending marshalls out...

  • by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2025 @09:13PM (#65275219)

    Tie up enough government lawyers and all the cases will have to keep being extended because there's too much work and not enough lawyers thanks to all the firings.

    Then, when the case has gone on for years and still hasn't gone to trial, you can claim you're not get a speedy trial and want the case dismissed.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    more Waaaa.
  • by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2025 @09:46PM (#65275247)

    Ultimately, the only thing that will work long term is educating and creating a culture that respects the human right to free speech, and more importantly due process. Judges can be replaced after all. Every human regardless of situation and circumstance is entitled to due process, which is the ability to defend themselves fairly against being punished for accusations. If you don't want to respect that, then you should pray there's no God. Pray there's no future mechanism by which your soul may be thrust into such predicament. We already have a government snatching foreigners off the street, with no prior notification that their visa was revoked, and may eventually be selling them as slaves to work camps. And don't think a future government won't seize born or legitimately naturalized citizens off the road after arbitrarily revoking citizenship. They are already revoking the ability guaranteed birth right citizenship .. this is so that they have mechanisms to challenge political rivals. Remember Trump not only questioned the citizenship of Barack Obama, but also John McCain -- the descendent of war heroes. Even if you and your family members can prove you were born here (we know databases are unhackable right?) .. if we have a system by which the state can utilize plain clothes unidentifiable enforcement agents to snatch people off the street .. that same system will get used against citizens eventually. It may start with being used against pedophiles, who would argue against that? Then murderers, surely murderers should be deprived of citizenship. Or, maybe they will make it so that if you say something negative about the government or the US that is treason, and a citizenship revocable action. And that can happen to anyone. Remember Elon Musk called Mark Kelly .. who is a combat veteran, a traitor because he visited Ukraine. It's virtually guaranteed corrupt politicians will abuse the combined power of citizenship revocation and the ability to catch and expel non-citizens to unaudited prison camps with no due process.

  • "If true, this represents a chilling escalation in the government's effort to target critics of American foreign policy," Substack and FIRE write.

    Escalation only in the minds of those who've hallucinated such an effort in the first place. The 'ministry of truth' is dead.

  • She's here on a visa - and visas can get cancelled. I doubt she will win this.

    • by habig ( 12787 )

      There's due process for doing so, and that has not been followed. This is probably because in similar cases going back decades, when that process was followed, the courts (including the supreme court, including in cases of actual communist rabble rousers), has ruled that free speech is free speech and doesn't depend on one's visa status.

      So, if this plays out as it has repeatedly in the past, her visa gets un-canceled. But, the point wasn't to get rid of one student who wrote an article. The point was to

      • There's due process for doing so, and that has not been followed. This is probably because in similar cases going back decades, when that process was followed, the courts (including the supreme court, including in cases of actual communist rabble rousers), has ruled that free speech is free speech and doesn't depend on one's visa status.

        So, if this plays out as it has repeatedly in the past, her visa gets un-canceled. But, the point wasn't to get rid of one student who wrote an article. The point was to inflict fear in all the other students who might one day think about saying something out of line. The government using extra-legal fear as a weapon... that's the scary part for all of us.

        This is really about the mess of protests and harassment that happened on college campuses last year where the college administrations did little in response. They are sending a message that guests in our country who misbehave can and will be sent home.

Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know that?

Working...