Thursday, December 10, 2020

 Portland Residents Push Back Police Coming to Evict an Afro-Indigenous Family


By Petr Knava | Social Media | December 9, 2020 | PAJIBA.COM


The Kinney family had lived in their home in North Portland for 65 years. Then, without warning, on the morning of September 9th, 2020, local police armed with assault rifles stormed the Kinney’s house and demanded they leave within half an hour. The family had been battling an unfair, predatory eviction for a good number of years. Despite their case still pending in a higher court, the cops had decided it was time to fulfill their purpose and enforce capital’s bidding. The local community, however, was having none of it. Protests erupted in response to what would amount to yet another example of ethnic displacement in the name of gentrification, and they have been ongoing ever since.

As a mixed Black and Indigenous working-class family, the Kinneys had been feeling the brunt of America’s cruel and racialised capitalism for a long time. The family first came to the house in North Portland in the 1950s, when African-American couple William and Pauline Kinney travelled up from Little Rock, Arkansas in an effort to escape the worst of institutionalised Southern racism. They dreamt of a life for their children free from the kind of hate they’d known. Unfortunately, it was simply repackaged. Their oldest son William Kinney Jr. served as a security guard at Portland Community College from 1976 to 1992. He was fired as retaliation for speaking up against his employer not allowing him to take training courses that his white colleagues could. He sued the college, and was awarded a sum of $900,000, though he ended up accepting just a fraction of the amount due to the college threatening to appeal. William Kinney Jr. would return to the house in the 1980s with his wife Julie, who is an Indigenous Native of the Upper Skagit Tribe of Washington. Then, in 2002, their son, William III, aged just 17, was sentenced to a prison term of 10 years for an automobile incident. Desperately hoping to save their son from the fate that the American prison system means for people of their heritage, the family took out a loan against their home. The loan did not help William, but it did open the door for the vultures of capitalism to come calling.

You can read the full story of the Kinney family here. In brief, the family has been using every possible means, at great personal cost, to forestall a predatory eviction. Meanwhile, the banks and the capitalists in government have been doing their best to sacrifice yet more Black and Indigenous people on the altar of their demented religion. As the page set up to support the Kinney family states:

We don’t need another empty, high-rise, high-rent luxury condominium. The Kinneys are one of the last Black families remaining on Mississippi and their fight for their home is also a real-time fight against gentrification. In order to stand a chance against the big banks and developers who’ve systematically displaced Black families across North and Northeast Portland, we need leverage.


We need to raise $250,000 by Wednesday, February 24th, 2021, the last day of Multnomah County’s extended writ of execution. This money will be an essential bargaining tool to initiate negotiations with developer Roman Ozeruga and ensure the Kinney family can remain housed for generations to come.

You can donate to the Kinneys here.

The most recent development in the story following the eviction attempt in September this year and the months of community protest and occupation that followed it came this Tuesday, when the Mayor of Portland Ted Wheeler authorised the use of force to remove the family and the 100-strong group of protesters from the area.

The police arrived at the Kinney’s family home with the intention of removing them 
According to a news report on the protest in the OPB:
Maurice Fain, the president of the Historic Mississippi Avenue Business Association, was watching from the sidewalk.

“I’ve been following this family from day one since the first eviction,” he said. “You can clearly see that something ain’t right with this.”

Fain, who owns the Southern Kitchen PDX food cart on Mississippi Ave., said it’s upsetting to see how gentrification in the area has so severely impacted Portland’s historically Black neighborhood.

“You’re taking away something that belongs to them that they’ve been having in their family for generations,” Fain said. “As business owners, as community people living here, we should help another family stay in the community. We shouldn’t want to destroy them so we can build sky rises and apartment complexes to get wealthy.”

Instead, this happened:

Replying to
The home they’re protecting belongs to a Black Indigenous family. white people; take note. Do you see how the cops retreat? Do you see how violence is not used against the protestors? Do you see what happens when people unify? This is our work.

According to a news report on the protest in the OPB:
Maurice Fain, the president of the Historic Mississippi Avenue Business Association, was watching from the sidewalk.

“I’ve been following this family from day one since the first eviction,” he said. “You can clearly see that something ain’t right with this.”

Fain, who owns the Southern Kitchen PDX food cart on Mississippi Ave., said it’s upsetting to see how gentrification in the area has so severely impacted Portland’s historically Black neighborhood.

“You’re taking away something that belongs to them that they’ve been having in their family for generations,” Fain said. “As business owners, as community people living here, we should help another family stay in the community. We shouldn’t want to destroy them so we can build sky rises and apartment complexes to get wealthy.”
It’s Not Section 230 President Trump Hates, 
It’s the First Amendment
BY ELLIOT HARMON
DECEMBER 9, 2020 EFF


President Trump’s recent threat to “unequivocally VETO” the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) if it doesn’t include a repeal of Section 230 may represent the final attack on online free speech of his presidency, but it’s certainly not the first. The NDAA is one of the “must-pass” bills that Congress passes every year, and it’s absurd that Trump is using it as his at-the-buzzer shot to try to kill the most important law protecting free speech online. Congress must reject Trump’s march against Section 230 once and for all.

Under Section 230, the only party responsible for unlawful speech online is the person who said it, not the website where they posted it, the app they used to share it, or any other third party. It has some limitations—most notably, it does nothing to shield intermediaries from liability under federal criminal law—but at its core, it’s just common-sense policy: if a new Internet startup needed to be prepared to defend against countless lawsuits on account of its users’ speech, startups would never get the investment necessary to grow and compete with large tech companies. 230 isn't just about Internet companies, either. Any intermediary that hosts user-generated material receives this shield, including nonprofit and educational organizations like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.

Section 230 is not, as Trump and other politicians have suggested, a handout to today’s dominant Internet companies. It protects all of us. If you’ve ever forwarded an email, Section 230 protected you: if a court found that email defamatory, Section 230 would guarantee that you can’t be held liable for it; only the author can.

If you’ve ever forwarded an email, Section 230 protected you.


Two myths about Section 230 have developed in recent years and clouded today’s debates about the law. One says that Section 230 somehow requires online services to be “neutral public forums”: that if they show “bias” in their decisions about what material to show or hide from users, they lose their liability shield under Section 230 (this myth drives today’s deeply misguided “platform vs. publisher” rhetoric). The other myth is that if Section 230 were repealed, online platforms would suddenly turn into “neutral” forums, doing nothing to remove or promote certain users’ speech. Both myths ignore that Section 230 isn’t what protects platforms’ right to reflect any editorial viewpoint in how it moderates users’ speech—the First Amendment to the Constitution is. The First Amendment protects platforms’ right to moderate and curate users’ speech to reflect their views, and Section 230 additionally protects them from certain types of liability for their users’ speech. It’s not one or the other; it’s both.

We’ve written numerous times about proposals in Congress to force platforms to be “neutral” in their moderation decisions. Besides being unworkable, such proposals are clearly unconstitutional: under the First Amendment, the government cannot force sites to display or promote speech they don’t want to display or remove speech they don’t want to remove.

It’s not hard to ascertain the motivations for Trump’s escalating war on Section 230. Even before he was elected, Trump was deeply focused on using the courts to punish companies for insults directed at him. He infamously promised in early 2016 to “open up our libel laws” to make it easier for him to legally bully journalists.

No matter your opinion of Section 230, we should all be alarmed that Trump considers a goofy nickname a security threat.


Trump’s attacks on Section 230 follow a familiar pattern: they always seem to follow a perceived slight by social media companies. The White House issued an executive order earlier this year that would draft the FCC to write regulations narrowing Section 230’s liability shield, though the FCC has no statutory authority to interpret Section 230. (Today, Congress is set to confirm Trump’s pick for a new FCC commissioner—one of the legal architects of the executive order.) That executive order came when Twitter and Facebook began to add fact checks to his dubious claims about mail-in voting.

But before, Trump never took the step of claiming that “national security” requires him to be able to use the courts to censor critics. That claim came on Thanksgiving, which also happened to be the day that Twitter users starting calling him “#DiaperDon” after he snapped at a reporter. Since then, he has frequently tied Section 230 to national security. The right to criticize people in power is one of the foundational rights on which our country is based. No matter your opinion of Section 230, we should all be alarmed that Trump considers a goofy nickname a security threat. Besides, repealing Section 230 would do nothing about the #DiaperDon tweets or any of the claims of mistreatment of conservatives on social media. Even if platforms have a clear political bias, Congress can't enact a law that overrides those platforms’ right to moderate user speech in accordance with that bias.

What would happen if Section 230 were repealed, as the president claims to want? Online platforms would become more restrictive overnight. Before allowing you to post online, a platform would need to gauge the level of legal risk that you and your speech bring on them—some voices would disappear from the Internet entirely. It’s shocking that politicians pushing for a more exclusionary Internet are doing so under the banner of free speech; it’s even more galling that the president has dubbed it a matter of national security.

Our free speech online is too important to be held as collateral in a routine authorization bill. Congress must reject President Trump’s misguided campaign against Section 230.