老澳门开奖结果

It has been a rough week for the GEO Group, a private prison company that contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to lock up undocumented immigrants. And it鈥檚 making the contractor lash out in erratic fashion.

All week, activists have been raising for a national day of action against GEO Group, which has been profiting off of the Trump administration鈥檚 war on undocumented immigrants. And on Tuesday, a federal judge certified a class action against GEO for systematic wage theft of detained immigrants, who are paid $1 a day as part of GEO鈥檚 .

Under pressure from activists, GEO did what too many embattled corporations do: It threatened to sue. GEO鈥檚 lawyers served a cease-and-desist on Dream Defenders, the Florida-based human rights organization that had called on allies to push their elected officials to cut ties with GEO, rally at GEO prisons and detention centers, and 鈥渃reatively disrupt鈥� GEO offices on August 7.

The letter accuses Dream Defenders of making 鈥渒nowingly false statements鈥� which 鈥渓ikely give rise to... claims for defamation and tortious interference with GEO鈥檚 contracts.鈥� Not content with making baseless defamation claims, GEO goes on to accuse Dream Defenders of 鈥渋nciting a dangerous 鈥榙isruption鈥欌�� and 鈥渆ncouraging threatening and violent behavior.鈥�

Neither of these allegations passes the laugh test. First, the allegedly defamatory statements 鈥� that GEO 鈥渟eparates鈥� and 鈥渃ages鈥� people, that it 鈥減uts Black, Latino and poor White people into jail鈥� and that it asserts 鈥渋mproper influence over the United States political system鈥� 鈥� are protected statements on matters of public concern. As Dream Defenders鈥� nonplussed details, these are far from verifiably false statements, which GEO would need to show in a defamation lawsuit.

In fact, Dream Defenders鈥� statements are well founded. The response letter highlights factual support for each of the allegations cited in GEO鈥檚 letter, from GEO鈥檚 own promotional materials referencing their sale of 鈥渟teel cages鈥� to news reports of GEO鈥檚 lucrative involvement in family separation.

Against the weight of lawsuits, news reports, and government investigations into the company鈥檚 practices, GEO鈥檚 contention that Dream Defenders spread information they knew to be false falls flat. The activists鈥� allegations are exactly the kind of political speech that is protected against government censorship and defamation civil lawsuits.

By the same token, calling on allies to 鈥渃reatively disrupt鈥� GEO鈥檚 鈥渂usiness-as-usual鈥� is quintessential political speech, not . GEO argues that Dream Defenders鈥� call for protest amounts to 鈥渆ncouragement鈥� of unlawful behavior. But there are countless lawful ways for activists to heed Dream Defenders call for protest, and GEO鈥檚 letter fails to identify a single statement by Dream Defenders that instructs activists to break the law. In any case, even speech encouraging unlawful action is protected by the First Amendment, as we recently argued to a federal appeals court. Although GEO considers Dream Defenders鈥� rhetoric 鈥渞eckless鈥� and 鈥渋ncendiary,鈥� a call for protest is not a parliamentary motion, and activists are not required to observe Robert鈥檚 Rules of Order. The First Amendment protects 鈥渞eckless鈥� and 鈥渋ncendiary鈥� rhetoric, so long as it doesn鈥檛 intentionally and directly incite immediate violence.

Cease-and-desist letters like GEO鈥檚 can do serious damage to public discourse, even if the claims themselves are ultimately rejected in court. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (also known as SLAPP cases), like the one threatened here or the lawsuit filed last year against Greenpeace and other environmental groups, use the risks and costs of litigation to silence those who speak out against corporate malfeasance.

Facing outrageous damages claims and ruinous legal costs, many critics choose to self-censor rather than risk annihilation. Defending these cases is a heavy burden, particularly for nonprofit organizations like Dream Defenders, which don鈥檛 have the same deep pockets as their corporate adversaries. Resources that should be spent on advocacy would be diverted to legal costs, which suits the corporate plaintiff just fine.

That鈥檚 why it鈥檚 important to respond loudly and clearly to groundless threats like the one GEO made in response to a week of bad press. To quote the Dream Defenders, 鈥�.鈥�