Online hate researcher keeps hammering X despite deportation threat
Online hate researcher keeps hammering X despite deportation threat
在线仇恨研究员无视驱逐威胁，持续抨击 X 平台
The US is not backing down from its fight to deport noncitizen technology researchers who monitor safety risks on the biggest online platforms. In July, a judge blocked as unconstitutional an immigration policy that the US relied on to weigh whether to detain and deport people who flag illegal or harmful online content as national security risks.
美国政府并未放弃驱逐那些监控大型在线平台安全风险的非公民技术研究人员。今年 7 月，一位法官裁定美国政府的一项移民政策违宪，该政策曾被用于评估是否应将那些标记非法或有害在线内容的人员视为国家安全威胁，并对其进行拘留和驱逐。
In his announcement of the policy, Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained that by targeting a list of researchers—which he stood “ready and willing” to expand—the policy supposedly served to prevent foreign nationals from manipulating digital town squares and censoring Americans. However, in his order siding with the Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR) and staying the policy, US District Judge James Boasberg said the US showed no evidence linking any targeted researchers to a foreign power that might be attempting to censor Americans or manipulate US public debate. Deemed too broad, the policy could sweep in seemingly any noncitizen working in content moderation, the judge said.
国务卿马可·卢比奥（Marco Rubio）在宣布该政策时解释称，通过针对一份研究人员名单（他表示“随时准备”扩大该名单），该政策旨在防止外国公民操纵数字公共广场并审查美国人。然而，美国联邦地区法官詹姆斯·博斯伯格（James Boasberg）在支持独立技术研究联盟（CITR）并中止该政策的裁决中指出，美国政府未能提供任何证据，证明这些被针对的研究人员与试图审查美国人或操纵美国公众舆论的外国势力有关联。法官表示，该政策范围过于宽泛，似乎可以将任何从事内容审核的非公民都囊括其中。
Last week, the US appealed that ruling, a move that CITR expected. It notably came two days after another court found that it had no jurisdiction to decide a case raised by a hate speech researcher and lawful permanent resident fighting to strike down the policy permanently. In that case, US District Judge Loretta Preska called out Rubio for determining that the founder of a United Kingdom group called the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), Imran Ahmed, was a threat due to his lobbying and advocacy.
上周，美国政府对该裁决提起上诉，CITR 对此早有预料。值得注意的是，就在两天前，另一家法院裁定其无权审理一起由一名仇恨言论研究员（同时也是合法永久居民）提起的诉讼，该研究员旨在永久废除这项政策。在那起案件中，美国联邦地区法官洛雷塔·普雷斯卡（Loretta Preska）批评了卢比奥，因为卢比奥认定英国组织“数字仇恨打击中心”（CCDH）的创始人伊姆兰·艾哈迈德（Imran Ahmed）因其游说和倡导活动而构成威胁。
“Without any hint of irony,” the secretary decided it was “necessary” to deport Ahmed in order to protect American “freedom of expression” and to “reject encroachments” that “undermine the exercise of our fundamental right to free speech,” Preska wrote. Ultimately, however, she ruled that Congress had removed courts’ authority to block the US government from initiating removal proceedings, so she could not grant Ahmed’s request for a permanent injunction. Even though “Ahmed may very well have valid causes of action,” Preska wrote that his lawsuit was “premature.”
普雷斯卡写道：“国务卿在毫无讽刺意味的情况下，决定驱逐艾哈迈德是‘必要’的，目的是为了保护美国的‘言论自由’，并‘抵制’那些‘破坏我们行使基本言论自由权利’的侵犯行为。”然而，她最终裁定，国会已剥夺了法院阻止美国政府启动驱逐程序的权力，因此她无法批准艾哈迈德提出的永久禁令请求。尽管普雷斯卡写道“艾哈迈德很可能拥有有效的诉讼理由”，但她认为他的诉讼“为时过早”。
Technology researchers are alarmed that the decision seems to suggest that federal courts can never review the legal basis for an immigration policy connected to removal proceedings, even if it’s an unconstitutional one. For Ahmed, Preska’s ruling came with high personal stakes. Although the Trump administration has not initiated removal proceedings, Preska’s order allowed it to start that process after only five days. Acting quickly, Ahmed appealed, then asked both Preska and the appeals court to extend a temporary restraining order blocking his detention or deportation.
技术研究人员感到震惊，因为这一裁决似乎暗示，联邦法院永远无法审查与驱逐程序相关的移民政策的法律依据，即使该政策是违宪的。对于艾哈迈德来说，普雷斯卡的裁决关系到他的个人命运。尽管特朗普政府尚未启动驱逐程序，但普雷斯卡的命令允许政府在五天后即可启动该程序。艾哈迈德迅速采取行动提起上诉，并请求普雷斯卡和上诉法院延长临时限制令，以阻止对他进行拘留或驱逐。
Since she expressed sympathy in her order, it’s not surprising that Preska quickly granted that request, blocking the US from taking any action until the appeals court rules on Ahmed’s request. But now his fate depends on the appeals court agreeing that a federal court should have the “power to prevent the illegal arrest, detention, and transfer of a green card holder based on the Administration’s policy of retaliating against speech criticizing the practices at the major technology companies,” his appeal said.
由于普雷斯卡在裁决中表达了同情，她很快批准了这一请求，阻止美国政府在法院对艾哈迈德的请求作出裁决前采取任何行动，这并不令人意外。但他的命运现在取决于上诉法院是否同意联邦法院应拥有“权力，以防止政府基于报复批评大型科技公司行为的言论政策，而对绿卡持有者进行非法逮捕、拘留和转移”，他的上诉书写道。
Ahmed told Ars that he remains optimistic that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will see through the government’s seeming plan to use the policy to “broadly chill protected speech.” “As a plurality of the active judges of the Second Circuit has already held,” the State Department’s cited authorities “do not permit the Executive to arrest, detain, or transfer noncitizens without judicial review,” Ahmed argued. Boasberg apparently agreed. He held in the CITR case that it matters that “the prospect that [a] policy may later contribute to some noncitizen’s removal does not transform a challenge to the policy into the review of an order of removal.”
艾哈迈德告诉《Ars Technica》，他仍然乐观地认为，第二巡回上诉法院将看穿政府利用该政策“广泛压制受保护言论”的企图。艾哈迈德辩称：“正如第二巡回法院多数现任法官已经裁定的那样，国务院所引用的权力‘不允许行政部门在没有司法审查的情况下逮捕、拘留或转移非公民’。”博斯伯格显然也同意这一点。他在 CITR 一案中裁定，重要的是“某项政策未来可能导致某些非公民被驱逐的前景，并不能将对该政策的挑战转化为对驱逐令的审查”。
US lacks evidence of censorship
美国缺乏审查证据
Ahmed noted that the US never opposed the restraining order, even though his research with CCDH has continued. Last week when the US started more aggressively defending the policy, CCDH contributed research to a major New York Times investigation. In that report, spot checks showed that some of the “most egregious examples” of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) continue to go undetected on Elon Musk’s social media platform X. CCDH “gave access to more than four million links to Grok-generated images compiled for researchers” at the Canadian Center for Children Protection for that review, the NYT reported. In total, 65 AI-generated CSAM images were found, as well as 75 known CSAM images. Some images were viewed hundreds of times. (Asked for comment, X linked to an X Safety post saying, “X has zero tolerance for CSAM.)
艾哈迈德指出，尽管他与 CCDH 的研究仍在继续，但美国政府从未反对过限制令。上周，当美国政府开始更积极地为该政策辩护时，CCDH 为《纽约时报》的一项重大调查提供了研究支持。该报告中的抽查显示，埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）的社交媒体平台 X 上，一些“最恶劣的”儿童性虐待材料（CSAM）案例仍未被发现。《纽约时报》报道称，CCDH 为加拿大儿童保护中心的研究人员提供了“超过 400 万个由 Grok 生成的图像链接”以供审查。总共发现了 65 张人工智能生成的 CSAM 图像，以及 75 张已知的 CSAM 图像。有些图像被浏览了数百次。（在被要求置评时，X 链接了一篇 X 安全部门的帖子，称“X 对 CSAM 零容忍”。）
Ahmed told Ars that officials specifically cited his group’s support for the European Union fining X a record $1 billion as cause for his national-security designation. However, so far, no evidence has shown that he might pose “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” Instead, officials rely on “shifting, contradictory, and unsupported rationales” to justify what Ahmed alleged is retaliation for being a thorn in Musk’s side. Meanwhile, Ahmed “faces the imminent prospect of unconstitutional arrest, punitive detention, and expulsion” from his home country, where he lives with his American wife and daughters.
艾哈迈德告诉《Ars Technica》，官员们明确指出，他所在的组织支持欧盟对 X 处以创纪录的 10 亿美元罚款，这是他被列为国家安全威胁的原因。然而，到目前为止，没有任何证据表明他可能造成“严重的负面外交政策后果”。相反，官员们依靠“不断变化、相互矛盾且缺乏支持的理由”来为他们所谓的报复行为辩护，而艾哈迈德认为这仅仅是因为他成了马斯克的眼中钉。与此同时，艾哈迈德“面临着被违宪逮捕、惩罚性拘留和驱逐出境的迫在眉睫的威胁”，而他与美国籍妻子和女儿正生活在这个国家。
“I may be British, but even I know that transparency isn’t censorship and that speaking truth to the most powerful person on the planet is precisely the intention of the First Amendment,” Ahmed said. Reached for comment on what risk Ahmed’s ongoing research might pose to American tech firms or online discourse, a spokesperson told Ars that the State Department does not comment on ongoing litigation. However, the spokesperson reiterated that the department has authority to recommend.
“我虽然是英国人，但我知道透明度不是审查，对地球上最有权势的人说真话正是第一修正案的初衷，”艾哈迈德说。当被问及艾哈迈德持续进行的研究可能对美国科技公司或在线舆论构成何种风险时，一位发言人告诉《Ars Technica》，国务院不对正在进行的诉讼发表评论。不过，该发言人重申，国务院有权提出建议。