The Arizona Supreme Court launched a Task Force on Countering Disinformation in 2019 that is raising concerns. It is the first state court system in the country to establish one. The task force has issued two reports with recommendations since its launch.
The task force members include some partisans, and none of them appear to be conservative.
One of them is Scott Ruston, a research professor who directs Arizona State University (ASU)’s Center on Narrative, Disinformation, and Strategic Influence. His background includes applying his expertise to “counter violent extremism and counter violent extremist ideology research contexts, including: analysis of extremist narratives.”
“If the courts aren’t saying what’s happening and explaining why judges make rulings in particular ways, then that’s fertile ground for people to basically lie about it and make claims that are untrue,” Ruston told The Arizona Capitol Times about the task force in February 2021. “And not only are they untrue, but they are malicious.”
The article said Ruston (pictured above, left) concluded that “disinformation actors seek out social wedge issues around which they can erode the public’s faith in political institutions, whether that’s the judiciary, the legislature, the education system, the press or the executive branch.”
In an interview published by ASU, Ruston said people should “use fact-checking sites like Poynter and Politifact to add insight and context.” Both of those sites are left-leaning.
Another task force member is Joe Hengemuehler, the chief communications officer for the State Bar of Arizona. His Twitter feed is full of retweeting Democrats and Democratic talking points. He is a strong proponent of wearing masks and getting the COVID-19 vaccine. During a meeting, task force member Frederic Bellamy, an attorney, said Sean Hannity is disinformation.
Dawn Gilpin, an associate professor with the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at ASU, is a task force member who also reveals her left-leaning side in tweets. She praised Changing Hands used bookstore, which refuses to carry conservative books and shared a guide to avoiding gender bias in writing. Furthermore, Gilpin (pictured above, right) retweeted a professor who tweeted, “There’s a long history of why female faculty, esp female faculty of color, should be addressed as Dr or Professor by everyone until they say otherwise.”
The task force is utilizing resources on disinformation from the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). NCSC lists several types of disinformation, including four “even more dangerous political themes.” The first two involve elections. The first one is “[t]he justice system ignores voting irregularities and fraud allowing elections to be stolen from certain candidates.” The second is “[t]he justice system tips the electoral map in favor of a particular party.”
The NCSC said there are “four prevalent themes” of disinformation. One is that “[t]he justice system tolerates, protects and covers up crimes committed by immigrants.” A second is “[t]he justice system directly supports and enables corporate corruption.” A third is “[t]he justice system is a tool of the political elite and is therefore illegitimate.”
NCSC warned, “[T]he danger lies in letting them circulate unchallenged.” NCSC listed other resources, including the video “Election Safeguards for the Judiciary.” The Democracy Fund, a left-leaning election organization, funded the video. The video recommends working with “advocacy groups” to counter disinformation. It provided three examples of conservatives spreading misinformation about elections on social media.
The task force’s first report was issued on October 1, 2020. One of its findings analyzed a website (which was not identified) that reviewed judges.
“[T]he Task Force became aware of a judge-rating website containing postings apparently directed at discrediting a large number of U.S. judges in all 50 states and, more broadly, the judiciary in those states as an institution.”
The report characterized the site as containing disinformation and added, “[T]here is abundant and clear evidence that malicious actors are intent on sowing discord and distrust in U.S. democratic institutions.”
It expressed concern that the disinformation would “establish a narrative in which the judicial system is evil and corrupt, and in which justice is not possible.”
The site was criticized for comments that “accuse judges of both genders of religious, ethnic and gender bias.”
The site contained profanity and language recommending removing the judges, some of which the report characterized as “threats.” Based on the language in many comments, the report concluded that the site may be foreign-operated.
The task force conducted an anonymous survey of Arizona’s judicial system employees about disinformation they had encountered. Many of them submitted disparaging comments about right-leaning viewpoints. One employee, identified only as a municipal court judge, cited criticism from former President Donald Trump about judges, such as calling them “Obama judges,” “so-called judges,” and suggesting to splinter or dissolve the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
A second report with recommendations was issued in March 2022. It laid out multiple recommendations, which were also contained in the first report. One of them, Recommendation 6, stated, “Establish a national, centralized point of contact to assist in identifying disinformation and having it flagged or, if warranted, removed while respecting the expression of individual opinions and the exercise of First Amendment rights.”
Recommendation 7 stated, “Monitor technology and resources that can identify disinformation campaigns early enough to counter them with accurate information and gather public contact information to improve courts’ outreach and responsiveness.”
Recommendation 4 provided, “Establish a ‘Rapid Response Team’ to address situations where disinformation targeting a judicial branch individual, a court, or a court system occurs and publish a comment to the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.10 to provide guidance as to how and when such instances should be addressed.”
The task force recommended modifying judicial rules to allow judges to respond themselves. They would expand Rule 2.10(E) of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct to allow responding “to false, misleading, or unsubstantiated allegations or attacks upon the judge’s reputation from whatever source in writing, via social media or broadcast media or otherwise.”
A comment to the rule would be expanded to add responding “to false, misleading, or unsubstantiated allegations or attacks upon the judge’s reputation.”
The report recommended the “ABA’s 2018 publication, Rapid Response to Fake News, Misleading Statements, and Unjust Criticism of the Judiciary 8 which contains tips and recommendations for responding ‘rapidly and appropriately’ to ‘inaccurate, unjustified, and simply false criticism of judges.’”
Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas was disbarred in 2012 after criticizing judges. Thomas helped draft a successful referendum in 2006 to prohibit bail for illegal immigrants accused of serious crimes. It passed with over 70 percent voter approval, but judges at the Maricopa County Superior Court circulated a memo among themselves with instructions not to enforce it. Thomas held a press conference denouncing the move. The State Bar of Arizona investigated Thomas for violating Ethical Rule 8.2 of Rule 42 of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct. It states, “A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge…”
Another recommendation in the second report was to work with K-12 schools and universities to present information on “how media literacy protects democracy.”
The report stressed, “Rather than wait for a disinformation event and respond to it, the Task Force sought proactive measures that could be taken to identify disinformation and to differentiate it from opinion.”
The last sentence of the report stated that the goal is to improve “American resilience against those who oppose the ideals of democracy and justice.”
When the task force was started, Slate published an article questioning whether it violated the First Amendment. Neil Richards, professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, told the publication, “The natural inclination of a First Amendment lawyer is to be concerned … because it’s easy for disinformation policing to be a pretext for anything we don’t like that’s said about us.”
The task force explained that the difference between disinformation and misinformation is the former is done deliberately. In contrast, the latter may be someone not realizing they share something false. Minutes from previous task force meetings are located here.
– – –
Rachel Alexander is a reporter at The Arizona Sun Times and The Star News Network. Follow Rachel on Twitter. Email tips to [email protected].
Photo “Dawn Gilpin” and “Scott Ruston” by Arizona State University. Background Photo “Arizona Supreme Court” by davidpinter. CC BY 3.0.
