Second Amendment rights – News – Jackson Newspapers – Ripley … – Jackson County Newspapers

Rev. Tom Lovorn, Th.D.

Q. Does the Bible have anything to say about our Second Amendment rights, which were hearing so much about in the current political climate? Christine Stawarz, Prince George, Va.

A. The Second Amendment was drafted by James Madison in 1789. It and the other nine amendments, forming what we call the Bill of Rights, were ratified and added to our Constitution in 1791. They are understood to state the inherent rights of every citizen.

The Second Amendment reads, A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. One of our statesmen said its intended purpose was to support the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

Although Isaiah 9:6 predicted the Messiah would be called the Prince of Peace, it is a reference to the heart-peace he gives to believers and to his future millennial reign when there will be peace in the valley (Isaiah 11:1-9). It is true that Jesus said in Matthew 5:39 his followers should turn the other cheek when we are smitten. But, we must not take that out of the context of love which Jesus was preaching. He was not talking about defending ourselves in a life-threatening situation; he was teaching that we should resist our natural reaction in order to help a fellowman learn the ideal response of love. Gods love in us should cause us to forgo our own concerns to seek the best for others.

True: Jesus taught that we should, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven (Matthew 5:44-45). However, Jesus never said we should not defend ourselves from danger. In fact, in Numbers 22:31 the Angel of the Lord, whom we suppose to be preincarnate Jesus, had his sword drawn against the false prophet Balaam.

In our present culture of lawlessness and greed, believers have permission from Jesus in Luke 22:36 to carry a sword. He also said in Luke 11:21 (CEV), When a strong man arms himself and guards his home, everything he owns is safe.

The Rev. Dr. Tom Lovorn is pastor of Gods Storehouse Baptist Church in Richmond and he writes a weekly question and answer column for The Progress-Index. Columns are real questions from readers around the world. Dr. Tom, a Petersburg resident, is a long-time columnist with The Progress-Index and a former pastor in the Petersburg community.Note: This column was originally published in The Progress-Index May 28, 2016. Dr. Lovorn requested a week off from his writing responsibilities, so we searched our archives for a column that was relevant and worthy of repeating.

Read the original:

Second Amendment rights - News - Jackson Newspapers - Ripley ... - Jackson County Newspapers

Rex Alphin supports the Second Amendment – News – The Progress … – Progress Index

Rex Alphin is pro-life, pro Second Amendment, his NRA rating is better than his opponents, and he appreciates the agricultural lifestyle the 64th District is known for and thats why Im voting for him. Rex believes in his community so much that he has owned and operated three businesses in his district, his opponents business is not in the 64th.

His opponent said she has never raised taxes, how could she? Shes never held any elected position to be faced with that hard reality. Tax hikes have been a major thorn, have we forgotten why taxes had to be raised? The board of supervisors, of which Rex is serving, unanimously voted to raise taxes because of the irresponsible misuse of taxpayer funds that the previous board used to saddle Isle of Wight with huge amounts of unnecessary debt. His opponent signed a Taxpayer Protection Pledge stating she wont raise taxes - maybe thats unrealistic. I dont want another broken promise, I want pro-active leadership. When you make tall promises, you always fall short. Rex is realistic and words mean something to him, he knows you dont have to be the loudest voice in the room to be effective.

As for fundraising, I would rather have a candidate whos raised more money from his district than someone whos raised their majority outside the 64th, check out cfreports.sbe.virginia.gov. Candidates need to be accountable to their constituents, not outside political forces. And what a shame political forces within local GOP groups think you are so ignorant that they banded together to tell everyone to vote for Rexs opponent. Thats what the establishment and Democrats do.

Lastly, things have been said about all the nice letters for Rex. Honor, integrity, faith, commitment, and passion for family and community mean a great deal to Rex and it means something to me. Rex isnt perfect, but hes not a flash in the pan.

Jennifer Boykin, Carrsville, Virginia

See the article here:

Rex Alphin supports the Second Amendment - News - The Progress ... - Progress Index

A Sad Supreme Court Case Highlights the Need for Smarter Second Amendment Jurisprudence – National Review

One day in October 2010, a man by the name of Angel Mendez was at his home, asleep on a futon next to his pregnant girlfriend. Hed built the home himself, and it almost redefined the word modest. It was little more than a one-room shack in the back yard of another persons residence, with a blanket for a door. He awoke from his nap to see a person pulling back the blanket. He picked up his BB gun, and heard someone shout gun! before 15 rounds came flying at him. He was grievously injured, ultimately losing a leg. His unarmed girlfriend was also wounded.

It turns out the person who shot at Mendez was a police officer. Los Angeles County sheriffs deputies Christopher Conley and Jennifer Peterson were looking for a parolee who was believed to be armed and dangerous. They did not have a warrant to search Mendezs home, and they did not announce their presence or identity before accosting him. They entered, saw his BB gun, and started firing.

Lest you think this is a unique incident, in March I wrote about the terrible case of Andrew Scott. Like Mendez, Scott was an innocent man at home with his girlfriend when the police came. Like Mendez, he was mistaken by police for the armed and dangerous man they sought. They pounded on his door, but they didnt have a warrant, and they didnt announce themselves. Like any reasonable person, he was alarmed at the late-night disturbance and had no reason to expect the police were its source. So he grabbed his gun. When he opened his door, the police shot him dead in two seconds.

Neither Mendez nor Scott did anything wrong. They were both absolutely within their constitutional rights to pick up a weapon in response to the unidentified persons attempting to enter their homes. Yet Mendez, and Scotts heirs, have so far lost in court, unable to collect any meaningful compensation from the police officers who shot them precisely because they exercised those rights.

Scotts estate lost at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the doctrine of qualified immunity protected the officers from having to pay any compensation to the innocent victims of their mistaken and wrongful use of force. Mendez lost yesterday in the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously against a quirky Ninth Circuit use-of-force rule that allowed excessive-force claims where an officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation, if the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation. In other words, if the officers violated Mendezs Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully entering his home, they could be held liable for shooting Mendez even if the shooting itself might otherwise have been justified under existing law.

The Supreme Court found that the Ninth Circuits rule violated court precedent requiring lower courts to instead apply a totality of the circumstances approach to such cases, under which the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The Supreme Court then remanded the case back to the lower courts, where the deck is already stacked against Mendez. The court of appeals, after all, already ruled that the officers had qualified immunity from Mendezs claim, and the trial court determined that Mendezs decision to pick up the BB gun was a superseding cause that limited the damages he could collect.

Its time for a different approach. Its time for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to explicitly recognize and accommodate the Second Amendment. If the Second Amendment means anything at all, it means that I have a right to defend myself in my own home, where as Justice Scalia noted in District of Columbia v. Heller the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Moreover, the Second Amendment exists in large part to protect the private citizen from state tyranny. It is odd indeed, then, that current law largely grants officers of the state the right to kill me in my own home even if I do nothing wrong. Indeed, the very act of exercising my Second Amendment rights picking up a gun makes it less likely that I will prevail in court.

Theres an old saying that a person would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. In times of peril, the thinking goes, its better to risk a jury than to risk your life. But under modern jurisprudence, when the police barge in youre likely to be carried by six and then judged wanting by one: Youll die in the face of overwhelming firepower, and your estates case will be tossed right out of court by a judge.

This presents the homeowner especially if he lives in a high-crime area where the need for a gun is most dire with an impossible situation. In the event of a home intrusion, he has to identify the intruder before he picks up his gun or risk being shot dead instantaneously. If the cops make a good-faith mistake, the burden is on the homeowner. If the cops act improperly, as they did in both Scott and Mendez, the burden is still on the homeowner. Heads, they win; tails you lose.

What is to be done about this? Civil-rights jurisprudence must recognize the central legal truths of Heller and empower the original meaning of the Constitution. Police use of force against an armed homeowner should be evaluated on Second Amendment grounds, not merely as an unreasonable search or seizure. Agents of the state should be held liable for violations of Second Amendment rights when they kill or injure someone solely because he or she exercised those rights. Shooting an innocent man in his own home because he grabs a gun when an unidentified person pounds on his door or barges through it isnt just an unreasonable search or seizure. Its a direct violation of his clearly established right to keep and bear arms.

Its not too much to ask police officers to obtain warrants and to knock and announce their presence in all but the most exigent circumstances. In both Scott and Mendez, there was no good reason for police not to identify themselves. Yet in both cases, a residents reasonable response to police failures undermined his efforts to hold them accountable for those failures in court. That is unacceptable. When a person enters my house unannounced, I should have the right to hold a gun in my hand. To argue otherwise is to eviscerate the Second Amendment.

READ MORE: A Federal Appeals Court Goes to War against the Second Amendment What Justice Gorsuch Might Mean for the Second Amendment Why Would Anyone Want a Firearm?

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

See more here:

A Sad Supreme Court Case Highlights the Need for Smarter Second Amendment Jurisprudence - National Review

Billions of dollars, First Amendment protections, at stake in ABC … – Sioux City Journal

Its a sure bet that the summer plans for 16 Union County, South Dakota, residents look a lot different today than they did a week ago.

The 11 women and five men constitute the jury in the defamation lawsuit brought by Dakota Dunes-based Beef Products Inc. against ABC and Jim Avila, a senior correspondent for the broadcaster. BPIs $1.9 billion lawsuit is scheduled to last eight weeks, potentially concluding in late July.

BPI is bringing suit under a 1994 state law that makes it illegal to knowingly disparage agriculture products with falsehoods. The law allows for treble damages, which in BPIs case would amount to $5.7 billion.

South Dakota is one of 13 states with laws that protect agriculture from disparagement. State legislatures began passing the laws after a 1993 decision in Washington where a court rejected efforts by apple farmers to punish 60 Minutes for a story that questioned the use of pesticides on apples, said Dave Heller, the deputy director of the Medial Law Resource Center.

BPI filed suit in September 2012 following a series of negative reports aired by ABC about BPIs signature product, Lean Finely Textured Beef. Following the reports, many of BPIs major customers stopped buying LFTB, which was used as a lean beef filler in hamburger. The fallout from those reports forced the company to close three of four plants and eliminate half its work force.

Roy Gutterman, the director of the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, said the laws were intended to intimidate and chill news coverage. He noted that the term pink slime, which was used in ABCs broadcast to describe LFTB, was consistent with language used in the industry.

The pink slime case is an affront to the First Amendment, he said in an email. The damages being sought are outrageous.

Patrick Garry, a law professor at the University of South Dakota School of Law, said that BPI has a high bar because of First Amendment speech protections. BPI must prove that ABC acted with malice that it knowingly reported falsehoods with a desire to hurt BPI.

While the media has long-held legal protections, Garry wonders if this is the right case at the right time that could puncture some of those protections. BPI could have access to internal ABC documents showing the networks reports were biased, opening the door to a malice claim.

Steve Kay, who publishes Cattle Buyers Weekly, said it appeared to him that ABC set out to disparage a product that had been used around the world for years.

Im trying to be as neutral as possible, but by most standards of responsible journalism it appeared to be distorted and biased and extremely unreasonable, Kay said.

Eldon Roth, BPIs CEO, founded the company in 1981. He pioneered a method, Kay said, of extracting lean beef from fatty portions of cattle that had previously been rendered. BPIs method relied on centrifuges to extract the lean beef, which could then be added to hamburger, making a leaner product.

Roth further revolutionized the product following an E. coli outbreak that sickened hundreds in 1993 who ate hamburgers sold by Jack in the Box. He developed a process in which LFTB was treated with ammonium hydroxide to kill E. coli and other microbes.

The outcry is ironic, Kay said, because it was arguably the safest product on the market.

ABCs whole approach to BPI didnt make any sense to me, Kay said. It seemed to ignore the whole history of the product.

ABC wasnt the first media outlet to report on the process of making LFTB. The New York Times discovered an email in which a U.S. Department of Agriculture microbiologist described the product as pink slime. The paper referred to the email in a 2009 investigation, which uncovered reports of salmonella and E. coli in BPI products used in school lunches.

While no outbreaks were tied to BPI, the report by the Times included skepticism about the products safety among school lunch officials. In 2011, McDonalds, Burger King and Taco Bell abandoned LFTB.

Then came ABCs series of reports in March of 2012. Although the network broke little ground in terms of what had already been reported by the likes of The New York Times and others, its reporting set off a wave of negative reaction about LFTB. Grocers abandoned the product and USDA said school lunch programs didnt have to use beef that included LFTB.

BPIs revenues plummeted from $1.1 billion in 2011 to $400 million last year, Kay said. ABCs reports had an immediate and lasting impact on BPIs business.

No way has their business even more than partially recovered, Kay said.

Much of the outcry about LFTB and a focus of ABCs reporting was on the use of ammonia to kill microbes. Although ammonia is used in other processed foods and was OKd by USDA for use at certain levels for LFTB, food advocates were outraged that it wasnt on the product label. Nor were consumers alerted to the fact that LFTB portions come from parts of the animal that had previously been rendered or used outside of the food chain.

Michele Simon, a public health attorney and author who wrote about the topic, and who was deposed in the case, said ABCs reports exposed the vast underbelly of the industrial meat system.

I dont think anyone was claiming it was unsafe, just disgusting, Simon said.

Kay, however, says it would be impractical to describe the processes of making hamburger with LFTB on product labeling. BPI, he added, has always been open about its product and the processes it used.

But Simon says the company had no answer about why it wasnt being more transparent. And she said she doesnt know why anyone in the news industry would have it out for BPI.

Its a typical shooting-the-messenger act, she said.

ABC tried but failed to move the case from state court to federal court. The loss meant that it will be forced to defend itself in BPIs backyard.

Its hard to predict what will happen in this trial, Heller said in an email. ABC is in the plaintiffs home turf at a time of unprecedented hostility toward the press as purveyors of fake news. On the other hand, you will have a jury of average Americans probably more concerned with what they put on the family dinner table than the public relations of a beef processor.

Juries, Garry said, are often sympathetic to people who make defamation claims and give generous awards. But often, those awards are reversed on appeal, and Garry said he expects this case to be appealed, especially if the verdict goes against ABC.

Besides the Washington apple case that spurred state disparagement laws, Heller noted that nearly 20 years ago, Oprah Winfrey won a case in Texas after cattle ranchers attempted to silence her concerns about beef safety.

If the past is any track record, courts and juries will not be quick to shut down legitimate public debate about what we eat, he said.

While its true that opinions about food can substantially impact the bottom line of a manufacturer, thats a product of the free exchange of ideas, Heller said. We dont need the government to put its thumb on the scale and chill debate about what we are eating and how its made.

Read more from the original source:

Billions of dollars, First Amendment protections, at stake in ABC ... - Sioux City Journal

‘Democrat and Chronicle’ wins major First Amendment Award and other AP journalism prizes – Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

Matthew Leonard Published 2:24 p.m. ET June 4, 2017 | Updated 12 hours ago

Mt. Hope Cemetery has a different type of underground tunnel, made by nuisance wildlife, groundhogs. David Andreatta and Tina MacIntyre-Yee

(Right,) USA TODAY Albany bureau chief Joe Spector and (left) correspondent Jon Campbell with their NYSAPA awards for Investigative Reporting awarded in Saratoga Springs on June 3. Spector won 1st place, Campbell won 3rd.(Photo: Karen Magnuson/ executive editor and vice president/news)

SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y. The Democrat and Chronicle has been awarded a major New York First Amendment award; an acknowledgment of its vigilant efforts to defend the public's right to know, and to pursue legal options where necessary.

Thataccolade was one of the dozen awards that Democrat and Chronicle and its Albany bureau staff took away from theNew York State Associated Press Association's contest for stories broadcast, printed or posted online in 2016, announced Saturday night at the organization's annual banquet in Saratoga Springs.

The Democrat and Chronicle's nomination for the First Amendment Award (Newspapers) was built around its efforts to gain access to public records including a sealed complaint made against the late Assemblyman Bill Nojay and for efforts to gain access to records from the SUNY Polytechnic Institute.

The First Amendment award also acknowledges the dogged persistence of Albany Bureau correspondent Jon Campbell whose reporting resulted in media and public access to two semi-public boards overseeing the spending by SUNY Poly.

"The Democrat & Chronicle is fighting the Freedom of Information battle on many fronts," the judging panel commented. "Among the many initiatives the paper is engaged in, we were specifically impressed with the newsrooms efforts to open up semi-public board meetings. This is becoming a growing issue for many newsrooms."

The organization'sstaff also took first place in the categories of Spot News Coverage, for team reporting on the death by suicide of AssemblymanBill Nojay, two awards in the Investigative Reporting category including first place for "Why NY's School-Aid Formula is Flunking" byUSA TODAY Albany Bureau chief Joe Spector, and first place for columnist, going to David Andreatta.

The awards also recognized excellence in Business andArts/Entertainment journalism as well as the work of photography and digital staff.

"While we are excited about being recognized in several categories of coverage, the First Amendment Award is very special to our entire newsroom." said the Democrat and Chronicle's Executive Editor and Vice President/News Karen Magnuson.

"Our highest priority is being a watchdog for the community.We thank our president, Dan Norselli, for his support in going to court when necessary to gain access to information the public has a right to know.Im honored to work with journalists who wont take no for an answer and relentlessly dig for the truth. Rest assured, well continue to fight the good fight and hold public officials accountable, no matter what challenges we face!" Magnuson said Sunday.

The full list of award winners includes:

Spot News Coverage: 1, (Rochester) Democrat and Chronicle, "Assemblyman Commits Suicide."

Investigative Reporting: 1, Joe Spector, (Rochester) Democrat and Chronicle, "Why NY's School-Aid Formula is Flunking"; 3, Jon Campbell, (Rochester) Democrat and Chronicle, "The Cost of I Love NY."

Depth/Enterprise Reporting: 2, Patti Singer, Sean Lahman and Max Schulte, (Rochester) Democrat and Chronicle, "Nursing Homes: Error After Error";

Column: 1, David Andreatta, (Rochester) Democrat and Chronicle;

Business Writing: 2, Brian Sharp, (Rochester) I, "Silicon Valley of Food;"

Arts/Entertainment Reporting: 2, Jeff Spevak, (Rochester) Democrat and Chronicle, "WOW Factor the Wendy O. Williams We Didn't Know"

Digital Presence: 2, (Rochester) Democrat and Chronicle.

Feature Photo: 2, Tina MacIntyre-Yee, (Rochester) Democrat and Chronicle, "Jumping Through Fire."

Sports Photo: 3, Jamie Germano, (Rochester) Democrat and Chronicle, "Off with the Helmet."

Video: 3, Tina MacIntyre-Yee and David Andreatta, (Rochester) Democrat and Chronicle, "Groundhogs Make Mt. Hope Cemetery Holey Ground."

Other USA TODAY properties across New York also wonother major categories.

THE PHOTO: Senior Pastor John Morgan of Faith on Fire Fellowship told the crowd before he jumped through a wall of fire on his bicycle that it symbolizes a person's launch in life, the gap between ramps was the highs and lows in life and the wall of fire, the end of life. The breaking through the wall, he said, is giving your life to Jesus Christ. FROM TINA: Pretty cool to see and capture this. It happened so fast. They lit the wall and floor then after the flames got really big he was through it. It must have happened in literally less than a minute.(Photo: TINA MACINTYRE-YEE/@tyee23/staff photographer)

@mleonardmedia

This story includes reporting by the Associated Press.

Read or Share this story: http://on.rocne.ws/2ssLkNj

Read this article:

'Democrat and Chronicle' wins major First Amendment Award and other AP journalism prizes - Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

Red Alert: The First Amendment Is in Danger BillMoyers.com – BillMoyers.com

If anyone believes that under the First Amendment gagging the media cant happen here, the answer is that it already has.

Reporters attempt to pose questions to President Donald Trump during a news conference on Feb. 16, 2017. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Of all the incredible statements issuing from the fantasy factory that is the imagination of Donald Trump, the one he recently made in a speech to graduates of the Coast Guard academy, that no politician in history and I say this with great surety has been treated worse or so unfairly sets an unenviable record for brazen ignorance plus a toxic mix of self-aggrandizement and self-pity. In his eyes, the most villainous persecutors are the mainstream fake news organizations that dare to oppose his actions and expose his lies.

So, having already banned nosy reporters from news corporations that he doesnt like, branded their employers as enemies of the nation and expressed a wish to departed FBI Director James Comey that those in the White House who leak his secrets should be jailed, why should there be any doubt that he would, if he could, clap behind bars reporters whom, in his own cockeyed vision, he saw as hostile? His fingers itch to sign an order or even better a law that would give him that power. Could he possibly extract such legislation from Congress?

Such a bill might accuse the press of seditious libel, meaning the circulation of an opinion tending to induce a belief that an action of the government was hostile to the liberties and happiness of the people. It also could be prohibited to defame the president by declarations directly or indirectly to criminate his motives in conducting official business.

If anyone believes that under the First Amendment gagging the media cant happen here, the answer is that it already has.

With a net that wide, practically anything that carried even the slightest whiff of criticism could incur a penalty of as much as five years in jail and a fine of $5,000. Just for good measure, couple it with an Act Concerning Aliens, giving the president the right to expel any foreign-born resident not yet naturalized whom he considers dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States without a charge or a hearing.

How Trump would relish that kind of imaginary power over his enemies!

I didnt make up those words. They are part of actual laws the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in the summer of 1798 and signed by John Adams, our second president and titular leader of the conservative Federalist Party. Men were actually tried, imprisoned and fined for such sedition. If anyone believes that under the First Amendment gagging the media cant happen here, the answer is that it already has.

John Adams by John Turnbull, 1793. (National Portrait Gallery)

How did it happen? Just as it could happen again today in the midst of a national emergency. In Adams day, it was a war scare with France that produced a flurry of stand behind the president resolutions, a hugely expanded military budget (including the beginnings of the US Navy), demonstrations of approval in front of Adams residence and a conviction among the Federalists that members of Congress who talked of peace namely the Republicans, the pro-French opposition party who at that time were the more liberal of the two parties, [held] their countrys honor and safety too cheap.

In other words, just the kind of emergency that could be produced at any time in our present climate by a terrorist attack here at home genuine, exaggerated or contrived and pounced upon by the man in the White House.

Do I exaggerate? Read the chilling report of the April 30 interview between Jon Karl of ABC News and Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus, who said the president might change libel laws so he could sue publishers. When Karl suggested that this might require amending the Constitution, Priebus replied, I think its something that weve looked at, and how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story.

This is reality. A lying president aspiring to become a tinpot dictator is making his move. Its time to be afraid, but not too afraid to be prepared.

This is reality. A lying president aspiring to become a tinpot dictator is making his move. Its time to be afraid, but not too afraid to be prepared.

Lets briefly flash back to 1798. In the bitter contest between Federalists and Republicans, their weapons were the rambunctious, robust and nose-thumbing newspapers of the time, run by owner-editors and publishers who simply called themselves printers. They werent above dirtying their own hands with smears of ink, nor was there any tradition of objectivity. A British traveler of a slightly later time wrote that defamation exists all over the world, but it is incredible to what extent this vice is carried in America.

Nobody escaped calumny, not even the esteemed father of his country. Benjamin Franklin Bache, Republican editor of the Philadelphia Aurora, commented as George Washington departed office that his administration had been tainted with dishonor, injustice, treachery, meanness and perfidy if ever a nation was debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by WASHINGTON.

Bache also had had harsh words for old, bald, blind, querulous, toothless, crippled John Adams, sounding very much like a pre-dawn Trump tweet aimed at some critic of His Mightiness. You might not find that kind of personal invective now in The New York Times or The Washington Post, but its familiar on right-wing talk radio and would sound at home coming from the mouths of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter. The mode of dissemination changes; the ugliness at the core is unchanged.

Stung and furious, Adams and his Federalist supporters in Congress pushed the Sedition Act through Congress, though by a narrow majority. But could it survive a legal challenge from the Republican minority under the First Amendments guarantee of press freedom? The Federalists answered with a legal interpretation that the guarantee only covered prior restraint, which meant that a license from a government censor was required before publication of any opinion. Once it actually emerged in print, however, it had to take its chances with libel and defamation suits, even by public officials. Today,prior restraint is judicially dead, but the question of who is a public official and can be criticized without fear of retaliation in the courts continues to produce litigation.

But in 1787 argument made little difference. With the trumpets and drums of war blaring and thundering, the Constitution, as usually happens in such times, was little more than a paper barrier. Some provisions were added that would help the defense in a prosecution under its provisions. Moreover, the act was ticketed to expire automatically on March 3, 1801, the day before a new president and Congress would take office and either renew the law or leave it in its grave which is precisely what happened when Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans eventually won the 1800 election.

Nevertheless, during its slightly more than two years in force that produced only a handful of indictments, the Sedition Act did some meaningful damage. It produced what Jefferson called a reign of witches harmful enough to prove it was a travesty of justice, but not enough to become a full-blown reign of terror like the disappearances and executions of modern tyrannies.

The act never succeeded in its purpose of muzzling all criticism of the government, and in fact worked to the contrary. The toughest sentence 18 months in jail and a fine of $450 a huge sum in those days when whole families never saw as much as $100 in cash was imposed on a Massachusetts eccentric who put up a Liberty Pole in Dedham denouncing the acts and cheering for Jefferson and the Republicans. Other convictions for equally innocuous crimes defined by zealous prosecutors as sedition inflicted undeserved punishment by any standard of fairness. But two were especially consequential thanks to the backlash they produced.

After the House failed to expel Matthew Lyon for the gross indecency of spitting tobacco juice at Roger Griswold, the latter sought justice by attacking Lyon on the House floor (then located in Philadelphias Congress Hall) with a cane. Lyon defended himself with a pair of fire tongs. Commemorating the row between Representatives, this 1798 etching includes verse describing the scene, including the detail that Lyon seized the tongs to ease his wrongs. (US House of Representatives)

One involved Matthew Lyon, a hot-tempered Vermont congressman, who ran a newspaper in which he accused Adams of a continual grasp for power and a thirst for ridiculous pomp that should have put him in a madhouse. For that he got a $1,000 fine and four months of jail time in an unheated felons cell in midwinter. But numerous Republican admirers raised the money to pay his fine. Asenator from Virginia rode north to personally deliver saddlebags full of collected cash. Lyon even ran for re-election from jail in December and swamped his opponent by 2,000 votes. His return to his seat in the House was celebrated joyfully by Republican crowds.

Jedidiah Peck from upstate New York was also indicted for his heinous offense of circulating a petition for the repeal of both the Alien and Sedition Acts. At each stop in his five-day trip to New York City for trial, the sight of him in manacles, watched over by a federal marshal, provoked anti-Federalist demonstrations. His case was dropped in 1800, and he was also easily re-elected to his seat in the New York assembly.

In fact, the entire Republican triumph in that years election was in good part a backlash to the censorship power grab of the Federalists. Literate voters of 1800, kept informed by a vigorous press, were not going to put padlocks on their tongues or take Federalist overreach lying down. Maybe it was from ingrained love of liberty or plain orneriness, or maybe because they were tougher to distract than we their heirs, beset by a constant barrage of entertainment, advertisements and other forms of trivial amusements.

If Trump keeps repeating fake news over and over at every exposure of some misdemeanor, eventually the number of believers in that falsehood will swell.

Because that stream of noise is constant and virtually unavoidable by anyone not living in a cave, we are vulnerable to the tactic of the unapologetic Big Lie. If Trump keeps repeating fake news over and over at every exposure of some misdemeanor, eventually the number of believers in that falsehood will swell.

Genuine trouble is at our doorstep. If that statement from Reince Priebus is taken at face value, our bully-in-chief is looking for nothing less than control of the court of public opinion through management of the media by criminalizing criticism all behind a manufactured faade of governing in the name of the people.

With the example of 1798 before us, we need to resolve that any such effort can and must be met with the same kind of opposition mounted by that first generation of Americans living under the Constitution. If we want to be worthy of them, we need to use all our strength and resolution in deploying tactics of resistance. We need to fill the streets, overwhelm our lawmakers with calls and letters, reward them with our votes when they check the arrogance of power and strengthen their backbones when they waver. Any of us who gets a chance to speak at public gatherings and ceremonies should grab it to remind the audience that without freedom of speech, assembly and protest there is no real freedom. If the First Amendment vanishes, the rest of the Bill of Rights goes with it. And were dangerously close.

Continue reading here:

Red Alert: The First Amendment Is in Danger BillMoyers.com - BillMoyers.com

Man Pummels MAX Train Operator While Screaming About First Amendment Rights – Willamette Week

One week after a double murder on a Portland MAX train horrified the city, a man riding a Blue Line MAX in East Portland started pummeling a TriMet operator who asked him to stop screaming about First Amendment rights.

The alleged assault occurred shortly after 2:15 pm this afternoon at the MAX station on East 102nd Avenue and Burnside Street. As the train approached the station, the operator asked a passenger to stop shouting, says Portland Police Bureau spokesman Sgt. Chris Burley.

"He was screaming and yelling about First Amendment rights," says Burley. "The operator of the train broadcast over the loudspeaker that he needed to quiet down."

When the train reached its stop, the operator went into the train's passenger car to ask the man to leave. The passenger physically attacked him, though accounts differ slightly on how. Police say he punched the driver. "He struck him several times," says Burley.

TriMet says the driver was pushed to the ground. Other passengers pulled the man off the driver.

TriMet spokeswoman Roberta Altstadt says the driver wasn't seriously hurt.

"The operator received minor cuts and bruises, that sort of thing, but wasn't transported for medical care," she says. "He will be fine."

The alleged assailant was arrested blocks away. Police have identified him as 23-year-old Steven Caldwell. He's been charged with fourth degree assault and three misdemeanors.

The assault comes at a raw moment for the city.

It's been one week since two men were killed trying to stop the anti-Muslim harassment of two teenage girls on a Green Line MAX train. The suspected killer, Jeremy Joseph Christian, is a white supremacist with suspected ties to right-wing extremists who have repeatedly roiled Portland with protests.

This Sunday, those "alt-right" protesters pledge to return for a rally that could mean more violence in an already tense city. Plans for counter-demonstrations are rapidly forming to disrupt the group's rallyin Terry Schrunk Plaza downtown.

At the center of these far-right protests is the demand for free speech. That demand often means pushing the boundaries of unpopular and racist rhetoric in hopes of inciting a violent response from left-wing foils.

Christian, who marched with these groups in April, entered his arraignment hearing Tuesday yelling, "Free speech or die, Portland!"

See more here:

Man Pummels MAX Train Operator While Screaming About First Amendment Rights - Willamette Week

First Amendment protects us all by sticking up for the despicable – Knoxville News Sentinel

Although Milo Yiannopoulos has resigned from Breitbart, the British-born journalist has found a way to remain in the U.S. Veuer's Amanda Kabbabe (@kabbaber) has more. Buzz60

News Sentinel Editor Jack McElroy(Photo: Paul Efird)

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

This past legislative session, state Rep. Martin Daniel introduced a bill he dubbed the Milo Bill" for Milo Yiannopoulos, the controversialex-Breitbart writer whose plans to speak at the University of California atBerkeleysparked rioting that caused the cancellation ofhis appearance.

The bill was supposed to protect freedom of speech on Tennessee campuses, a measure opponents considered unnecessary.

Rep. Mike Stewart, D-Nashville, also complained about naming bills after people that promote racism, pedophilia and hatred.

Daniel rethought the name, too, after Yiannopoulos was caught on video condoning sex between men and boys. The Knoxville Republican tweeted:"It will also be known as the Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, & the MLK JR. bill.

Too bad.

The First Amendment doesnt need help from the Tennessee legislature. But if it did, a law named after Yiannopoulos would be appropriate. The man makes a living being offensive. Thats exactly what the First Amendment must protect.

A related issue arose last week when the mayor of Portland, Ore., called on the feds to block demonstrators supporting the white supremacist who screamed slurs at women on a light-rail train then stabbed to death two men who came to their defense.

Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment, the mayor declared.

Actually, it is.The Supreme Court has made that clear in cases ranging from a 1969 rulingin favor of a KKK leader who called for "revengeance" against African Americans and Jews to a 2010 decision supporting the Westboro Baptist Church's right to picket a soldiers funeral with signs saying, "Thank God for dead soldiers."

There's a reasonvile speech must be protected. That'swhere tolerance is put to the test.

There's no need to protect speech with which everyone agrees. If Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine or Martin Luther King Jr. spoke at the University of Tennessee today, the cheers would be heard in Chattanooga.

Milo? Not so much.

Unfortunately, Americans forget this concept from time to time..

The past year has seen several instances of students trying to stop controversial speakers from appearing on campuses or shouting them down when they did: Bell Curve author Charles Murray at Middlebury College; DailyWire editor Ben Shapiro at University of Wisconsin-Madison; actor Gavin McInnes at New York University; white nationalist Richard Spencer at Texas A&M; andprovocateur Ann Coulter at Berkeley.

This reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of how the First Amendment functions.

The only effective answer to a bad idea is a good idea. Responding to speech with speech works. Protest is entirely appropriate, ifpeaceful.

But trying to silence words with which we disagree even if we find them despicable will backfire.

Jack McElroy is executive editor of the News Sentinel and can be reached at editor@knoxnews.com.

Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2rMLfXJ

Excerpt from:

First Amendment protects us all by sticking up for the despicable - Knoxville News Sentinel

Editorial: Greitens stashes his sneaky money behind the First Amendment – STLtoday.com

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens has decided that taking millions of dollars in anonymous campaign loot makes him a champion of the First Amendment.

You have folks in the liberal media who are out of touch and have lost their minds, Greitens told KTVI Channel 2 last week. Now they are opposed to the First Amendment.

The governor rarely uses the word media without the adjective liberal, nor his political opponents as anything but career politicians. Both the media and politicians from both parties have criticized him for preaching ethics reform while taking nearly $4 million in dark money from federal super PACs during his campaign. He used a dark money Committee for a New Missouri to pay for his inauguration. It was then rolled into an ongoing dark fund to promote Greitens.

This would be ethically dubious for anyone, but particularly for a man who early in his campaign criticized candidates who set up these secretive super PACs where they dont take any responsibility for what theyre doing.

He told St. Louis Public radio in January 2016 that Ive been very proud to tell people: Im stepping forward, and you can see every single one of our donors, because we are proud of our donors and we are proud of the campaign we are running.

As Greitens, a scholar of Greek ethics, certainly knows, the word hypocrite comes from the Greek hypokrites, which means an actor whos pretending.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never definitively said that anonymous political contributions are protected by the First Amendment. The case law on anonymous speech is all over the place. Anonymous leafleting is OK, but petition signatures cant be kept secret.

The court never envisioned that groups would incorporate as social welfare organizations under the IRS code and use the anonymity granted to, say, Rotary Club donors to hide political donations. Indeed, in Citizens United vs. FEC, which opened the door to unlimited corporate campaign donations, the court took it for granted that full disclosure would cover any suspicions of corruption or bribery.

Greitens dubious First Amendment claims are supported by conservative activists like the Center for Competitive Politics. Its president, David Keating, once said his goal was to do for the First Amendment what the NRA did for the Second. If he means distort it beyond anything the Founders ever imagined, hes well on his way.

We prefer the up-front attitude of Geoffrey Standing Bear of Oklahoma, chief of the Osage Nation, which hopes to build an Indian casino in Crawford County. Yes, he told the Post-Dispatchs Tony Messenger, hed given $52,700 to Greitens dark money committee.

That was me trying to establish a good relationship with the governor of Missouri, he said. We thought we would show him respect.

The Tony Soprano rule applies: Those who want respect, give respect.

Read this article:

Editorial: Greitens stashes his sneaky money behind the First Amendment - STLtoday.com

Post and Courier wins prestigious APME First Amendment award for series on police tracking methods – Charleston Post Courier

The Post and Courier's "Watched" series chronicling police surveillance tactics has won the grand prize for work advancing the principles of the First Amendment in thethe 2017 Associated Press Media Editors Awards.

The three-part series by reporters Glenn Smith and Andrew Knapp was among the top honorees in the annual APME Awards, which recognizes watchdog journalism that saved lives, exposed bias, held government officials accountable and shed light on hidden practices. Winners will be recognized at an October conference in Washington, D.C.

"Watched" detailed how police forces across the United States are stockpiling massive databases with personal information from millions of Americans who simply crossed paths with officers. The series explored the pervasive but little-known police practice of gathering data from "suspicious" citizens in the absence of an arrest. That data can be stored indefinitely and used to track a persons movements and habits over time.

Critics contend the practice can intrude on privacy and keep innocent people under a permanent cloud of suspicion.

APME judges noted the series "produced results in Charleston, where the police chief announced an initiative to purge innocent people from the departments database, and won praise from civil libertarians and police alike for shedding light on surveillance techniques often hidden from public view."

"Watched" had previously won a National Headliner Award and took first-place honors for investigative and public service reporting in the South Carolina Press Association Awards.

Reach Glenn Smith at 843-937-5556 or follow him on Twitter @glennsmith5.

Continued here:

Post and Courier wins prestigious APME First Amendment award for series on police tracking methods - Charleston Post Courier

Does the First Amendment Protect Alt-Right Parades in Portland? – NBCNews.com

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler speaks during a press conference on January 17, 2017 in Portland. Don Ryan / AP

"It may be tempting to shut down speech we disagree with, but once we allow the government to decide what we can say, see, or hear, or who we can gather with, history shows us that the most marginalized will be disproportionately censored and punished for unpopular speech," said the organization in a statement immediately following Wheeler's call to block the parades.

"The mayor is not just anyone on the street, he's a government official who has to uphold the Constitution," said Mathew dos Santos, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon. "And he's not doing that," he said.

"Portland has a proud history of protest. I am a firm supporter of the First Amendment, no matter the views expressed. I believe we had a case to make about the threats to public safety posed by this rally at this place and at this time. My job is to protect the safety of everyone... protesters, counter-protesters, and bystanders alike," said Wheeler in a

Alt-right groups have scheduled a "Trump Free Speech Rally," on June 4. A "March against Sharia" event was scheduled for June 10 but organizers decided to cancel the rally in Portland and move it to Seattle instead.

Organizers felt the city was no longer safe for them.

"Due to Mayor Wheeler's inflammatory comments and what we feel is an incitement of violence, he has shamefully endangered every scheduled participant. Consequently, in order to ensure the safety of those who had planned on attending, we have taken the decision to cancel the Portland March Against Sharia," wrote the organization planning the march in a

June 4th parade organizer Joey Gibson said the mayor "needs to sit down and take a minute and listen," and feels that he is trying to "pin" Jeremy Christian on his movement.

Christian, who was arraigned on

The City of Portland has already

Wheeler also urged the federal government to follow in his footsteps and revoke federal permits issued to the group.

But the U.S. General Services Administration, charged with issuing permits, announced on Wednesday that it would allow the parades.

"All rules and regulations were followed by the applicant for the permit, including the timeframe for review. Since the permit was lawfully obtained to assemble at this federal location, GSA has no basis to revoke the permit," the agency said in a statement.

Revoking permits amounts to government suppression of speech, which has always been illegal, dos Santos said. You cannot withhold permits based on people's viewpoints, he said.

The case is a mirror image of another First Amendment battle out near Chicago 40 years ago.

In 1977, a neo-Nazi organization chose to stage their parade in the suburban Chicago town of Skokie, which at the time was home to thousands of Holocaust survivors.

Parade goers were slated to wear Nazi uniforms and emulate salutes and anti-Jewish chants from Nazi Germany.

Outraged community members tried to put a stop to the parade by using the same arguments set forth by Wheeler. The group said the parade promotes hate speech that would inflict emotional distress upon survivors of the Holocaust.

A girl leaves a message at a makeshift memorial for two men on May 29, 2017 in Portland. The men were killed on a commuter train while trying to stop another man from harassing two young women who appeared to be Muslim. Terray Sylvester / Reuters

Ultimately the Nazi group, represented by the ACLU, won at the Supreme Court level and was legally allowed to march under the first amendment. The group ended up holding a rally downtown instead.

"Part of the problem with hate speech is that it's in the eye of the beholder," said Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. "There is no neutral way to decide what hate speech is and courts will not even attempt it," he said.

The alt-right group has not made any indication that they are planning to incite imminent danger or violence during the parade, which may be questionable under the law, he said. "The idea that you can ban speech because it's offensive or may cause anxiety is not consistent with the first amendment."

Thus far, the alt-right group has not brought suit against the city for revoking their permits, but if the situation does arise, it's an open and shut case, Stone said.

"It's inconceivable to me that a court would uphold the mayor's argument," he said. "This is long standing, well-settled law, and the mayor has it completely wrong," he said.

Follow this link:

Does the First Amendment Protect Alt-Right Parades in Portland? - NBCNews.com

Robb: No, your First Amendment rights aren’t being attacked – AZCentral.com

Donald Trump calls the press 'the enemy.' If that's the case, there's a lot more people on that list, says columnist E.J. Montini.

Criticisms of Ducey and Trump are rooted in muddled thinking about the First Amendment's free speech protections.(Photo: Photo: Getty Images)

Gov. Doug Ducey was right to veto the legislation (Senate Bill 1384) limiting the ability of school administrators to regulate the content of student newspapers. Much of the criticism of the veto was rooted in muddled thinking about the First Amendments free speech protections.

The First Amendment is a negative injunction: Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...

That gives Americans the right to write or say what they want. But it doesnt guarantee an audience. Or a publisher.

At the high school level, the publisher of a student newspaper is clearly the school. The vetoed bill would have sharply curtailed the authority a publisher usually has over content. Administrators could only exercise oversight over material that is defamatory, violates privacy or law, or creates an imminent danger of inciting disorder or unlawful conduct.

Those are all nebulous standards, subject to judgment, disagreement and litigation. The bill stated that the school isnt liable for content published in the student media, but thats a doubtful immunity.

The Arizona Constitution is highly protective of the right to sue. Courts are likely to look askance at letting the adults in the equation, and the only deep pockets in the picture, off the hook.

Schools exercising the usual authority of a publisher isnt an infringement on the First Amendment rights of student journalists. If the publisher of this newspaper took the advice of some of you and discontinued this column, my First Amendment rights wouldnt have been violated.

MONTINI: Ducey praises 'free speech' law that could put you in jail

A school punishing a student for content published on a private blog or Facebook might implicate First Amendment rights. But not publishing something in a publication paid for by the school doesnt. Thats exercising the prerogatives of a publisher.

This is a minor point, but not an irrelevant one. One of the challenges our schools face is maintaining an orderly learning environment. Schools arent helped by the Legislature concocting another legal thicket for them to negotiate.

Its unfair to Ducey to bring Donald Trump into the conversation at this point. Ducey behaved responsibly with his veto. Trump is behaving irresponsibly in his war with certain media. Nevertheless, much of the commentary regarding Trumps war with the media is also rooted in muddled thinking about the First Amendment.

The New York Times has a First Amendment right to write what it wants about Trump. And Trump has a First Amendment right to say what he thinks about what The Times writes about him.

Trump exercising his First Amendment rights doesnt curtail or threaten The Times First Amendment rights.

Some commentators make a more subtle point. By attacking certain media, they assert, Trump is undermining the role of the press that the First Amendment was intended to protect.

This is a historical miscue. At the time the First Amendment was adopted, the press, mostly newspapers and pamphleteers, were fiercely and transparently partisan.

The notion of the media as neutral and objective transmitters of information is a modern-era pretense. And the American people have never bought it.

In 2013, Gallup asked how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media such as newspapers, TV, and radio when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all? Well before Trump twitter storms became an important element of public discourse, 55 percent of respondents answered not very much or none at all.

There have been reports that the Trump administration was mulling abandoning the daily White House briefing or even booting reporters out of the White House, and this has been decried as an attack on the First Amendment. This has been the most muddled thinking of all.

Nothing in the First Amendment guarantees self-selected media office space in the White House or an administration spokesman to play gotcha with on a daily basis. Getting rid of both might reduce the herd mentality and emphasis on gotcha journalism and produce more diverse and substantive reporting.

Trump is frequently reckless and irresponsible in his attacks on the media. But so long as we are free to write and say that, the First Amendment is not under siege.

Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com.

MORE FROM ROBB:

Attorneys fleece Target for $18.5 million

Tom Horne's case proves the system is broken

There's a better way to boost teacher pay

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2sdReli

Read the original:

Robb: No, your First Amendment rights aren't being attacked - AZCentral.com

Best Tor Browsers, Tools and Apps – Tom’s Guide

Tor (originally short for The Onion Router) began life as a U.S. Navy project for anonymous online activity, but is now used by a wide range of people, including the military, journalists, bloggers, activists (and, yes, sometimes criminals). Tor makes communications harder to trace through traffic analysis by routing Internet activity through a series of network nodes, each ignorant of the whole route from beginning to end. The trade-off for increased security is slower speed. If you're interested in what Tor has to offer, try out these six tools and apps.

The Tor Browser Bundle contains everything you need to set up Tor and surf the web through the anonymous router network. The bundle includes a hardened variant of Firefox, as well as Vidalia, a GUI control system for your Tor connection and settings. It's not perfect, as Tor itself points out on its website, but combined with smart browsing habits, it can reduce your exposure online. Additionally, the Vidalia software included in the bundle offers fine control over Tor's settings.

MORE: Best Privacy and Security Apps

TAILS, or The Amnesiac Incognito Live System, is an operating system designed as a live disk and built with Tor in mind. TAILS has Tor built in, and blocks applications from connecting to the Internet except through Tor, assuring that your net activity is anonymized. In addition to securing your browsing, instant messaging, and email, TAILS is designed to leave no trace on your machine, using only RAM so as not to leave physical traces on the hard drive. Additional cryptographic tools provide extra protection. It's not perfect, but TAILS does reduce risks.

MORE: Worst Online Scams

Orbot is a free proxy app for connecting your Android device to Tor. It allows your Android apps to access the web anonymously. Apps that allow for proxy settings (such as Twitter) can be configured to use Tor through Orbot via the settings found here: https://goo.gl/2OA1y. Orbot can be combined with Orweb in order to browse the Internet anonymously, or Gibberbot for private chatting. Additionally, rooted Android users can get even more out of Orbot with settings for routing just about all of your Internet traffic through Tor.

MORE: Best Encrypted Messaging Apps

OrWeb is The Guardian Project's mobile web browser designed to be used in conjuction with OrBot in order to provide anonymized browsing through the Tor network. OrWeb doesn't collect your browsing history, allows for flexible cookie control, lets you mask your hardware, and more. JavaScript and Flash blocking are among the protective features. The combination of Tor and feature controls does mean that you will have slower surfing, and broken functionality in some sites.

MORE: 25 Things You Didn't Know Could Be Hacked

Gibberbot is The Guardian Project's encrypted chatting app for Android users. Gibberbot supports a broad range of chat networks, including Google, Facebook, Yandex, Jabber. You'll enjoy Off The Record encryption support when you're chatting with another OTR-enabled user. Gibberbot integrates with OrBot for even further protection by routing through TOR.

MORE: 15 Android Security Tips You Need to Know

Onion Browser is an iOS mobile browser configured to let users easily connect to Tor's anonymizing system, allowing you to browse with Tor online. As with the Tor Browser Bundle for desktop, the Onion Browser trades speed for security, as mentioned in the iTunes description. User-agent spoofing lets you mask the hardware you're using, and cookie controls and rapid IP address are among the other features.

MORE: Simple Steps to Avoid Being Hacked

Latest in Security

by Paul Wagenseil Oct 15, 2013, 5:02 PM

by Paul Wagenseil Oct 15, 2013, 12:22 PM

by Paul Wagenseil Oct 11, 2013, 12:42 PM

by Toms Guide Staff Oct 10, 2013, 4:58 PM

by Marshall Honorof Oct 10, 2013, 3:56 PM

by Marshall Honorof Oct 10, 2013, 1:40 PM

About the author

John Corpuz flip-flopped between computer science and creative writing courses in school. As a contributor to Tom's Guide he's found a happy middle ground writing about apps, mobile gaming and other geekery.

Latest in Security

by Paul Wagenseil Jun 2, 2017, 8:45 AM

by Paul Wagenseil Jun 2, 2017, 8:38 AM

by Paul Wagenseil Jun 1, 2017, 9:12 AM

by Toms Guide Staff May 31, 2017, 1:25 PM

by Philip Michaels May 31, 2017, 12:01 AM

by Marshall Honorof May 30, 2017, 8:16 AM

The Latest On Toms Guide

Follow this link:

Best Tor Browsers, Tools and Apps - Tom's Guide

What is Tor, How It Works And Where to Download the Tor Browser? Everything You Need To Know – MobiPicker

If youre worried about network spying, traffic analysis, or any other technique that quashes your hopes of secure browsing, have a go at the Tor network. Tor, or as we call it, The Onion Router is probably the most popular and safest available option for anonymous connectivity. It lets you browse the web secretly and veils your actual identity from watch dogs!

Based on the principle of onion routing, the alpha version of Tor, named The Onion Routing Project was developed by Roger Dingledine and Nick Mathewson in 2002. Since then, the network has come a long way and is now being maintained and developed under a non-profit organisation named the Tor Project. The organisation runs with the backing of US government, the Swedish government, and a plethora of NGOs and individual sponsors. It has clearly been around for quite a while, but in case you dont how this thing works and how can you use it, heres everything that you need:

As weve mentioned, Tor works on the principle of onion routing. Under this, your data is first encrypted and then transferred through different relays present in the network, creating a multi-layered encryption to keep your data secure and identity anonymous. Each encryption layer is decrypted at each successive Tor relay, and the rest of the data is forwarded to any random relay until it reaches the destination server. And this is where it all gets trickier. The last relay or the exit node appears as the origin of the data, which makes extremely difficult for third parties to track down the identity of the user or the server by any means.

It is also worthy to note that Tor not only provides anonymity to standalone users, but it also secures websites and servers from third parties in the form of hidden services. Additionally, you can even configure P2P applications like BitTorrent to use the network for downloading torrent files without any worries about anti-piracy watchdogs.

In order to use Tor, youll have to download the Tor browser, which is nothing but a modified version of an extended support release of Mozilla Firefox. The browser is portable and can work on any device via external media. It removes your browsing history and cookies after every use and leaves nothing behind to trace your identity.

Tor browser works seamlessly and is available for all major platforms such as Windows, MacOS, Linux, and Android.

Once youre done with the download, you can move ahead with the installation process:

The setup will create a folder named Tor Browser on the destination folder, which will carry a shortcut file to the use the browser. If youre using Linux, youll have to extract the downloaded file either using the command line or a file extractor application.

Android:

If youre on Android, you can secure your browsing identity by using any of these two apps on the Play Store:

Orbot a Proxy with Tor for Android devices.

Orfox a mobile version of Tor Browser for Android devices.

iOS:

An officialTor browser app for iOSis available on the App Store.

Though Tor has been handy in protecting users from a society of stalkers, it has also become a potential threat to national security. Just like every single user who wanted to bypass censorship and share confidential information, the anonymous network has also benefitted criminal minds, triggering illegal activities across the country. Rumour has it the anonymous network connects criminals over the internet and acts as a medium for data breaching, drug dealing, gambling, etc. Even the security agencies struggle in tracking their exact whereabouts.

To recall, the infamous NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden had also used Tor to leak information about PRISM to the media. The leak drew huge criticism against NSA, which called Tor the King of high secure, low latency Internet anonymity. Even the BusinessWeek magazine termed the network as, the most effective means of defeating the online surveillance efforts of intelligence agencies around the world.

As the Tor Project has been funded by the U.S, some may think that the NSA may have compromised Tors anonymity, taking away the identities of individual users. However, Andrew Lewman, the executive director of the organisation, has denied all claims of confederations with NSA or any other security agency.

In our opinion, Tor makes an excellent compadre, especially when you want to browse securely and veil your online identity. The developers of the network never wished to shape it as a safe haven for illegal activities, but just like all good things, evil-minded people have leveraged it for their benefits.

So, if youre one of the good ones and just want to conceal your online identity, Tor is definitely a thing for you. You can easily use it to bypass censorship and online surveillance, but be warned, going above the law isnt advised at all. Nothing is completely secure today, and the authorities can still track you if, by any chance, you plan on going off the rails.

Read more:

What is Tor, How It Works And Where to Download the Tor Browser? Everything You Need To Know - MobiPicker

The new cryptocurrency gold rush: digital tokens that raise millions in minutes – Quartz


Quartz
The new cryptocurrency gold rush: digital tokens that raise millions in minutes
Quartz
The cryptocurrency world has gone mad for token offerings. These launches, popularly known as ICOs or initial coin offerings, have already raised more than $150 million this year, according to research firm Smith + Crown. They are seen as a disruptive ...

Excerpt from:

The new cryptocurrency gold rush: digital tokens that raise millions in minutes - Quartz

How to get a start in the cryptocurrency game | New York Post – New York Post


New York Post
How to get a start in the cryptocurrency game | New York Post
New York Post
As bitcoin reaches for $2500 again, I thought this would be a good time to let readers know exactly how digital currencies work and how to get more information.
Cryptocurrency: An idea whose time has comeThe Hindu
Small-Ticket Investments from Individuals Flood Asian Cryptocurrency MarketnewsBTC
Cheap cryptocurrencies you can buy - Blasting News USBlasting News
International Business Times -The Sun Daily -CryptoCoinsNews
all 26 news articles »

Read this article:

How to get a start in the cryptocurrency game | New York Post - New York Post

The Benefits And Best Practices Of Branding Your Own Cryptocurrency – Forbes


Forbes
The Benefits And Best Practices Of Branding Your Own Cryptocurrency
Forbes
In 2015, "Minecraft," one of the most popular online games now owned by Microsoft, announced that PlayMC, one of their servers, would be introducing their own cryptocurrency in order to teach children about the digital currency. It's a pretty smart ...

Follow this link:

The Benefits And Best Practices Of Branding Your Own Cryptocurrency - Forbes

Russia to Soon Get Its Own National Cryptocurrency – newsBTC

Cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology has received significant attention at the ongoing Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum. The Russian Central Bank made an important announcement regarding its plans to introduce a national cryptocurrency during the event. The introduction of a national cryptocurrency comes at a time when Russia is mulling over the possibility of legalizing Bitcoin and other altcoins in the country. The plans to develop a national cryptocurrency was announced by Russian Central Banks Deputy Chairman, Olga Skorobogatova.

Skorobogatova was quoted by one of the leading Russian media outlets saying,

Regulators of all countries agree that its time to develop national cryptocurrencies, this is the future. Every country will decide on specific time frames. After our pilot projects, we will understand what system we could use in our case for our national currency.

The Russian Finance Ministry recently announced its intentions to introduce Bitcoin regulations, offering a legal status to cryptocurrencies. The move is completely opposite to the ministrys earlier stance which involved criminalizing the use and trade of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Russias decision to legalize Bitcoin closely follows Japans latest move to recognize the cryptocurrency as a legally valid mode of payment. The Russian Central Banks decision to introduce a national cryptocurrency is similar to the proposals put forward by respective regulatory bodies in England, United States and others.

Governments can save a lot of taxpayers money and resources by adopting cryptocurrency as a legal tender. The use of cryptocurrency will eliminate the costs otherwise involved in printing, transporting and managing physical banknotes. At the same time, cryptocurrency adoption will further promote the adoption of cashless payment methods.

With the banking sector increasingly adopting blockchain technology, the transition between conventional monetary system involving physical currency to blockchain based electronic currency will be smooth. It is just a matter of time before other countries also start adopting a similar stance.

Follow this link:

Russia to Soon Get Its Own National Cryptocurrency - newsBTC

How to Buy Your First Cryptocurrency Coins (Ethereum, Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Ripple) – Inc.com

Cryptocurrency (digital currency) is taking off this year. New millionaires are being made almost daily as Ethereum, Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ripple, Stratis, and other cryptocurrencies reach all-time highs. It is becoming somewhat of a modern-day gold rush.

As I write this, Bitcoin's "market cap" is $37 billion, with a value of $2,281 per Bitcoin. For a coin that was once worth only pennies, Bitcoin investors have made serious money in the past few years.

Bitcoin might be the oldest, but it's not the only cryptocurrency on the block. In fact, the majority of people getting into cryptocurrency are flocking to Ethereum. Ethereum has had the most impressive gains this year after recently being the first cryptocurrency to be backed by major corporations such as Microsoft, Samsung, JPMorgan Chase, and others in what's being called the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance. Ethereum does for code and programming what Bitcoin did for financial transactions. For simplicity's sake, think of Ethereum like a more advanced and sophisticated Bitcoin backed and utilized by major corporations because of its technological advances and clear pathway to building a decentralized internet.

One Ether (Ethereum's crypto token) was worth as little as $12 earlier this year, but the cryptocurrency is now worth $228 per coin with a total market cap of $21 billion. Ethereum is slowly but surely making gains on Bitcoin's market cap. Many spectators believe that "the flippening" will happen sometime this year, in which Ethereum becomes the most valuable (market cap) cryptocurrency in the world, overtaking Bitcoin in total value (total number of coins times price per coin).

Ethereum isn't the only new coin on the block, but it is definitely the most promising. Others to watch that I will explain and write about in future articles include Ripple, Litecoin, Statis, and Siacoin. All these coins have something unique and technologically innovative about them.

Buying cryptocurrency is confusing for a lot of people. It's not a stock or a typical "investment." It's not like anything most people have ever seen or experienced. You don't get shares; instead you get digital coins or tokens. The coins are "better" than a paper dollar bill because they actually support a greater cause, as in Ethereum's case, to build a decentralized internet and host code and apps on a decentralized platform. And coins help "fuel" that cause, so to speak, without getting technical.

For most people in the U.S., Coinbase would be the easiest option to buy Ethereum, Bitcoin, or Litecoin (it doesn't support any others yet). After verifying your account, you can add a number of payment methods including credit or debit cards, U.S. bank accounts, or even wire transfers of funds. Other options for exchanges that will take U.S. dollars for coins are Kraken, and Gemini in the U.S. Typically you will need to verify your account with a driver's license and add other details to expand your buy limits. Since cryptocurrencies are "hard currencies," the exchanges don't want to risk getting ripped off, since you can't reverse a cryptocurrency transaction once it's done.

If you are looking for some of the newer coins that are making big movement but haven't made their way to the aforementioned exchange sites, you can look into Poloniex or Livecoin. You can transfer Bitcoin or Ethereum to these platforms from Coinbase and then exchange it for any other digital currency that you want.

If you are outside the U.S., here are a few options for exchanges that take your local currency: BTC Markets (Australia), Bitthumb or Coinone (Korea), CHBTC or Huobi (China), and QuadrigaCX (Canada.) You can find a full list on this page of where to buy Ethereum for your local currency.

Read more here:

How to Buy Your First Cryptocurrency Coins (Ethereum, Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Ripple) - Inc.com